W6D1 WALD
VALUES SENSITIVE COACHING: THE DELTA APPROACH TO COACHING CULTURALLY DIVERSE EXECUTIVES
Chris W. Coultas, Wendy L. Bedwell, C. Shawn Burke, and Eduardo Salas
University of Central Florida
Executive coaching is a popular intervention to improve the performance of middle and top level leaders. Globalization and the resulting cultural diversification of the workplace have also rapidly increased. Given these two trends, it is becoming increasingly impor- tant for executive coaches to understand how cultural values should affect their coach- ing. Recent research on coaching has suggested the need for a theoretical framework from which to empirically address this issue to provide scientifically rooted guidelines for effective implementation of executive coaching in these culturally diverse contexts. This article proposes a research-based, prescriptive motivational approach to coaching those from culturally diverse backgrounds. Called the DELTA approach, the model includes five components: (a) Determining cultural values, (b) Employing typical coaching techniques, (c) Looking and listening for motivational needs and deficiencies, (d) Tailoring coaching techniques to motivational needs and cultural values, and (e) Assessing the effectiveness of the approaches used. The DELTA model is intended to provide a flexible framework within which coaches can work with, motivate, and develop culturally diverse executives.
Keywords: executive coaching, expectancy theory, culture, feedback, goal setting
Forward-thinking business executives constantly seek new ways to expand the ability of their key personnel. One technique, used with increasing frequency, is executive coaching (Bolt, 2006). What exactly is executive coaching? Although many definitions exist, Dembkowski, Eldridge, and Hunter (2006) suggested that it is both an art and a science of facilitating professional and personal development to improve performance. Essentially, executive coaches aim to provide a tailored approach toward performance improvement through individualized feedback (Gregory, Levy, & Jeffers, 2008). However, although executive coaching can provide major benefits to executives and organizations (Kincaid & Gordick, 2003; Kombarakaran, Yang, Baker, & Fernandes, 2008), the lack of a robust and widely adopted framework to guide the executive coaching process (Feldman & Lankau, 2005; Gregory, Beck, & Carr, 2011) has hindered the practice from advancing, both
Chris W. Coultas, Wendy L. Bedwell, Eduardo Salas, and C. Shawn Burke, Department of Psychology and Institute for Simulation and Training, University of Central Florida.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Chris W. Coultas, 3100 Technology Parkway, Department of Psychology and Institute for Simulation and Training, Orlando, FL 32826. E-mail: ccoultas@ist.ucf.edu
Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research © 2011 American Psychological Association 2011, Vol. 63, No. 3, 149 –161 1065-9293/11/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0025603
149
T hi
s do
cu m
en t i
s co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
tio n
or o
ne o
f i ts
a lli
ed p
ub lis
he rs
. T
hi s
ar tic
le is
in te
nd ed
s ol
el y
fo r t
he p
er so
na l u
se o
f t he
in di
vi du
al u
se r a
nd is
n ot
to b
e di
ss em
in at
ed b
ro ad
ly .
theoretically and practically. What is needed is a scientifically grounded approach that will provide some consistency to the coaching process but that is broad enough to allow for the flexibility and individualization that is the hallmark of executive coaching. And, although professionals from many fields have tailored their contextual expertise toward executive coaching (e.g., clinical and industrial and organizational psychologists), we primarily address executive coaching from a consulting psychology angle, leveraging research on motivation and performance assessment–management (Feldman & Lankau, 2005) to develop a values-sensitive, motivational approach to executive coaching.
One key driver behind this growing coaching trend is the globalization (and thus, distribution) of workforces (Tsui, Nifadkar, & Ou, 2007), which has increased the demand for global leaders (Cruse, 2009). Furthermore, increasing within-nation diversity and the ascendancy of minority executives (Buttner, Lowe, & Billings-Harris, 2009; Cox & Blake, 1991) necessitates culturally competent executive coaches. Researchers suggest the impact of culture on these developmental activities is a critical issue that must be addressed. Yet, research on culture and performance improvement techniques is just beginning (Gelfand, Erez, & Aycan, 2007). Studies on the impact of culture on various coaching techniques such as feedback (Morrison, Chen, & Salgado, 2004) and goal setting and compensation (Corney & Richards, 2005) exist, but little has been done in the way of developing a systematic, comprehensive set of coaching techniques into a flexible and culturally sensitive model. As such, science is unable to provide evidence-based practices (Wildman, Bedwell, Salas, & Smith-Jentsch, 2010), leaving organizations (and coaches) with little guidance on how to effectively implement coaching practices to improve performance of global leaders.
There are notable exceptions, however. Peterson (2007) proposed differences as to how cultures vary in their responsiveness to executive coaching and suggested principles for effective cross- cultural coaches. In a similar vein, Rosinski has done significant work on training executive coaches to leverage the cultural worldviews of their coachees. In his book, Coaching Across Cultures, Rosinski (2003) noted that it is nearly impossible to be an effective cross-cultural executive coach without some semblance of awareness, tolerance, and appreciation for cultural differences. Further- more, it is the ability of the coach to not only notice these differences but also leverage them to meet coachee goals that determines the effectiveness of the coaching dynamic. We extend these ideas, suggesting that culturally uninformed coaching techniques are ineffective at best and damaging and costly at worst. We further suggest that coaches in today’s global economy need not only to have a deeper understanding of cultures (i.e., acknowledging individual differences) but also be able to adapt (i.e., individualize) coaching strategies for maximum effect when dealing with culturally different others. We highlight the importance of developing a culturally competent coach to lay a foundation for addressing this gap. Specifically, we argue that culturally competent coaching requires an understanding of (a) why coaching strategies generally work and (b) how the effective- ness of these strategies might fluctuate given the presence and strength of certain cultural values.
To this end, we developed a paradigm to consider culturally competent coaching—the DELTA approach. Using this framework, we provide a baseline explication of cultural values, present a motivational framework toward coaching, and explain the benefits of leveraging these two points to incorporate cultural competence into the executive coaching dyad. Then, we draw on this motiva- tional perspective to provide evidence-based guidelines for executive coaches in tailoring coaching techniques in accordance with their clients’ cultural values and perspectives.
The DELTA Approach
We suggest a paradigmatic approach to executive coaching across cultures. This paradigm, which amounts to values-sensitive executive coaching, essentially consists of five elements, organized around the acronym DELTA. These are (a) Determining cultural values, (b) Employing typical coaching techniques, (c) Looking and listening for motivational needs and deficiencies, (d) Tailoring coaching techniques to motivational needs and cultural values, and (e) Assessing the effectiveness of these.
