For example, within developmental relationships there were widely varying perceptions among different nationalities of what the term “non-directive” meant. Other differences included how much designed chaos was appropriate in a learning dialogue and variations in the extent and nature of record keeping.
Some of this was attributable partly to different philosophies of coaching and mentoring, but much was to do with cultures’ differing requirements for clarity of process structure, for social order and for collective or individual responsibility. So what should a multinational organisation do to ensure that its coaching and mentoring programmes work, taking into account cultural differences?
The most effective international coaching and mentoring programmes are international from an early stage. Three strategies predominate. In one, taken for example by BP with its global upward (or mutual) mentoring programme, a pilot within one country provides experience with the basic concepts and programme management. International contributions then reshape the programme to .t the diversity of needs in different countries.
It’s important in this model to recognise that it isn’t just cultural issues that need to be taken into account. For a large international charity, such as Oxfam, for example, the structure of head office, the field in the UK and the field overseas are all very different and may need different solutions – not least in managing the complexities of 42 | 43communication. A variation on this strategy is to “light a thousand fires” – provide sufficient support and encouragement for people in the organisation to experiment and then gradually select and disseminate what works best.
The second strategy is to choose an international group, for example, the most senior key account managers (as manufacturing giant IMI has done) or people about to take their first management post overseas. Involving potential participants in the design and review of the pilot provides valuable information for developing larger programmes. Relying on HR’s perceptions of what the programme should look like and how the culture works is not advisable; equally, it’s important to make sure that the employees selected for involvement broadly represent the target audiences (both learners and helpers).
One of the outcomes of these initial discussions is a greater sense of collective clarity about what coaching and mentoring involve and the degree of flexibility the programme can accommodate in national interpretations. Is the goal to introduce sponsorship mentoring or developmental mentoring; traditional (feedback-rich) coaching or developmental coaching; or to encourage all of these according to circumstance? Establishing a common language, definitions and understanding of role boundaries help to avoid subsequent confusion and conflict about coaching v’s mentoring.
In general, the clearer the core principles, the greater the level of flexibility and local adaptation that can be supported. For example, the International Standards for Mentoring Programmes in Employment can provide a useful foundation on which programme management and training materials can be localised. These standards were created by a panel of experts in Europe, North America, South Africa and Australasia and holders of the gold award in the UK are the Audit Commission and the Employers’ Organisation for local government. Similar standards are being planned for coaching programmes.
In terms of cost-effectiveness, it makes sense to establish regional or national training resources, rather than rely on importing people from the centre or a specialist training organisation. It’s important to use these resources regularly – skimping on trainer training has been a major cause of programme atrophy – and some organisations provide certified “train the trainer” and “train the programme co-ordinator” courses, which should be the minimum requirement.
There is also a greater tendency in international programmes to rely on sheep-dip training – one-off events that launch participants into their roles. All the evidence from successful programmes suggests that continued support and at least two reviews of practice over the first year are essential for coaches and mentors – and helpful for coachees and mentees too.
Trainer training should provide the skills to manage this follow-up requirement. Where practical, a core of enthusiastic programme supporters (people who will coach their peer coaches, for example) should be encouraged to take a further qualification – such as to at least practitioner level 1 under the EMCC’s kitemark.
The role of the centre in an international programme needs to be one of co-ordination, support and monitoring of quality standards. Too much centralisation stites local initiative. Part of the support structure may be an international programme management system, where there are likely to be large numbers of participants. At least two or three systems are commercially available.
While much coaching will take place directly within the line or in the work team, offline coaching and mentoring provide much wider options for pairing. Companies such as airline SAS deliberately seek to maximise the amount of difference in learning “pairings” or dyads, on the grounds that both parties have more to gain from working with someone who has different perspectives. On the other hand, the World Bank achieved rapid growth in mentoring pairs by encouraging cultural groups – for example, people from sub-Saharan Africa – to establish their own programmes, because they felt the need for group solidarity. When pairings involve people in different countries or even continents, it’s important to take account of these varying needs and to be highly flexible in the matching process.
Where participants are scattered around the globe, it’s important to measure at two levels: locally, to check that relationships are working and to provide support; and globally, to provide programme benchmarks. For the latter, take care to design questionnaires so they mean the same thing in each culture. Take the term “being challenged”: in UK English, it means “having difficulties with”, but in US English, it means “being inspired by”. Similarly, “putting an issue on the table” means “dealing with it” in UK English and “parking it or putting it aside” in US English.
Some generic online questionnaires allow you to benchmark against other organisations, which can be helpful in targeting programme improvements. If the network of trainers and programme co-ordinators is able to pass on good ideas and experiences, the quality of initiatives in each country will improve and there will be more chance of sustaining the impetus. At the minimum this can be done through an e-forum, but it’s preferable to build into the HR calendar at least one physical “share and learn” opportunity for co-ordinators as well.
The most common approach is still for organisations to see their mentoring and coaching programmes as separate activities, often the responsibility of different departments. If programmes are to have the support of senior management champions in each region, there has to be a strong business case, which links both coaching and mentoring to business priorities, to other people systems (such as appraisal, competencies and succession planning) and to broader culture change programmes. It’s also useful to link programmes to each other – for example, by requiring coachees or mentees in a high-flyers’ programme to be a coach or mentor to someone else at the same time. If their coachee/mentee role is local and face-to-face, then they may have much to learn from a coach/mentor role.
Implementing international programmes of coaching or mentoring requires a lot of preparation and clarity about what the organisation wants to gain from it. It takes time and organisation both to launch and to sustain the programme. But the effort pays off. Organisations can expect to reap rewards such as faster adoption of culture change, more diverse talent pipelines, and higher employee retention.
David Clutterbuck is senior partner of Clutterbuck Associates, and visiting professor at the mentoring and coaching units of Sheffield.