CULTURAL BRIDGES: Exploring Effective Approaches to Coaching Leaders from East Asia by Lesley Hayman and Jane Darvill-Evans
Introduction
As executive coaches with experience living and working in East Asia – Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong, Mainland China, and Taiwan – we have become fascinated with how to be more effective when coaching leaders from this region. Deep-seated cultural factors, combined with a lack of familiarity with coaching approaches, can make it difficult for East Asian leaders to engage with their coach effectively. Views vary widely on how to respond to this challenge. Morgan (2021) questions whether the models of coaching developed in the West are relevant when coaching leaders from non-Western cultures. Another view Roth, (2017) is that executive coaching works in the same way regardless of the leader’s culture and that coaches need to do nothing more than draw on the principles of effective coaching.
We believe that there is another way. By flexing and experimenting with approaches to coaching we believe coaches can create bridges to effectively coach leaders from very different cultures which are consonant with good coaching practice as defined by the ICF (2019). Our approach, which we call ‘Cultural Bridges,’ consists of adapting aspects of coaching such as how to build relationships, how to educate our coachees about coaching and how to engender enough trust for our coachees to be more courageous. Taken together this shift in approach can provide an entry point into an effective coaching space when working with leaders from East Asia.
This topic feels particularly important now with the increasingly globalisation of coaching via online platforms accelerated by the Pandemic. The ICF report states that there has been an increase of 81% in the use of these online coaching platforms in Asia since the beginning of the pandemic (ICF 2021). In addition, we think that the East Asia region represents a significant growth opportunity for the executive coaching industry. The Asia Pacific Alliance of Coaches Report (2019) supports this view, noting an increased demand for coaching in the region with an expectation that this will continue in the future.
We acknowledge that our own cultural lens influences our thinking. As Roth (2017) notes, the way in which coaches and researchers acquire notions of other cultures themselves also influences their findings. We were both born and brought up in the UK and have lived in Japan and learnt the language and culture as adults. We are aware that this led us to have certain expectations of what we would discover through our conversations with other coaches and have tried to hold these expectations lightly. We discovered things that surprised us and learnt a great deal. We continue to hold our views lightly as we invite input from you on our early findings.
Our aims and approach
Our aim is to explore the key differences experienced by coaches when working with leaders from East Asia, the possible causes for these differences, and practical tips to help coach leaders in East Asia with greater insight and confidence.
We have conducted this research as practitioners. We hope this article will be the beginnings of a tool kit of approaches that experienced coaches have found effective. In addition, we refer to and list the articles and books we consulted to ground our findings in evidence, and signpost you to where you can explore this topic further.
We decided to focus on coaching in East Asia – Japan, Korea, mainland China, Hong Kong and Taiwan – as these are countries where coaching is still a relatively new and growing industry. This is also the region in which we have the greatest knowledge and experience.
We interviewed five Asian and two Western coaches, all of whom are highly experienced and accredited, and working with leaders from both East Asia and the West. We wanted to get a breadth of perspective so the coaches we interviewed are a mix of Westerners, those brought up in the East Asian region and third culture adults. They coach in the language of the region, English or both. Many of their coachees work for global companies, either the company’s HQ or one of their overseas offices. The coachees used English as a working language at least part of the time, and were coached in their own language, English or a mixture of both. We have also drawn on our own experiences coaching in the region.
We have focused on cultural differences that are related to nationality whilst also recognising that there are multiple differences between countries within East Asia, and within nationality such as region and ethnicity. Other significant differences include organisational culture, age, gender, and personality. All play a part in the way in which leaders relate to their coach and the coaching process. We have highlighted common themes from the conversations we have had to date with the aim of creating insight which will be helpful to others working in the coaching profession.
Our hope is that this article stimulates a broader discussion among coaches, coachees and HR Directors working with leaders in East Asia as we work collaboratively to improve the way in which coaches make a positive difference.
Summary of findings
In this article we share what our coaches told us about cultural inhibitors, as well as the techniques and approaches they used to establish the conditions for success.
We uncovered six consistent cultural factors that can limit the effectiveness of coaching when working with leaders from East Asia:
Relationship building is even more important and may take longer.
Creating an equal partnership can be more challenging.
Coachees are more reluctant to experiment in the workplace.
Coachees are less willing to open up and express emotions, at least initially.
Established coaching techniques can be difficult for leaders to work with at first.