150 COULTAS, BEDWELL, SALAS, AND BURKE
T hi
s do
cu m
en t i
s co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
tio n
or o
ne o
f i ts
a lli
ed p
ub lis
he rs
. T
hi s
ar tic
le is
in te
nd ed
s ol
el y
fo r t
he p
er so
na l u
se o
f t he
in di
vi du
al u
se r a
nd is
n ot
to b
e di
ss em
in at
ed b
ro ad
ly .
In Step 1, we briefly describe various cultural values that can influence the effectiveness of coaching techniques and the importance of being aware of the organizational and individual cultural values that may come into play in the coaching relationship. In Step 2, we describe typical coaching techniques discussed in this effort. The bulk of this article is devoted to Steps 3 and 4, where, in step 3, we introduce the motivational framework, and, in Step 4, where we integrate cultural, motivation, and coaching. In Step 5, we briefly review the importance of assessing the effectiveness of techniques to improve coaching performance in the future.
Step 1: Determining Cultural Values
Certainly the most well-known work on culture within the scientific community has been put forth by Hofstede in his identification of five dimensions of national culture (Kirkman, Lowe, & Gibson, 2006). This conceptualization of culture as a group-driven way of thinking (Hofstede, 1980) has resulted in a large body of work that examines culture as a commonly held set of values. Another influential cultural researcher, Schein (2010), has argued that cultural beliefs and values, or “basic underlying assumptions” (p. 27), are made manifest in the traditions, behaviors, and norms of groups (e.g., nations, or more proximally, organizations). A coachee’s beliefs and values may be partially inferred by the norms of the group within which he or she is embedded. Awareness of the cultural values and norms of the coachee’s nation and organization, then, may also be a helpful tool in assessing coachee cultural values. Thus, we present several of the most researched dimensions of culture (see Table 1) as the central guide to our discussion of culturally sensitive coaching.
We also note, however, that culture entails much more than assuming that individuals from a given country will behave in a particular way. This is known as the ecological fallacy, which has
Table 1 Dimensions of Culture
Description Source
Individualism - the extent that people see themselves as separate, unrelated entities Collectivism - the cultural belief that people are more interconnected, smaller parts of larger groups
Hofstede (1980)
Power distance - the degree to which individuals in a society accept inequalities in power between classes of individuals
Hofstede (1980); House et al. (2002)
Vertical–horizontal individual–collectivism - individualism–collectivism and power distance Vertical collectivism refers to the tendency for individuals to be concerned for members of their own group whereas horizontal collectivism refers to concern for the well-being of others in general, regardless of whether or not they are part of one’s immediate group Vertical individualism - highlights competitiveness, whereas horizontal individualism emphasizes uniqueness
Triandis & Gelfand (1998)
Uncertainty avoidance - the preference for clearly structured situations and an apprehensiveness towards ambiguous or new situations
Hofstede (1980); House et al. (2002)
Long-term orientation - valuing behaviors oriented toward the future (e.g., perseverance, saving) Short-term orientation - values more relating to the past and present (e.g., concern for face, respect for tradition)
Hofstede (1993)
Performance orientation - placing a high value on perfor- mance quality in the workplace or for a given task (as opposed to non-performance values such as social ties).
House et al. (2002)
151CULTURE AND EXECUTIVE COACHING
T hi
s do
cu m
en t i
s co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
tio n
or o
ne o
f i ts
a lli
ed p
ub lis
he rs
. T
hi s
ar tic
le is
in te
nd ed
s ol
el y
fo r t
he p
er so
na l u
se o
f t he
in di
vi du
al u
se r a
nd is
n ot
to b
e di
ss em
in at
ed b
ro ad
ly .
been a problem throughout the history of consulting psychology and executive coaching (Fuqua & Newman, 2002). This ecological fallacy may be because of the broad strokes with which cultural researchers have typically conceptualized cultural dimensions and differences. Coaching experts have warned against this ecological fallacy (Peterson, 2007), and other researchers have suggested more individualized approaches to understanding the way individuals develop and hold specific values (Straub, Loch, Evaristo, Karahana, & Strite, 2002). We present the above cultural dimensions not to suggest that coaches should assume coachees hold strongly to these various values (especially when using nation as a heuristic), but rather, we suggest that cultural dimensions and individual level assessments of cultural values can be elicited and used to further individualize specific coaching strategies. Straub et al. (2002) suggested several methods for determining and measuring individual level culture. Grounding their methods in social identity theory, Straub et al. (2002) proposed that individual level culture can be assessed by having individuals respond to vignettes indicative of culturally driven responses. Another suggested method was to leverage existing measures of social identification to determine the degree to which an individual identifies with other individuals from various cultures. Similarly, Rosinski (2003) has developed the cultural orientations framework, which executive coaches may use to determine the cultural values of their coachees through a more straightforward survey approach on attitudes.
Step 2: Employing Typical Coaching Techniques
Gregory et al. (2008) have noted that, despite confusion in the literature as to what the real meaning of “executive coaching” is, there are four elements consistently identified: (a) a one-on-one relationship, (b) monitoring the coachee’s performance and other work-relevant behaviors, (c) setting goals based on the behaviors monitored, and (d) providing feedback throughout the relationship. In the following sections, we exclusively examine the impact of culture on the effectiveness of feedback and goal setting in the coaching relationship. This “feedback and goal-setting as coaching” approach has been adopted in recent work (Gregory et al., 2011), given that monitoring and feedback behaviors are inherently linked, and the relational aspect of coaching is simply a social context (Dembkowski et al., 2006; Gregory et al., 2008). It should be noted that feedback and goal setting are broad coaching interventions with much leeway in terms of imple- mentation. Accordingly, these may not look the same across cultures. However, values-sensitive coaching implies implementing the coaching intervention in a way that is culturally appropriate. We discuss this in greater detail subsequently.
Feedback. Feedback interventions (FIs) are probably one of the most well-known and well-used leadership and coaching techniques in existence, and they are a key component in any coaching relationship. Indeed, executive coaches have at times been reduced to “outsourced suppliers of candor, providing individual leaders with the objective feedback needed to nourish their growth” (Sherman & Freas, 2004, p. 84). Kluger and DeNisi (1996) defined feedback interventions as “actions taken by (an) external agent(s) to provide information regarding some aspect(s) of one’s task performance” (p.255), with the implicit goal of improving performance. In addition, although many have held the assumption that feedback interventions have a consistently positive relationship with performance, this is not always the case. Kluger and DeNisi suggested that, on average, feedback interventions do tend to improve performance, though a third of the time they may backfire and reduce performance. Feedback interventions impact performance by affecting motivational mechanisms (Kluger & DeNisi, 1996; Pritchard & Ashwood, 2008). Feedback intervention theory (Kluger & DeNisi, 1996), based on an extensive meta-analysis, suggests that if feedback provided is relevant to the task, and not directed toward the person, it is more likely to be received as meaningful and motivational, and accordingly, applied to behavior change.
Goal setting. Using 360-degree feedback interventions can also be used to guide goal- directed behaviors in the coaching relationship as well (Sherman & Freas, 2004), another key element of executive coaching. In the executive coaching relationship, goal setting is the other most frequently used method of performance management and improvement (Dembkowski et al., 2006; Gregory et al., 2008). Goal-setting techniques are founded in goal-setting theory, one of the most empirically validated theories in modern psychology (Locke & Latham, 2006). Over 25 years of
152 COULTAS, BEDWELL, SALAS, AND BURKE
T hi
s do
cu m
en t i
s co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
tio n
or o
ne o
f i ts
a lli
ed p
ub lis
he rs
. T
hi s
ar tic
le is
in te
nd ed
s ol
el y
fo r t
he p
er so
na l u
se o
f t he
in di
vi du
al u
se r a
nd is
n ot
to b
e di
ss em
in at
ed b
ro ad
ly .
research has resulted in several empirically validated foundational guidelines regarding goal setting. A few of the most salient characteristics of effective goal-setting strategies include: (a) difficulty, (b) specificity, and (c) acceptability (Grant, 2006; Locke & Latham, 2006; Robbins & Judge, 2009). A complete review of goal-setting theory is beyond the scope of this article—the basic underlying premise is specific, difficult (but achievable) goals to which an individual is willing to commit (acceptability) are motivating and likely to lead to higher levels of performance. It is, therefore, a major emphasis of the executive coach to help develop such goals with coachees (Grant, 2006; Peterson, 2007). However, as will be evinced subsequently, an effective and motivational goal in one culture may not function equivalently in another. This necessitates Steps 3 and 4 of the DELTA process.
Step 3: Looking and Listening for Motivational Needs and Deficiencies
The modus operandi of the executive coach is to use feedback and goal setting to provide and structure relevant information in a way that drives the personal and professional development of the coachee. This is, in essence, the core of all motivational theories, strategies, and techniques (Locke & Latham, 1994, 2006; Mitchell, 1982; Naylor, Pritchard, & Ilgen, 1980; Pritchard & Ashwood, 2008). Accordingly, we propose that considering executive coaching through a motivational lens may provide needed structure, intentionality, rationality, and impact to the coaching dynamic, especially in cross-cultural coaching settings.
Recent work has suggested that the coaching relationship functions primarily to the extent that the coach can highlight performance deficiencies and goal discrepancies in the coachee’s profes- sional life (Gregory et al., 2011). Although this is nearly indisputable, we posit that a more finely grained approach to coachee motivation, and one that considers specific motivational needs as well as cross-cultural differences and values, will be able to leverage intrinsic coachee motivation to much greater effect. Pritchard and Ashwood (2008) have developed an approach to motivating individuals that should provide this “scalpel” approach necessary in the cross-cultural coaching relationship. Below, we describe this method and apply it to the primary coaching techniques of goal setting and feedback.
Pritchard–Ashwood motivational framework. The Pritchard–Ashwood (PA) motivational framework (Pritchard & Ashwood, 2008) is a useful perspective through which to assess individ- uals’ motivational levels and needs. In short, individuals’ motivation (i.e., their drive to engage in particular behaviors) is composed of four “contingencies” or expectations that must be met. The degree to which these expectations are addressed is the strength of the individual’s motivation. Essentially, the framework posits that motivation is composed of the linkages between actions, results, evaluations, outcomes, and need satisfaction. To better understand this framework, consider this in the context of a coaching relationship. Coachees act—this could refer to a host of their day-to-day activities or to specific actions and goals initiated by the coach. The coachee’s actions should lead to organizationally relevant results—in other words, coachees should not be engaging in actions that are meaningless or overly time consuming. These results should be evaluated by relevant persons (e.g., the coach, superiors, 360-degree feedback). Subsequent to these evaluations, outcomes or rewards should follow and be specifically tied to the level of results achieved. In the context of a coaching dynamic, this may occur as the coach assists the coachee in achieving goals that will be rewarded by the organization. Finally, these outcomes must be perceived as actually desirable, for not all individuals’ value outcomes equally (Bokemeier & Lacy, 1987; Kalleberg, 1977). The key thing to acknowledge with this approach to motivation is that “motivation is only as strong as the weakest link” (Pritchard & Ashwood, 2008). In other words, if the executive does not anticipate that her behavior change (an action) will actually result in greater productivity (a result), it does not matter how certain she is that her coach will positively evaluate and review her performance.
We selected this particular theoretical framework because it is a very prescriptive approach to improving a very nebulous concept. Motivation is difficult to describe. Conceptually, people would generally agree that it is what drives behavior (Naylor et al., 1980). Yet, without a very clear conception of the components of motivation, it is difficult—if not impossible—to leverage. The PA
153CULTURE AND EXECUTIVE COACHING
T hi
s do
cu m
en t i
s co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
tio n
or o
ne o
f i ts
a lli
ed p
ub lis
he rs
. T
hi s
ar tic
le is
in te
nd ed
s ol
el y
fo r t
he p
er so
na l u
se o
f t he
in di
vi du
al u
se r a
nd is
n ot
to b
e di
ss em
in at
ed b
ro ad
ly .
theory provides that necessary specificity. It clearly articulates (a) the specific components of motivation, (b) how those components are related, and (c) how to improve motivation on an individual basis (i.e., by making each link as strong as possible). Through this framework, we are able to move to Step 4: actually tailoring coaching techniques based on differential motivational needs.
Step 4: Tailoring Techniques to Motivational Needs and Cultural Values
A key element of the executive coaching intervention is its highly individualized nature—ideally, executive coaches should know the right techniques to improve performance, as well as the right approach to direct these techniques. The effective executive coach must be able to account for deep-seated psychological and personological differences and adapt accordingly (Berglas, 2002; Ludeman & Erlandson, 2004). Individual-level variations in cultural dimensions seem to suggest differences in motivational linkages. For example, higher levels of uncertainty avoidance might decrease individual motivation if there is uncertainty as to whether or not actions will lead to results. Similarly, values relating to individualism and collectivism should determine whether outcomes are judged as satisfying needs, depending on the distribution of these outcomes. Essentially, individu- ally held values, especially those deeply engrained through cultural practices and norms, should impact the individual importance of motivational linkages.
