New Managers, New Challenges: Cross Cultural Coaching in an International Organisation

Constance Vieco, Independent Executive Coach, Belgium & Oxford School of Coaching and Mentoring, UK 

Abstract

This article seeks to answer the question: How can intercultural coaching help managers from different cultures to integrate effectively into a new organisation?

The article discusses how intercultural coaching supported three newly appointed managers from Eastern European and Baltic countries to effectively integrate into a European international organisation. Starting from specific challenges experienced by each one of them, it examines how a coaching tool, the Cultural Orientations Framework (COF), supported them in understanding the relevant cultural dimensions involved and how they learned to creatively use these differences. As they did so, they achieved their goal of effectively managing their culturally diverse teams.

Keywords

Culture and coaching, Intercultural coaching, Cross cultural coaching, Cultural differences and coaching

Twelve new countries from Eastern Europe and the Baltic region joined the European Union in May 2004. The managers and staff from these countries, who lived under communist regimes until 1989, faced considerable cultural challenges when they took up their jobs in the European Union organisations. Many of them had grown up under the old regimes and were used to authoritarian and hierarchical management styles. These managers experienced a cultural shock when confronted with the European managerial culture. This is a sui generis culture which has evolved as the European Union has expanded to new countries in its 55 years of existence.

This article discusses how intercultural coaching helped three managers from these countries to understand the cultural challenges they were facing and to achieve their goals of effectively managing their culturally diverse teams.

Coaching and Culture

A coach searching for cultural literacy will find an impressive array of studies and resources that have been developed in the last two decades: Hofstede (1984), Trompenaars and Hampton-Turner (1998), Lewis (2006), among many others, have described and classified cultural differences from different perspectives.

More recently, authors such as Rosinski (2003) and Passmore (2009) have developed intercultural models to be used in coaching.

Rosinski, in particular, has created the Cultural Orientations Framework (COF), which he describes as “a language to talk about culture” (Rosinski, 2003). The COF is also a coaching model, designed to be put to practical use in individual, team or organisational coaching. It considers cultural characteristics as assets, manifestations of diversity that bring value to relationships. The COF encourages coaches and clients to perceive “culture as opportunity” and to “look for cultural gems" (Rosinski & Abbott,2006), so that they can make the most of cultural differences. Through intercultural coaching individuals, teams and organisations find new and creative ways to think, communicate, manage time and relate to others.

The Cultural Orientations Framework (COF)

The Cultural Orientations Framework describes a range of seventeen cultural dimensions grouped into seven categories. Cultural orientations are defined as “inclinations to think, feel or act in ways that are culturally determined” (Rosinski, 2003). They describe how individuals and groups face the challenges that confront them.

They can be related to factors such as gender, generation, education, profession, beliefs and personal inclination, as well as nationality.

Table 1

The Cultural Orientations Framework

Categories	Dimensions
Sense of Power and Responsibility	Control/Harmony/Humility
Time Management Approaches	Scarce/Plentiful Monochronic/Polychronic Past/Present/Future
Definition of Identity and Purpose	Being/Doing Individualistic/Collectivistic
Organisational Arrangements	Hierarchy/Equality Universalist/Particularist Stability/Change Competitive/Collaborative
Notions of territory and boundaries	Protective/Sharing
Communication Patterns	High Context/Low Context Direct/Indirect Affective/Neutral Formal/Informal
Modes of thinking	Deductive/inductive Analytical/Systemic

Coaching in a multicultural context

The COF is a coaching tool that can be used in individual, team or organisational coaching. In the three cases of individual coaching described in this article, the Eastern European managers, newly arrived in the European Commission, started their coaching by describing the challenges they faced in managing their teams. The next step was for them to reflect on whether there was a cultural dimension to these challenges. Once they had recognised that this was the case, they got acquainted with the COF and we reviewed its components one by one. This triggered a reflection on their approaches to management, as shaped by their cultural beliefs. The next step was to review these approaches in the light of the organisational culture of the EC and the individual attitudes in their team. As they worked through the dimensions of the COF, the managers gradually perceived their own beliefs, attitudes and behaviours and those of others in a new light. What they believed was the “normal” way to be or act appeared as one of many possibilities driven by individual or collective culture. Session after session, a new awareness appeared of their role and responsibility in the situations they were facing. They were able to relate their beliefs and behaviours to the historical experiences of their countries under authoritarian regimes, and to place them in the context of their journey toward democracy. From here, it was a natural transition to work on finding behaviours that would allow them to act more effectively in the new cultural context of the European Commission.