Giving and receiving direct feedback is less common.
One response to these cultural factors would be for coaches to adjust their goals for coaching, for example, to respond to the coachee’s positioning of them as a teacher by providing more mentoring, or to avoid discussing emotions or providing feedback for fear of being culturally insensitive. However, the coaches we spoke with did not do this. They tended to work with these cultural differences, openly discussing them, in order to find bridges to coaching in a deep and transformational way. These bridges enabled them to create a safe environment and strong working alliance – the foundations of executive coaching in any culture.
All the techniques we describe could of course be used with Western coachees, but these were felt to be particularly helpful given the cultural factors at play, and approaches to dial up or use more consciously.
Difference 1: Relationship building is even more important and may take longer.
All coaches identified relationship building as even more important than with Western leaders and most thought it took longer to build the coaching relationship. In high-context cultures, such as China, Japan and Korea, much is left unsaid. Meyer (2014) notes in these cultures shared reference points are assumed and much is implied. It is therefore necessary to read in between the lines. In contrast, in lower context cultures such as the US, UK and Germany messages are more explicit and taken more at face value. With coachees from high context countries the single most important skill mentioned by all was the ability to read the other person, to pick up both verbal and subtle non-verbal signals at every point of the relationship.
Our own experience is that it can be difficult to know how a question or intervention has landed because we are not reading these signals. And despite asking for feedback, we can finish a session not quite knowing what value the coachee got, only to receive a glowing email about our ‘inspirational coaching’ several days later. This lack of feedback from the coachee can be a barrier to quickly building a strong working alliance.
Some of our interviewees reported that the shift to online coaching sessions is making it difficult to build rapport quickly, in particular with Japanese coachees. Coaches working in Japan reported that some of their coachees insisted on having face-to-face sessions, even during the Pandemic, and many of their coachees said that they would have preferred to be able to meet face-to-face.
Bridges to effective coaching – using yourself fully
Coaches felt that there was a greater need to be deliberate about using techniques to build rapport quickly.
Our experience is that having the courage to use yourself fully in the coaching relationship is perhaps the most powerful way of building rapport quickly. Drawing attention to the nature of the relationship between coach and coachee, including what feelings and responses the coachee evokes in the coach, can quickly deepen the relationship. Sally Dellow, a British executive coach based in Hong Kong, talks about the importance of ‘courage’ and ‘edge’ when working with someone from a different culture. She told us, “It’s really helpful when there are two cultures in the room.”
Sally also stressed the importance of putting any awkwardness on the table. She shows her own vulnerability through exposing her lack of experience, for example, “I may need to repeat back to you what I’ve heard to check my understanding,” or “you are only the third Korean coachee I’ve worked with so I have a lot to learn from you”.
Jane Darvill-Evans recently told a Japanese leader, “I’m not sure how my questions are landing with you. It’s difficult for me to know what you’re thinking.” This opened up a rich stream of discussion on how the leader had received this feedback before from her Western stakeholders. The relationship between Jane and this leader immediately deepened, and the quality of conversations improved.
Several coaches talked about using their particular strengths to build relationships quickly. A few talked about using humour and playfulness to relax the other person. Akiko Mega Hamazaki, a bilingual Japanese executive coach, talked about using her background in performance and dance to introduce exercises involving movement into the coaching sessions to help her coachees loosen up. Sung-ho Kim, a Korean executive coach (not real name), talked about “goofing around” at times.
Thinking more broadly about ways to build the relationship beyond the confines of the coaching room (virtual or physical) and coaching topic also helps build the relationship more quickly. Showing interest in the life and experience of the coachee beyond the issue they brought to coaching and building common ground helped coachees to feel comfortable.
Coaches also talked about finding touch points with their coachees outside the coaching sessions, for example, sending check-in emails or recommending books or articles between sessions.
Coachees tended to be more open to Western coaches if they knew they understood the culture and had lived in the country. This was particularly true of China and Japan. A knowledge of the language, even if coaching was in English, was seen as desirable. Coachees felt more understood and trust built more quickly. Gabor Holch, a Hungarian executive coach working in China, said, “it doesn’t take longer to build the relationship if you are plugging into the archetypal relationships and understand how the society works. You can build trust and a strong working relationship fast”.