Ultimately, the motivationally sensitive coach must be able to not only identify coachees’ motivational deficiencies and cultural values but must also be able to dynamically adjust coaching strategies to maximize motivational effectiveness. We suggest that an understanding of general cultural dimensions and their impact on coaching techniques and motivation may give coaches, leaders, managers, and all employees a better understanding of how motivational needs vary between employees, especially in the increasingly multicultural and global workplace.
The question for coaches in cross-cultural settings is, do individuals from all cultures respond similarly to the same kind of feedback? Research suggests they do not (Cheung & Florea, 2009; Fang, Evans, & Zhou, 2005; Gelfand et al., 2007). Individual preference for and receptivity to FIs differs from culture to culture. As might be expected, cultures high in individualism tend to gravitate toward personal feedback, while those high in collectivism lean toward group feedback. Specifi- cally, for cultures high in individualism, feedback related to the self influenced self-efficacy, whereas in highly collectivistic cultures, feedback relevant to the group affected self-efficacy (Gelfand et al., 2007). This is important to coaching and performance management because self-efficacy is a major component of motivation and performance (Zimmerman, Bandura, & Martinze-Pons, 1992). Similarly, feedback may have implications for either the individual or the group; this must be taken into account when addressing culturally different others. For example, one particular study showed that collectivistic countries (i.e., Japan and China) tended to prefer feedback related to their own failures as compared to individualistic countries (United States) because failure feedback helps the group more than highlighting what the team did well (Bailey, Chen, & Dou, 1997). Others have found that individual feedback influenced self-efficacy of individualists, whereas collectivists benefitted most from high levels of either individual or collective feedback (Early, Gibson, & Chen, 1999).
Guideline 1. Frame the implications of feedback and rationale for behavior change to fit the coachee’s orientation toward either individualism or collectivism.
Feedback seeking tendencies also vary across cultures—this has implications on a coachee’s probable receptivity to feedback. In fact, individuals from cultures that are “hierarchically struc- tured” (i.e., high power distance) have been shown to be more resistant to and “less trusting” of supervisory feedback (de Luque & Sommer, 2000, p. 830). Concern for face, high uncertainty avoidance, and collectivism have all been connected with an elevated aversion to negative feedback (Cheung & Florea, 2009; Gelfand et al., 2007). The preferred type of feedback has also been suggested to vary across cultures; high collectivism, power distance, and uncertainty avoidance should be related to preferences for behavior-based (as opposed to outcome-based) feedback systems (Cheung & Florea, 2009). Peterson (2007) noted that some cultures (most notably, cultures high in uncertainty avoidance and concern for face) tend to see feedback as an attack on the self. It
154 COULTAS, BEDWELL, SALAS, AND BURKE
T hi
s do
cu m
en t i
s co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
tio n
or o
ne o
f i ts
a lli
ed p
ub lis
he rs
. T
hi s
ar tic
le is
in te
nd ed
s ol
el y
fo r t
he p
er so
na l u
se o
f t he
in di
vi du
al u
se r a
nd is
n ot
to b
e di
ss em
in at
ed b
ro ad
ly .
may be that espousing high power distance values causes individuals to excessively internalize supervisory feedback, to the point where only peer feedback is nonthreatening enough to be taken into account objectively. Referring again to feedback intervention theory, the best way to approach giving feedback to coachees in feedback-averse cultures would be to focus on what tasks and skills can be further developed, rather than on what is lacking in the coachee as a person or employee, and to do so in a casual manner. This suggests that the tenets of feedback intervention theory are likely even more salient in these cultures since inappropriate feedback is more likely to be perceived as personally offensive rather than generally instructive. For this reason, it is vital for executive coaches, when giving feedback to their coachees, to be aware of this cultural phenomenon and be extra sensitive. When tailoring feedback strategies it should be considered that what is considered casual and inoffensive in one organization may be perceived quite differently in another. For example, Ashford and Northcraft (1992) found that organizational culture impacts feedback-seeking behaviors such that in organizations with an unfavorable feedback environment, employees are less likely to engage in feedback seeking due to impression management. It may be helpful to observe peer-to-peer workplace interactions in order to determine organizational norms in regard to feed- back.
Guideline 2. In more highly structured societies, approach feedback-giving casually, as a peer would, as opposed to its being provided by a supervisor or authority figure.
Guideline 3. In societies high in uncertainty avoidance and concern for face, approach giving negative feedback more sensitively. Focus on task processes and be more general and indirectly instructional.
Given that goal setting is such an integral part of the coaching dynamic, it is vital for the executive coach to understand how to motivate their coachees with goals. Similar to feedback interventions, goal-setting strategies sometimes differentially influences cultural groups (Gelfand et al., 2007). Individuals, regardless of culture, prefer to participate in the development of goals. Participative goals tend to universally predict goal acceptance and commitment (Robbins & Judge, 2009; Sheldon & Elliot, 1999), and even general perceptions of well-being and satisfaction (Sheldon, Ryan, Deci, & Kasser, 2004). For example, participation in developing goals was equally beneficial for Chinese (i.e., high power distance) as it was for Western employees (Fang, Palmatier, & Evans, 2004). However, participative goals may have greater effects on performance given certain cultural contexts. For example, some suggest that high levels of power distance may mitigate the negative effects of assigned goals (Erez & Earley, 1987; Sue-Chan & Ong, 2002). More research is needed to develop prescriptive guidelines in regard to participative versus assigned goals in cross-cultural settings, but based on current research, we suggest the following:
Guideline 4. Encourage coachees to participate in the development of goals. However, in higher, rather than lower, power-distance cultures, coachees may not be as negatively affected by assigned goals. In these situations, it may be preferable to suggest goals as a way to initiate coachee-originated goals.