My reason for choosing the COF as a coaching tool was that, contrary to other cultural models, it does not focus on nationality. The seven cultural dimensions of the COF are neutral descriptions of how human beings relate to fundamental orientations such as identity, personal power and territory, time management, modes of thinking
and communication.

The organisational culture of the EC does not give prominence to national origin, which is understandable in an organisation whose “raison d’être” is European integration. Regardless of their origin, the staff is treated equally in terms of promotions, salaries and benefits. Nationality is not a weighty issue for the staff of the organisation. 

Another important reason is that the Eastern European managers I coached would have had difficulties in working with a tool that would describe them in terms of their nationality: they might have seen it as a way to single them out as they were striving to integrate in their new environment. This reflected the specific sensitivities at play in people from countries that joined the European Union carrying the historical heritage of life under authoritarian regimes.

The coaching experiences described below are those of three Eastern European managers, Kim, Jan and Eva, recently appointed in the European Commission, where I worked as an internal coach.

The European Commission is an international institution dedicated to the integration of Europe, with a membership of 27 European nations and a staff of 25 000. A truly multicultural organisation in which 27 nationalities work and cooperate together, it can be described as having reached a stage of cultural development in which “cultural differences are recognised and accepted” by members of the organisation (Rosinski,2003). As new countries have joined along the years, new layers of culture have been added. The result is a sui generis culture, characterized by an organisation of the hierarchical type, tempered by high levels of respect and tolerance, and friendly, egalitarian and relaxed relationships among the staff.

As they took up their new assignments, Kim, Jan and Eva found themselves facing unexpected challenges. They all said that they did not seem to get through to their staff, and their efforts to bring forward their teams’ work were slow and difficult. Their colleagues in the Human resources departments advised them to seek coaching in order to deal with these difficulties. As we started the coaching work, each one of them identified aspects of culture as the main difficulties they faced. In the three cases, we used the COF as a coaching tool. For Kim, the relevant dimension was his communication style: the “Affective” and “Neutral” dimension in the COF. For Eva, the key issue was linked to choices related to territory and boundaries: “Protective” and “Sharing”.  In the case of Jan, it was his preference in the choice of organisational arrangements: “Hierarchy and Equality”.

 “Affective” and “Neutral” communication patterns: Kim’s challenge

This cultural dimension describes two styles of communication. People from “Neutral style” cultures are concerned with conveying a precise and objective message. Emotions and feelings are of little importance, and are viewed with impatience when they get in the way of clear reasoning. “Affective” cultures value personal and social relationships, as well as the expression of emotions and warmth. Cold, objective and logical communication can be perceived as a flaw.

At the start of our coaching work, Kim shared his bewilderment at the behaviour of his colleagues. He had observed the staff in the organisation showing frequent signs of affection to each other: “They not only shake hands, they also kiss each other, sometimes even at professional occasions”. He remarked that he only kissed his family members, and seldom at that. “I don’t understand this kissing culture”, he said, “and this is one of the challenges I face as a newcomer in this organisation”.

As we progressed in his coaching, Kim identified his style of communication as belonging to the “neutral” kind. Kim spoke about facts in an objective and logic way and kept a cool head at all times. Kissing a colleague, or showing any form of emotional connection in a professional context was highly embarrassing to him.

As part of an “affective” culture, staff members of the European Commission attribute considerable value to personal and social relationships. They readily display emotions and warm feelings. This is probably due to the fact that most of them live away from their country of origin. As a consequence, they rely to a great extent on their colleagues for their personal and social relationships. In this context, a person who practices a neutral style of communication runs the risk of being perceived as cold and aloof, and finding himself isolated from the social life of the organisation.

As we discussed his views on European Commission’s customs, I asked Kim what could help him to acknowledge its affective culture while still keeping the “cool managerial head” that was important to him. He said he would like to practice “goodbye air kissing” in our coaching sessions, as preparation for social and professional gatherings where he intended to merge in the prevailing “affective” culture. We did practice, in a good humored way, so that in the end Kim learned to combine a warm personal touch with the cool head of a competent manager.

“Protective” and “Sharing” territory and boundaries: Eva’s challenge

The “Protective and Sharing” dimension refers to how we define our personal territory, both physical and psychological. Some cultures protect it by keeping personal and emotional life private. Others seek to create closer relationships by sharing physical and psychological spaces.