Gabor also gave a number of examples of how he changed his approach when coaching across different cultures, “In China I can build credibility with the senior leaders I coach by dropping names – who I know and who I have worked with rather than what certificate I have. In Japan this would be seen as arrogant. Here I make it clear what I understand about the culture. I show respect and make it clear I am there to help them. In China it is important be direct but respectful”.
Difference 2: Creating an equal partnership can be more challenging.
Creating an equal partnership is seen as one of the cornerstones of effective coaching. Whitmore (2017), one of the founders of modern coaching, highlights this point and the need for the coachee to take responsibility for their own learning. Working in partnership is also one of the ICF core competences (ICF 2019).
East Asian cultures are more hierarchical than in the West. Japan, Korea and China in decreasing order are much more hierarchical than Germany, UK and the US (Meyer 2014).
Therefore, a challenge to effective coaching is the common perception among coachees that the coach is superior to them – a teacher or mentor to learn from rather than an equal. Coachees frequently ask for advice and ideas. Mayumi Ito, a Japanese executive coach, told us that with some coachees the relationship never felt equal.
In these cultures age-based seniority is widespread. Coaches felt that in general the relative seniority and age of the coachees did make a difference. Where the coach and coachee were both senior it was easier to build an equal partnership. Many coachees feel uncomfortable with a coach who is younger or the same age. Several of our coaches noted that the ideal coach was someone who had held senior positions and was now retired as they no longer had vested interests and consequently were more neutral. This was more marked when working with leaders from local rather than global organisations. However, it was often still a factor, even with leaders who had significance exposure to the West.
All of the coaches we spoke with believed an unequal relationship limited their coachees’ ability to learn and to take responsibility for their own change.
Bridges to effective coaching – challenge requests for advice
The coaches described various techniques for creating a more equal relationship with their coachees and getting them to take more responsibility for their learning
Many of the coaches tried to educate their coachees on the role of the coach and the value of an equal partnership, either at the outset of the sessions, or throughout the relationship.
All coaches said that they resisted giving advice in general, and when they did, limited it, or asked permission from their coachees. Sabrina Park, a Korean executive coach, told us that she responds to request for advice by saying something like, “Why do you want your coach’s advice? If you have my advice what would be different?”
Many of the techniques for building rapport quickly apply here also. Sally uses humour and shows her own vulnerability when her coachees ask her for advice, “You’re asking me for advice on that? Me, who has no corporate experience at all?” Sung-ho talks about himself as Coach Kim rather than Managing Director Kim to encourage coachees to think of him as an equal.
Difference 3: Coachees are more reluctant to experiment in the workplace.
Several of the coaches we interviewed reported that the leaders they coached found it difficult to change their behaviour in the workplace. One reason is a greater reluctance to experiment in the workplace than for their Western coachees. Leaders often make commitments to try something new but fail to follow through. Our coaches agreed that this is a significant challenge and suggested the following reasons:
East Asian leaders tend to avoid losing face. Fear of failure, not being willing to be vulnerable and show their emotions, not wanting to be seen to be doing something weird all seem to be even greater tendencies than among Western leaders.
In addition, specifically in Japan, leaders don’t want to inconvenience people by disturbing established relationships with others or putting them in difficult positions. There is just too much at stake. Relations damaged are difficult to repair.
A third reason suggested was a tendency towards perfectionism. Education and often parents emphasise the importance of getting the right answer, achieving high standards and doing things the right way. There is desire to do something perfectly, or not at all.
Bridges to successful coaching – realistic goals and preparation
Sally conducts a lot of role plays with her leaders to prepare them to take action in the workplace to help build their confidence. She believes it is important to help them understand how they will do something to help build their confidence. She also works with her leaders on how to signpost to their colleagues that they are going to try to do something different, and that they may not get it right. This is a way of helping them build their own psychological safety and build a broader developmental culture.
Accepting that the rate of progress may not be as rapid as with Western clients and working at the pace of the coachee was important. Sabrina talked about helping to set small realistic expectations for her coachees. If they set an ambitious target, she challenges them on how realistic this is: “Start with 1,000 steps/day not 10,000.” Even if the coachee has taken only one action in their plan she believes this is great progress: “I really value this one try.” She asks them, “what did you learn from this action plan?” She focuses on “learning and growth”, rather than checking whether coachees take action or not.