Goal difficulty has also been identified as a preferable characteristic of motivating goals. However, Kurman (2001) illustrated that high power-distance individuals view moderate, achiev- able goals as more motivating, whereas low power-distance individuals considered more difficult goals as the most motivating. Other cultural values that may affect the preference toward moderately or highly difficult goals are collectivism or uncertainty avoidance (Latham & Pinder, 2005; Gelfand et al., 2007). However, empirical findings have not been consistent. Fang, Palmatier, and Evans (2004) found that American salespeople (low power distance) were most motivated by moderately difficult goals, whereas salespeople from China (high power distance) were motivated by maximally difficult goals. One explanation for these results is a heightened long-term orientation (more typical of Chinese than American persons), which holds that perseverance is the key to success (Cheung & Florea, 2009; Hofstede, 2009). Further research is therefore needed to tease apart the effects of different cultural values to specifically inform practice. However, meta-analyses have shown that specific and challenging goals typically lead to higher performance than vague and easy goals (Locke & Latham, 1990, 2002). Accordingly, we suggest that executive coaches need to be aware of goal-setting strategies of successful culturally different others as a general guideline but also
155CULTURE AND EXECUTIVE COACHING
T hi
s do
cu m
en t i
s co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
tio n
or o
ne o
f i ts
a lli
ed p
ub lis
he rs
. T
hi s
ar tic
le is
in te
nd ed
s ol
el y
fo r t
he p
er so
na l u
se o
f t he
in di
vi du
al u
se r a
nd is
n ot
to b
e di
ss em
in at
ed b
ro ad
ly .
allow the coachee to participate to some degree in setting goal difficulty. This will provide the executive coach with a metric by which to judge future goals identified within the coaching relationship.
Guideline 5. When determining the appropriate level of goal difficulty, flexibility is essential. Judge goal difficulty of coachee-set goals against goals set by other similar (by culture and competence) employees in the organization. Universally avoid overly simplistic goals.
Goal orientation has also been suggested to vary across cultures (Gully, Phillips, & Tarique, 2003). Goal orientation refers to what an individual sees as the logic, or rationale, of the various goals he or she may adopt; these orientations can be avoiding negative consequences of failure, performing or proving the degree of one’s competence at a skill, or learning or mastering a goal for intrinsic reasons (VandeWalle, Cron, & Slocum, 2001). Gully and colleagues (2003) found among American, Indonesian, and Singaporean individuals, Indonesian individuals had significantly higher levels of learning and performance goal orientations. Eaton and Dembo (1997) found that Asian American students had significantly higher fears of academic failure and significantly lower levels of self-efficacy than American students, even while significantly outperforming them. This may suggest higher levels of avoidance goal orientation for Asian American individuals as compared with their Caucasian counterparts.
The practical importance of goal orientation to the executive coach is two fold. First, low-learning goal orientation has been shown to lead to lower levels of goal setting and performance (e.g., Cron, Slocum, VandeWalle, & Fu, 2005; Seijts, Latham, Tasa, & Latham, 2004). Furthermore, in a recent meta-analysis, Payne, Youngcourt, and Beaubien (2007) showed that learning goal orientation was positively related to goal setting and feedback seeking. This suggests that individuals lower in learning orientation are more likely to set less ambitious goals for themselves. If cultures really do fluctuate on various learning orientations as evidenced in the literature, executive coaches must be aware of the goal orientations that individuals from various cultures are likely to have. Given the characteristics implicit in the previously mentioned cultural dimensions, a few cultures might logically gravitate toward certain goal orientations (e.g., vertical individualists with performance goals, uncertainty avoidance with avoidance goals). Second, coaches might be able to prime situational goal orientation toward learning in the coaching dynamic by emphasizing learning goals (Ames & Archer, 1988). In fact, it has been shown that encouraging learning goals will mitigate the negative effects that individual performance goals typically have on performance (Seijts & Latham, 2001). Coaches should, therefore, focus on carefully wording goals to induce learning orientations (i.e., mastery), as opposed to performance orientations (i.e., competition).
Guideline 6. Emphasize learning goals within the coaching relationship, especially for individuals lower in learning goal orientation or high in performance goal orientation or avoidance orientation. Cultures high in vertical individualism and uncertainty avoidance may be more likely to have high performance or avoidance goal orientations.
Step 5: Assessing the Effectiveness of Techniques
Individuals are not all motivated by the same things or in the same ways (Bokemeier & Lacy, 1987; Kalleberg, 1977). For example, Kluger and DeNisi (1996) found that feedback (a key component of any coaching intervention) is typically effective at increasing performance, yet in over 33% of cases, it actually resulted in decreased performance. Other elements of the motivational process, especially compensation, rewards, and need satisfaction, have also been shown to be differentially effective across individuals (Pappas & Flaherty, 2005). This implies, then, a need for not only motivational sensitivity but also adaptability. Additionally, it suggests going beyond simply acknowledging individual motivational deficiencies to tailoring coaching interventions and, thus, directly addressing these needs. The Motivational Assessment Questionnaire (MAQ; R. Pritchard, personal communi- cation, April 19, 2010) has been used to assess motivational needs and deficiencies in certain settings— other motivational assessments may also do a sufficient job at making motivational needs salient in the coaching relationship. Furthermore, although a host of coachee characteristics may influence their experience of motivation, cultural norms, beliefs, practices, and values may be among the most salient in determining what needs satisfy (and, thus, drive behavior). Tools for assessing
156 COULTAS, BEDWELL, SALAS, AND BURKE
T hi
s do
cu m
en t i
s co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
tio n
or o
ne o
f i ts
a lli
ed p
ub lis
he rs
. T
hi s
ar tic
le is
in te
nd ed
s ol
el y
fo r t
he p
er so
na l u
se o
f t he
in di
vi du
al u
se r a
nd is
n ot
to b
e di
ss em
in at
ed b
ro ad
ly .
the saliency of cultural values and needs in the coaching dynamic, such as the cultural orientations framework (Rosinski, 2003) then become a vital tool for the executive coach who is engaging in the DELTA approach to coaching. Essentially, we propose that the effectiveness of the coaching dynamic is dependent on the degree to which it activates coachee motivation and that the coachee’s motivational needs are, at least in part, nested within cultural values. Therefore, the assessment element of the DELTA coaching process does not refer primarily to assessing the effectiveness of the coaching intervention as a whole (i.e., determining whether the client’s goals have been met), but rather, assessing the ongoing motivational fluctuations attributed to the coaching intervention. The DELTA coach must consistently be aware of the degree to which his or her techniques remain motivationally viable. In other words, this goes beyond monitoring of coachee progress to the more equally important issue of the coachee’s motivation levels and continued desire to improve.
Putting It All Together: Values Sensitive Executive Coaching
It has been demonstrated that many of the foundational principles behind goal-setting and feedback theory are fairly universal. However, using these techniques within a cross-cultural coaching relationship may not always look the same. Thus, coaches may encounter difficulty in helping culturally diverse clients develop goals or in providing challenging yet helpful feedback. Coaches need to be aware of motivational needs, cultural differences, and what does and does not motivate individuals from various cultures. This motivational and cultural sensitivity is what comprises the heart of the DELTA approach to cross-cultural executive coaching.
Many executive coaches have a particular “style” of coaching to which they are accustomed, or consistent methods they use— driven largely by their diverse areas of expertise, ranging from sports to business to psychology (Berglas, 2002; Feldman & Lankau, 2005). However, it is imperative that executive coaches, who function largely as guiding or directive motivational forces (Gregory et al., 2011) to the executives they coach, are able to effectively adapt their techniques and methods to individuals’ unique motivational and cultural needs. We propose that when executive coaches can engage in the DELTA process of determining the cultural values of those being coached by engaging in the typical coaching techniques of goal setting and feedback, looking and listening for motiva- tional needs within the coaching relationship, tailoring these techniques to account for motivational and cultural needs, and assessing the effectiveness of these tailored approaches, cross-cultural executive coaches will see much greater returns in their cross-cultural relationships.
Sensitivity also implies flexibility. The DELTA process should not be considered linear. It represents an iterative, recursive approach to executive coaching. In other words, “determining coachee cultural values” does not end after the initial cultural assessment has been made. The variable effectiveness of tailored coaching interventions will serve as a cue to the coachee’s cultural values—this should drive the DELTA coach to further adjust his or her coaching interventions. Similarly, an experienced executive coach, one who is especially culturally competent, may be able to tailor his or her typical techniques from the onset of the coaching relationship, rather than having to essentially test the techniques and then tailor them. Yet, even in those cases, coaches will need to continually engage in this recursive process to maximize effectiveness throughout the duration of the coaching relationship.
Awareness of, and sensitivity to, cultural values when setting goals and providing feedback within the coaching dynamic will not only provide a useful heuristic when entering the relationship but should also translate into more culturally sensitive leadership tactics used by the coachee (Mayer et al., 2009). Role modeling is a powerful training technique. When a coach acts in a culturally sensitive manner that benefits the coachee, coaches can see this and incorporate this sensitivity into their own leadership behaviors. The guidelines presented above should provide the cross-cultural executive coach with a greater awareness of the influence of cultural values on the effectiveness of various coaching techniques.
157CULTURE AND EXECUTIVE COACHING
T hi
s do
cu m
en t i
s co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
tio n
or o
ne o
f i ts
a lli
ed p
ub lis
he rs
. T
hi s
ar tic
le is
in te
nd ed
s ol
el y
fo r t
he p
er so
na l u
se o
f t he
in di
vi du
al u
se r a
nd is
n ot
to b
e di
ss em
in at
ed b
ro ad
ly .
Current Issues and Future Directions for Practice and Research
Although the theory behind tailoring coaching interventions to motivational and cultural needs is empirically grounded, the majority of these findings occurred in the broader (albeit concep- tually relevant) field of leadership. So although research has evinced that leadership behaviors do not always function the same across cultures (e.g., Cheung & Florea, 2009; Gelfand et al., 2007; Gully et al., 2003) and that leaders must be able to be “flexible and adaptive” across individuals and contexts (Yukl & Mahsud, 2010), our theoretical piece is the first to argue that this sensitivity and adaptability be applied to the one-on-one dynamic of executive coaching. Future research must determine the effectiveness of motivationally and culturally targeted executive coaching interventions. A corollary to this is that practitioners should begin adopting this more intentional approach to cross-cultural coaching and reporting the advantages (and disadvantages) of implementing the DELTA coaching approach. Finally, the DELTA coaching approach (and indeed, the field of coaching in general) is broad and based on broad theoretical and empirical work—accordingly, there will be much variability in its implementation. It will be necessary for coaches who are applying the tenets of DELTA coaching to track their methods of DELTA implementation.
Cultural values are not the only element of individual differences that require consideration in facilitating an effective coaching intervention. Sherman and Freas (2004) discussed the concept of matching coaches with coachees based on relevant demographic characteristics, notably educational and professional experience. Harrison, Price, and Bell (1998) described both surface- and deep-level cultural characteristics that differ among team mates. Surface-level diversity reflects those biological characteristics that are easily observed through physical features like age or gender. Deep-level diversity represents values (as discussed above) and other attitudes that generally require multiple interactions to discover them. Both of these characteristics (e.g., surface, e.g., gender & age; and deep, e.g., personality) may directly impact the initial trust and satisfaction the coachee has with the coach (Sherman & Freas, 2004). Although much has been published in the mentoring literature on these topics (e.g., Eby, Butts, Lockwood, & Simon, 2004), future research should address the relationship between various demographic and psychological variables and the effectiveness of a coaching intervention to determine whether findings on surface- and deep-level diversity from the mentoring literature are generalizable to the coaching context.
Conclusion
Can the coaching dynamic benefit from adopting a Pritchard–Ashwood motivational point of view? We suggest that executive coaching is almost entirely focused on creating positive behavioral change—a purpose that necessarily mandates motivation. Thus, tending to motivational needs is vital to the success of any coaching endeavor. In other words, if the coachee is not motivated to change, develop, or perform, none of these will ever occur. Adopting the Pritchard–Ashwood motivational framework provides the coach with a degree of precision with which to target motivational deficiencies and ensure that the coaching relationship is maximally motivating and, by extension, maximally effective.
This perspective allows for a heightened level of motivational awareness. This awareness can then be leveraged into a motivational sensitivity that dynamically adjusts coaching techniques to address the motivational needs of the client. If the coachee seems unmotivated (i.e., behavioral change is difficult to foster), consider the motivational framework. Is there some linkage that could be stronger? Could the coachee benefit from a more consistent evaluation system, more concrete goals, specific competency training? Any one of these coaching techniques has the potential to meet coachees’ motivational needs, but it is the motivationally sensitive coach who identifies the need and meets it with the most appropriate intervention.
158 COULTAS, BEDWELL, SALAS, AND BURKE
T hi
s do
cu m
en t i
s co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
tio n
or o
ne o
f i ts
a lli
ed p
ub lis
he rs
. T
hi s
ar tic
le is
in te
nd ed
s ol
el y
fo r t
he p
er so
na l u
se o
f t he
in di
vi du
al u
se r a
nd is
n ot
to b
e di
ss em
in at
ed b
ro ad
ly .
References
Ames, C., & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: Students’ learning strategies and motivation processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 260 –267.
Ashford, S. J., & Northcraft, G. B. (1992). Conveying more (or less) than we realize: The role of impression- management in feedback seeking. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 53, 310 –334.
Bailey, J. R., Chen, C. C., & Dou, S. G. (1997). Conceptions of self and performance-related feedback in the U. S., Japan, and China. Journal of International Business Studies, 28, 605– 625. doi:10.1057/ palgrave.jibs.8490113
Berglas, S. (2002). The very real dangers of executive coaching. Harvard Business Review, 80(6), 86 –93. Bokemeier, J. L., & Lacy, W. B. (1986). Job values, rewards, and work conditions as factors in job satisfaction
among men and women. The Sociological Quarterly, 28, 189 –204. doi:10.1111/j.1533-8525.1987.tb00290.x Bolt, J. (2006, April). Coaching: The fad that won’t go away. Fast Company.com. Retrieved from http://
www.fastcompany.com/resources/learning/bolt/041006.html Buttner, E. H., Lowe, K. B., & Billings-Harris, L. (2009). The challenge of increasing minority-group
professional representation in the United States: Intriguing findings. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 20, 771–789. doi:10.1080/09585190902770604
Cheung, Y., & Florea, L. (2009). The application of performance management in the salesforce: A Chinese and Romanian perspective. Journal of Euromarketing, 18, 139 –156. doi:10.1080/10496480903146524
Corney, W., & Richards, C. (2005). A comparative analysis of the desirability of work characteristics: Chile versus the United States. International Journal of Management, 22, 159 –165.
Cox, T. H., & Blake, S. (1991). Managing cultural diversity: Implications for organizational competitiveness. Academy of Management Executive, 5, 45–56.
Cron, W. L., Slocum, J. W., Jr., VandeWalle, D., & Fu, F. Q. (2005). The role of goal orientation on negative emotions and goal setting when initial performance falls short of one’s performance goal. Human Perfor- mance, 18, 55– 80. doi:10.1207/s15327043hup1801_3
Cruse, S. (2009). In search of the global mindset: Predicting when a global context will affect leader confidence and judgment (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Hofstra University, New York.
de Luque, M. F. S., & Sommer, S. M. (2000). The impact of culture on feedback-seeking behavior: An integrated model and propositions. Academy of Management Review, 25, 829 – 849. doi:10.2307/259209
Dembkowski, S., Eldridge, F., & Hunter, I. (2006). The seven steps of effective executive coaching. London, England: Thorogood.
Earley, P. C., Gibson, C. B., & Chen, C. C. (1999). “How did I do?” Versus “How did we do?”: Cultural contrasts of performance feedback use and self-efficacy. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 30, 594 – 619.
Eaton, M. J., & Dembo, M. H. (1997). Differences in the motivational beliefs of Asian American and non-Asian students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 433– 440.
Eby, L., Butts, M., Lockwood, A., & Simon, S. A. (2004). Protégé’s negative mentoring experiences: Construct development and nomological validation. Personnel Psychology, 57, 411– 447. doi:10.1111/j.1744- 6570.2004.tb02496.x
Erez, M., & Earley, P. C. (1987). Comparative analysis of goal-setting strategies across cultures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 658 – 665. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.72.4.658
Fang, E., Evans, K. R., & Zou, S. (2004). The moderating effect of goal-setting characteristics on the sales control systems-job performance relationship. Journal of Business Research, 58, 1214 –1222. doi:10.1016/ j.jbusres.2004.03.006
Fang, E., Palmatier, R. W., & Evans, K. R. (2004). Goal-setting paradoxes? Trade-offs between working hard and working smart: The United States versus China. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 32, 188 –202. doi:10.1177/0092070303261413
Feldman, D. C., & Lankau, M. J. (2005). Executive coaching: A review and agenda for future research. Journal of Management, 31, 829 – 848. doi:10.1177/0149206305279599
Fuqua, D. R., & Newman, J. L. (2002). Academic perspectives on the principles for training in consulting psychology. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 54, 223–232. doi:10.1037/1061- 4087.54.4.223
Gelfand, M., Erez, M., & Aycan, Z. (2007). Cross-cultural organizational behavior. Annual Review of Psychol- ogy, 58, 479 –514. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085559
Grant, A. M. (2006). A personal perspective on professional coaching and the development of coaching psychology. International Coaching Psychology Review, 1, 12–22.
Gregory, J., Levy, P., & Jeffers, M. (2008). Development of a model of the feedback process within executive
159CULTURE AND EXECUTIVE COACHING
T hi
s do
cu m
en t i
s co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
tio n
or o
ne o
f i ts
a lli
ed p
ub lis
he rs
. T
hi s
ar tic
le is
in te
nd ed
s ol
el y
fo r t
he p
er so
na l u
se o
f t he
in di
vi du
al u
se r a
nd is
n ot
to b
e di
ss em
in at
ed b
ro ad
ly .
coaching. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 60, 42–56. doi:10.1037/1065- 9293.60.1.42
Gregory, J. B., Beck, J. W., & Carr, A. E. (2011). Goals, feedback, and self-regulation: Control theory as a natural framework for executive coaching. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 63, 26 –38. doi:10.1037/a0023398
Gully, S. M., Phillips, J. M., & Tarique, I. (2003). Collectivism and goal orientation as mediators of the effect of national identity on merit pay decisions. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14, 1368 –1390.