Eva, the Director of a team of middle managers, stressed at our first coaching session her need for privacy and personal space: “My staff comes into my office at all times during the day, and they expect me to listen to them and discuss their problems. I am not used to this kind of relationship at work, and I resent this invasion of my
private space.”

Eva’s style was definitely protective. She kept her personal life and feelings to herself and did not want intrusions in her personal space: hence her alarm when her staff entered her office unannounced.

In our coaching conversations, Eva’s Eastern European country history came up. The country had been independent from Soviet domination for only twenty years. Habits of secrecy and protectiveness in the Soviet controlled society were still prevalent: “The less I am known, the less vulnerable I am”. In addition, the country’s culture values “old fashioned concepts of formality” and “civilized manners”, among which the respect of privacy is an important element (Lewis, 2006).

In her coaching, Eva considered how this protectiveness affected her professional relationships; she acknowledged her tendency to erect boundaries and keep people at a distance. Her observation of the organisation’s environment showed, by contrast, that there was a high level of cordiality among her colleagues and the staff in general. They went for lunch or coffee together, and did not hesitate to share details of their personal life. Many of them met socially outside of work. Eva soon realised the importance of these relationships for the performance of her team. The sharing culture helped them to feel better and perform better in a context of high professional pressure.

As she progressed in her coaching, Eva realized that it was in her interest to find a stance that would balance her personal tendency to avoid intrusion and the expectations for closeness of her colleagues. A team building day she shared with her team was helpful to challenge her assumptions about privacy and protection. As she went through the activities of the day, she discovered that some personal disclosure brought increased trust and mutual support. As a result, Eva was able to reflect on what she wished to share and what she wished to protect in the light of the image she desired to project as the manager of the team. As she soon discovered, the trusting relationships in the team helped them to go through the tough professional challenges that they had to face a few weeks after the team building day.

Organisational Arrangements:  “Hierarchy” and “Equality”: Jan’s challenge

This dimension describes favoured ways to structure societies and organisations. Hierarchical cultures consider that stratification ensures proper functioning. Equalitarian ones believe that people are equals who happen to play different roles. 

I met Jan at a workshop for middle managers, where he shared his perplexity about the conduct of his team. “When I was at the Ministry back in my country, I gave orders, and the staff obeyed. Here, I give orders, and the staff are astonished, or reluctant. I just do not understand their behaviour”.

Jan’s culture was definitely hierarchical. His previous working experience in his Eastern European country had accustomed him to a system still under Soviet influence. Those at the top of an organization had great power and privileges that sharply distinguished them. “Orders” continued to be given to subordinates, as it had traditionally been done in the past. Old style managers still “toed the Party line” and maintained habits inherited from former bureaucratic times.

The European Commission culture has also traditionally been hierarchical, largely influenced by the French “autocratic management style” (Lewis,2006). This style promotes “interdependence, mutual tolerance and team work” under the guidance of the “carefully appointed leaders (who are) encouraged to excel in their work by the high expectations on the part of their subordinates” (Lewis,2006). The arrival of the UK and Ireland in the 1970’s, and the Nordic countries in the 1990’s, as well as the recruitment of younger and highly qualified staff have gradually transformed the culture. Managers and staff in the organisation have increasingly realized the advantages of a less hierarchical and more relaxed and informal style.

In Jan’s case, the coaching discussion was about finding a style that would help him to be more effective in his role. He was aware that a more relaxed and informal way of managing would be in his favor. While keeping his authority as the boss of his team, he worked on cultivating a friendly and equal relationship with his staff. Rather than giving them “orders” and sticking to the rigid code of conduct expected of a “boss”, he was able to share jokes and moments of informal conversation with them in the course of the day. In order to do this, he tapped into the “friendly and flexible” manners combined with the ease to “establish close personal relationships” and “accommodate the views of others” of his national culture (Lewis, 2006). In doing so, he appeared to his staff in a new light, as a manager of the true “new style”.

Other cultural dimensions

Kim, Eva and Jan’s examples show how a number of cultural dimensions were at play in the way they approached their management roles. They also make clear how coaching on intercultural awareness supported these three managers in finding creative thinking and more successful behaviours for their roles.