Jane spends a lot of time working with leaders on growth mindset and building their awareness of the value of experimentation and failure. She has found that recommending books and articles on the topic has really helped since this is often a significant change in thinking. One Japanese leader had such as significant shift in mindset that she became determined that her own daughter would develop a growth mindset and started doing exercises with her to develop this.
Gabor noted that when Chinese coachees saw that their behaviour was clearly leading them in the wrong direction they were motivated to change. He gave an example of a Chinese senior executive who could not understand why he received a very negative reaction from a German automobile maker after telling him that his technology was outdated, and the company was too slow. Gabor asked the executive to fast-forward 18 months and imagine he met an Indian client who said the same to him and asked how he would feel. The executive immediately replied, “incensed”. By putting the coachee in the shoes of the German he understood the need to change and was motivated to do so.
Finally, line managers and HR leaders can play a significant role in how confident leaders feel to experiment. Encouragement from a line manager to experiment and having this set as a clear expectation of the coaching contract can help. Coachees who worked in organisations which supported and were engaged in the coaching process were more willing to experiment.
Difference 4: Coachees are less willing to open up and express emotions, at least initially.
East Asian coachees were less willing to open up and express their emotions. Coaches felt this was because in the workplace and culture generally it is not as common to talk about emotions. Mayumi (not real name) told us that coachees sometimes find it difficult to answer the question, “how do you feel about that?”
However, when our coaches were able to build a trust-based relationship with their coachees, the coaching process appeared to provide a safe space for coachees to open up fully and in a genuine way. Mayumi commented that this openness seemed to “come from the heart.” She contrasted this with her experience of coaching Americans who often appeared to be open while holding a lot back. One Japanese leader coached by Jane revealed that she had never before discussed how she felt about her direct report.
Bridges to successful coaching – educate and work on mindset
Hiro Takeda, a Japanese leadership coach, believes that Japanese leaders tend to focus more on their weaknesses than strengths as a result of the extrinsic messages they received from their parents while growing up. He works with them to increase their positive mindset and motivation, and this, in turn helps them build the confidence to open up and discuss their emotions.
Mayumi found she needed to help her coachee find the right words to describe their emotions, asking specific questions such as “were you happy?” “were you motivated?”
Many talked about the different pace of coaching in these cultures. Mayumi described more of a “ping pong” approach to dialogue when working with Western clients whereas in Japanese she was quieter and left more pauses. She felt that Japanese leaders were not used to speaking about themselves and needed more time and space for uninterrupted thinking before they could find the right words.
Many felt that it was powerful to ask questions about emotions since these were not typically asked within the coachee’s culture and gave the coachee the opportunity to understand aspects of themselves that they had not thought of before. None of the coaches suggested avoiding questions about emotions.
There are of course links between the different areas we’ve described. Dialling up the relationship building aspects and forming an equal relationship encourages coaches to feel safe to open up.
Difference 5: Established coaching techniques can be difficult for leaders to work with at first.
Coaches explained that many coachees were not familiar with coaching and were not sure what to expect or what is allowed, asking “Am I allowed to say this?” “am I saying the right thing?” “is this the right answer?”. Others feared they had been sent to coaching because they had done something wrong. Helping coachees to understand what coaching can and cannot offer and what their responsibility is made a huge difference to how they settled into the coaching process and the benefit they derived from it.
East Asian coachees can find it more difficult to answer big open-ended questions such as, “what kind of leader do you want to be?”. Coaches attributed this to the education system which emphasises facts and correct answers. Those coachees who had exposure to a Western education such as an MBA in the US or were part of a multinational company found it easier to adapt to the process of being coached.
Another reason is the relative lack of maturity of the coaching profession. There was a lot of variation across the region in how well coaching was established. In Korea and China, the industry has grown rapidly in recent years. In Japan it is less established as a profession, it may even be perceived more as a professional service in which it is the coaches responsibility to improve the client.
Bridges to effective coaching – clarity and contracting
Mayumi described how she provided prompts to her coachees when asking big open questions if they found it difficult to respond, “for example, do you want to be the kind of leader who inspires their staff?”.
Coaches felt that it was always helpful for HR to communicate with coachees before the programme starts so that they have a better understanding of what coaching is, why they have been selected and how to prepare. It can also give the coach greater credibility.
Checking on your coachee’s experience and expectations of coaching at the very beginning of the coaching is particularly important. If required, allowing more time and space for contracting can be helpful, for example, explaining the difference between coaching, mentoring and counselling, that there is no one right answer, that you are not the expert or adviser and that they have responsibility for their own change. Lesley Hayman found that sending leaders new to coaching a list of possible coaching topics helped the leader set her own goals. Sally noted that the contracting process tends to take longer. It may not all happen at the beginning of the relationship but can be woven in as appropriate. She is frequently asked, “Are you a shrink?” and positions coaching as “from now to next.”
Difference 6: Giving and receiving direct feedback is less common.
In many Asian cultures direct, negative feedback can, particularly in front of others, result in loss of face. Meyer (2014) notes than in Japan, Korea and China indirect feedback is prevalent. Even within these countries there is variation with the Japanese being the most indirect and Chinese less so. Given this we expected to find that our direct feedback would not be welcome in coaching.
However, with a strong working relationship in place feedback appeared to be a powerful way of building awareness and encouraging change. As with other differences we’ve mentioned, if a bridge can be built with a leader, feedback can be even more valuable since they are generally not getting much feedback.
Sabrina found her coachees very open to feedback and curious, even though they were not getting direct feedback in the workplace. She felt that a feedback culture was growing in Korea. Sally has found always asking permission to give feedback creates willingness and openness.
Building bridges to effective coaching – relevance and courage
Linking the feedback to the topic the leader is working on can be extremely powerful. Many leaders from East Asia work on the quality of their relationships with their Western stakeholders in coaching. For a Western coach to give feedback on how easy they are finding it to build a relationship with the leader can be very powerful. Once again, using the fact that there are two cultures in the room.
Making sure that the coachee is prepared to receive feedback through conversations with HR, spending more time on the contracting process and asking permission in the moment can all help.
Having the courage to give direct feedback is important since this might be the only opportunity the coachee has to receive it. Being prepared to give feedback on the quality of the coaching session can also be powerful. Sabrina sometimes says, “I’m not satisfied with how that session has gone”.
Many coaches commented that giving direct feedback was the most helpful aspect of coaching to the leaders they worked with.
Continuing to build our effectiveness
We are excited about the conversations we have had so far, as well as the emerging toolkit that is developing on coaching East Asian leaders.
In this article, we have focused on the key differences experienced by coaches when coaching leaders from East Asia since we believe that many of the challenges are consistent, regardless of whether the coaches are from East Asia themselves, Westerners or bicultural. We have only touched lightly on the cross-cultural elements of coaching here and there is much more to be discovered about the power of having two cultures in the room.
This is an area for further exploration for us. Based on our own experience and the experience of the Western coaches we interviewed for this article, the following are our hypotheses, to be further tested.
Knowledge of the culture you are coaching in can be very helpful. Even more useful is to understand the broad dimensions of cultural difference. Trompenaars (2012), Hofstede (2003), Rosinski (2003), Meyer (2014) have developed models to aid understanding of cultural difference based on a small number of different cultural dimensions that individuals from all national cultures display to different degrees. For example, in East Asia status tends to be based on what you are ascribed by birth, status, kinship, gender or age, which explains why these cultures tend to be more hierarchical and respectful.
While this knowledge can clarify why the coaching dynamic may be a certain way, and being prepared for the challenges described above, Western coaches agreed that it is most important to approach every coachee without preconception. Sally summed it up by saying: “there is more that unites us than divides us… I coach human beings”. There will always be individuals who do not display the common traits of their culture. We find it helpful to hold a balance between using our experience and insight into a particular culture, while suspending judgement and remaining open to whatever unfolds in the coaching relationship.
The coaching experience for East Asian leaders is often vastly different to their experience in their professional and family lives where personal expression, feedback and time for reflection can be limited. To us this means that relative to Western leaders the potential for an East Asian leader to have a transformative experience through coaching is even greater than for Western leaders, provided they have a safe space to open up fully.
Our hope is that through continuing to experiment with new approaches and challenging each other to coach courageously, coaches will be able to reach this transformational space more often.
Connect with coauthors Lesley Hayman on LinkedIn and Jane Darvill-Evans on LinkedIn
Lesley and Jane specialise in intercultural coaching for global organisations. Their experience of living and working in Japan has led them into the field of coaching leaders in both East Asia and the West and they are currently collaborating on a number of projects, most recently a global coaching programme for Astellas, a Japanese pharmaceutical organisation.
Lesley’s international career has taken her to 33 countries, including 9 years in Japan where she worked for the British Council and learnt to speak Japanese. Other highlights include her role as Regional Director for Sub-Saharan Africa for the British Council and leading the global partnerships team for UCL. Lesley holds an MBA from London Business School and a Professional Certificate in Coaching (PCIC) from Henley Business School. She also specialises in systemic coaching and constellations work.
Jane has worked globally throughout her career and spent 7 years in Japan, where she fell in love with the culture and also learnt Japanese. She has worked for McKinsey & Company and Accenture and held senior leadership roles at BP, where she worked in global teams. In 2020 she founded Sakura Leadership, a coaching consultancy that specialises in helping leaders work effectively across East Asia, the US and Europe. She holds an MBA from Cranfield School of Management, an MSc in Coaching from Ashridge, and is about to embark on a PhD in coaching at Oxford Brookes.
Further Reading
Asia Pacific Alliance of Coaching, (2019). Fifth Coaching Survey, An Asia Coaching benchmark The Integrated Report, http://www.apacoaches.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Edition-1.2_FINAL_Integrated-5th-Coaching-_Survey_2019-.pdf downloaded 17 August 2021.
Brocard, B. (2020). Do Emotions feel the same in all cultures? https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/the-superhuman-mind/202001/do-emotions-feel-the-same-across-different-cultures Downloaded 17 August 2021.
Carter-Scott, C.(2018). The way Thais Lead in Coaching and Mentoring in the Asia Pacific , in Coaching and Mentoring in the Asia Pacific, Edited by Anna Blackman, Derrick Kon and David Clutterbuck. London: Routledge.
Curnow, K. (2006). Differences and Discourses, Coaching Across Cultures, The International Journal of Coaching in Organisations, 2006 4(4), p 30 – 39, Professional Coaching Publications.
Hardingham, A. (2006). The British model of coaching, towards professionalism without dogma, International Journal of Mentoring and Coaching, IV(1). N.b. Available from https://www.emccouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/25-1.pdf Downloaded 17 July 2021.
Hofstede, G. (2003). Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and Organisations across Nations. London: Nicholas Sage Publications.
International Coaching Federation, (2019). Core Coaching Competences https://coachingfederation.org/core-competencies downloaded 17 August 2021.
International Coaching Federation, (2020). International Global Coaching Study (2020) Executive Study, https://coachingfederation.org/research/global-coaching-study downloaded 30 July 2021.
International Coaching Federation, (2021). COVID 19 and the Coaching Industry: 2021 ICF Global Snapshot Survey Results. https://coachingfederation.org/app/uploads/2021/05/2021ICF_COVIDStudy_Part2_FINAL.pdf?inf_contact_key=4bef7cba39cf4386ced252a3c39157cb4dfbc39d7283b2cb89d5189540b69330 Downloaded 17 Aug 2021.
Lines, D. and Evans, C. (July 2020). The Global Business of Coaching: A Meta-Analytic Perspective. New York: Routledge.
Morgan,A. (2021). Intercultural Coaching and Tools, Association for Coaching Webinar, 10 Feb 2021, https://www.associationforcoaching.com/general/custom.asp?page=interculturalcoaching. downloaded 17 Aug 2021.
Meyer, E. (2014). The Culture Map: Decoding How People Think, Lead and Get Things Done Across Cultures., New York: Public Affairs.
Plaister-Ten, J. (2018). The Cross-Cultural Kaleidoscope Model: a systems approach to coaching in the Asia Pacific Region, in Coaching and Mentoring in the Asia Pacific, Edited by Anna Blackman, Derrick Kon and David Clutterbuck. London: Routledge.
Rosinski, P. (2003). Coaching across Cultures: New Tools for Leveraging National, Corporate and Professional Differences. London: Nicholas Brearley Publishing,
Roth, A. (2017). Coaching a client with a different cultural background – does it matter?
International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring, Special Edition, No. 11, p 30 – 43.
Trompenaars F.and Hampden-Turner C. (2012). Riding the waves of culture, Understanding Diversity in Global Busines. London: Nicholas Brearley Publishing,
Van Nieuwerburgh C. (2017). An Introduction to Coaching Skills, A Practical Guide. London: Sage.
Whitmore, J. (2017). Coaching for Performance: The Principles and Practice of Coaching and Leadership. London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing,