Harrison, D. A., Price, K. H., & Bell, M. P. (1998). Beyond relational demography: Time and the effects of surface- and deep-level diversity on work group cohesion. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 96 –107. doi:10.2307/256901
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G. (1993). Cultural constraints in management theories. Academy of Management Executive, 7, 81–94. Hofstede, G. (2009). Geert Hofstede cultural dimensions. Retrieved from http://www.geert-hofstede.com/
index.shtml House, R., Javidan, M., Hanges, P., & Dorfman, P. (2002). Understanding cultures and implicit leadership
theories across the globe: An introduction to project GLOBE. Journal of World Business, 37, 3–10. doi:10.1016/S1090-9516(01)00069-4
Kalleberg, A. L. (1977). Work values and job rewards: A theory of job satisfaction. American Sociological Review, 42, 124 –143. doi:10.2307/2117735
Kincaid, S. B., & Gordick, D. (2003). The return on investment of leadership development: Differentiating our discipline. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 55, 47–57. doi:10.1037/1061- 4087.55.1.47
Kirkman, B., Lowe, K., & Gibson, C. (2006). A quarter century of Culture’s Consequences: A review of empirical research incorporating Hofstede’s cultural values framework. Journal of International Business Studies, 37, 285–320. doi:10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400202
Kluger, A., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 254 –284. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.254
Kombarakaran, F. A., Yang, J. A., Baker, M. N., & Fernandes, P. B. (2008). Executive coaching: It works. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 60, 78 –90. doi:10.1037/1065-9293.60.1.78
Kurman, J. (2001). Self-regulation strategies in achievement settings: Culture and gender differences. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32, 491–503. doi:10.1177/0022022101032004008
Latham, G. P., & Pinder, C. C. (2005). Work motivation theory and research at the dawn of the twenty-first century. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 485–516. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.142105
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1994). Goal setting theory. In H. F. O’Neil, Jr., & M. Drillings (Eds.), Motivation: Theory and research (pp. 13–30). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation. American Psychologist, 57, 705–717. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.57.9.705
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2006). New directions in goal-setting theory. Current Directions in Psycho- logical Science, 15, 265–268. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8721.2006.00449.x
Ludeman, K., & Erlandson, E. (2004). Coaching the alpha male. Harvard Business Review, 82, 58 – 67. Mayer, D. M., Kuenzi, M., Greenbaum, R., Bardes, M., & Salvador, R. (2009). How low does ethical leadership
flow? Test of a trickle-down model. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108, 1–13. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2008.04.002
Mitchell, T. R. (1982). Motivation: New directions for theory, research and practice. Academy of Management Review, 7, 80 – 88.
Morrison, E., Chen, Y., & Salgado, S. (2004). Cultural differences in newcomer feedback seeking: A comparison of the United States and Hong Kong. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 53, 1–22. doi:10.1111/ j.1464-0597.2004.00158.x
Naylor, J., Pritchard, R., & Ilgen, D. R. (1980). A theory of behavior in organizations. New York: Academic Press.
Pappas, J. M., & Flaherty, K. E. (2005). The moderating role of individual-difference variables in compensation research. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21, 19 –35. doi:10.1108/02683940610643198
160 COULTAS, BEDWELL, SALAS, AND BURKE
T hi
s do
cu m
en t i
s co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
tio n
or o
ne o
f i ts
a lli
ed p
ub lis
he rs
. T
hi s
ar tic
le is
in te
nd ed
s ol
el y
fo r t
he p
er so
na l u
se o
f t he
in di
vi du
al u
se r a
nd is
n ot
to b
e di
ss em
in at
ed b
ro ad
ly .
Payne, S. C., Youngcourt, S. S., & Beaubien, J. M. (2007). A meta-analytic examination of the goal orientation nomological net. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 128 –150. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.128
Peterson, D. (2007). Executive coaching in a cross-cultural context. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 59, 261–271. doi:10.1037/1065-9293.59.4.261
Pritchard, R. D., & Ashwood, E. L. (2008). Manager’s guide to diagnosing and improving motivation. New York: Psychology Press.
Robbins, S., & Judge, T. (2009). Organizational behavior (13th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall.
Rosinski, P. (2003). Coaching across cultures: New tools for leveraging national, corporate, & professional differences. London, England: Nicholas Brealey.
Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Wiley. Seijts, G. H., Latham, G. P., Tasa, K., & Latham, B. W. (2004). Goal setting and goal orientation: An integration
of two different yet related literatures. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 227–239. doi:10.2307/ 20159574
Seijts, G. H., & Lathan, G. P. (2001). The effect of learning, outcome, and proximal goals on a moderately complex task. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 291–302. doi:10.1002/job.70
Sheldon, K. M., & Elliot, A. J. (1999). Goal striving, need satisfaction, and longitudinal well-being: The self-concordance model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 482– 497. doi:10.1037/0022- 3514.76.3.482
Sheldon, K. M., Ryan, R. M., Deci, E. L., & Kasser, T. (2004). The independent effects of goal contents and motives on well-being: It’s both what you pursue and why you pursue it. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 475– 486. doi:10.1177/0146167203261883
Sherman, S., & Freas, A. (2004). The wild west of executive coaching. Harvard Business Review, 82, 82–90. Straub, D., Loch, K., Evaristo, R., Karahana, E., & Strite, M. (2002). Toward a theory-based measurement of
culture. Journal of Global Information Management, 10, 13–23. doi:10.4018/jgim.2002010102 Sue-Chan, C., & Ong, M. (2002). Goal assignment and performance: Assessing the mediating roles of goal
commitment and self-efficacy and the moderating role of power distance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89, 1140 –1161. doi:10.1016/S0749-5978(02)00017-1
Triandis, H. C., & Gelfand, M. J. (1998). Converging measurement of horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 118 –128. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.74.1.118
Triandis, H. C., & Suh, E. (2002). Cultural influences on personality. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 133–160. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135200
Tsui, A., Nifadkar, S., & Ou, A. Y. (2007). Cross-national, cross-cultural organizational behavior research: Advances, gaps, and recommendations. Journal of Management, 33, 426 – 478. doi:10.1177/ 0149206307300818
VandeWalle, D., Cron, W. L., & Slocum, J. W., Jr. (2001). The role of goal orientation following performance feedback. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 629 – 640.
Wildman, J. L., Bedwell, W. L., Salas, E., & Smith-Jentsch, K. A. (2010). Performance measurement: Individual, team, and organizational strategies. In S. Zedeck, H. Aguinis, W. Cascio, M. Gelfand, K. Leung, S. Parker, & J. Zhou (Eds.), APA handbook of industrial/organizational psychology (pp. 303–341). Wash- ington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Yukl, G., & Mahsud, R. (2010). Why flexible and adaptive leadership is essential. Consulting Psychology Journal: Research and Practice, 62, 81–93. doi:10.1037/a0019835
Zimmerman, B., Bandura, A., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1992). Self-motivation for academic attainment: The role of self-efficacy beliefs and personal goal setting. American Educational Research Journal, 29, 663– 676.
Received July 6, 2011 Latest revision received August 4, 2011
Accepted August 5, 2011 �
161CULTURE AND EXECUTIVE COACHING
T hi
s do
cu m
en t i
s co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
tio n
or o
ne o
f i ts
a lli
ed p
ub lis
he rs
. T
hi s
ar tic
le is
in te
nd ed
s ol
el y
fo r t
he p
er so
na l u
se o
f t he
in di
vi du
al u
se r a
nd is
n ot
to b
e di
ss em
in at
ed b
ro ad
ly .