In each case, we chose as a coaching tool a dimension in the COF that each manager thought was particularly relevant in their case. Given the COF’s flexibility and adaptability, we also used other elements in our work. We worked, for example, on how “Control” and “Harmony” related to their managerial cultures. “Formal” or “Informal” communication also unearthed helpful insights. Other useful dimensions were “Competitive” or “Collaborative” working arrangements, and “Being” or “Doing”, “Individualistic” or “Collectivistic” definitions of purpose. 

Coaching with the COF

The COF is an adaptable and flexible tool, which can be used for individual, team, or organisational coaching.

In individual or team coaching, participants get an assessment of their personal and collective COF profile, and this information can be readily used as a coaching tool.

This article discusses three examples of individual coaching with the COF. In a team coaching context, participants start with a review of the integrated cultural profile of their team, and discuss how this profile influences specific components of their performance, such as effectiveness, internal and external communication, problem- solving and conflict management capabilities. This approach generates insights in the team, as they relate their successes and challenges to their collective cultural characteristics. For example, the chronic lateness of a team in delivering their work was creating problems in a medium-sized public organisation. The team was able to identify the source of the problem in their approach to time as a “plentiful” resource. The next step in their coaching was to identify specific actions that would counter this belief, and treat time as the scarce resource it was in the reality of their work. As in this example, the awareness gained through the COF needs to be complemented by specific actions that align performance with the requirements of the team’s mission.

The next step is a review of the individual cultural profiles in the team and a comparison with the cultural profile of the team. This generates insights on how individuals contribute or hamper the team performance, and allows the team to reflect on how to leverage differences and identify solutions to their challenges.

The fact that the COF dimensions are formulated as neutral descriptions allows the teams to review their challenges without the introduction of the personal dimension. The discussion centers on cultural characteristics rather than on individual shortcomings and this allows the team to work on effective actions and solutions in a constructive spirit.

In the case of organisations, the model is applied in a similar fashion, usually by the management team, who can choose to work on their own cultural analysis and solutions, and integrate the results of the other components of the organisation. This approach is useful in the context of mergers and acquisitions, when organisations that come together are faced with the challenge of integrating different and often divergent or even conflicting cultures.

Conclusion

New opportunities are opening up for culturally aware coaches. As the world becomes more globalised, multicultural organisations and businesses are becoming the norm. Managers and staff find themselves working together with their diverse approaches to hierarchy, interpersonal relations and management of time, use of language, gender and ethnicity. These create new challenges for teams who need to work and deliver results together. Opportunities for misunderstandings and conflict multiply exponentially as diverse values, beliefs and cultural dimensions come face to face across countries and continents. “When Teams Collide”, the title of the book published by Professor Lewis in 2012, is significant in this respect. It reflects the increasing concern for global companies to find ways to work, lead and succeed in a global context.

Cross cultural coaching comes into its own in this new environment. As business and executive coaches we have helped individuals and teams to search for excellence in traditional organisations. We now can find a new professional identity as cross cultural coaches. We can enter the globalized arena armed with intercultural knowledge and tools, which we know provide effective solutions at the three relevant levels: the individual, the team, and the organisation.

References

HOFSTEDE, G. (1984), Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values, Newbury Park London New Delhi: Sage Publications

LEWIS, R. (2006) When Cultures Collide: Leading across Cultures, London Boston: Nicholas Brealey International

LEWIS, R. (2012) When Teams Collide: Managing the International Team, London Boston: Nicholas Brealey Publishing

PASSMORE, J. and LAW, H. (2009) Cross Cultural and Diversity Coaching, in PASSMORE, J. (ed.) Diversity in Coaching: Working with Gender, Culture, Race and Age, London: Kogan Page

ROSINSKI, P. (2003) Coaching across Cultures: New Tools for Leveraging National, Corporate and Professional Differences, London Boston: Nicholas Brealey Publishing

ROSINSKI, P. & ABBOTT, G. (2006) Intercultural Coaching, in Passmore, J. (ed.) Excellence in Coaching: The Industry Guide, London Philadelphia: Kogan Page

TROMPENAARS, F. and HAMPDEN-TURNER, C. (1998), Riding the Waves of Culture: Understanding Cultural Diversity in Global Business, New York:  McGraw Hill.

About the author

Constance Vieco is an independent Executive Coach based in Brussels as well as an Associate Coach and Coach Mentor Supervisor at the Oxford School of Coaching and Mentoring in the UK. From 2003 to January 2012 she worked as an internal coach at the European Commission headquarters in Brussels

E-Mail: