Fasten your seatbelts … The ‘Corona-Coaster’ continues: how do we hold the space for clients, with sensitivity to context, including cultural differences? Jenny Plaister-Ten reports
Despite the tremendous effort with vaccine rollout in certain countries, we continue to operate in very tenuous conditions. As the world reels from bereavements, multiple lockdowns, not to mention social unrest and economic hardship for many, we now face the risk of more waves, new strains, repeated lockdowns, heated debates about vaccines, travel restrictions and ‘vaccine wars’.
As coaches and supervisors, how do we hold the space for our clients in these circumstances? Some might say disruptive times calls for disruptive measures, others that it’s all about being resilient as leaders, still others might suggest that our clients need support and care in these times.
Actually, we’re likely to be called upon to do all of these at any given moment, and more. So how can we as coaches and supervisors ‘dance’ in the moment to serve our clients, when we ourselves may also be suffering the effects of this pandemic?
A key thing I’ve learnt since I became a coach/supervisor and critically when being a part of – or leading – a team, is that you never really know who you have in front of you. People are a rich tapestry of histories, thoughts, feelings, perceptions, beliefs and aspirations.
Most critically, these combine to influence how we show up ‘in the moment’. Indeed, the moment is influenced by the context. This was made evident to me by a simple question that I was asked about my own well-being during the first lockdown – what was my level of inner peace or disruption on a scale of 1 to 5 – 1 being Zen-like peacefulness and 5 being utter inner chaos.
Initially, I thought I was a 3. I’m fortunate to live in a nice house with outdoor space; we live well. Sometimes I could reach a 2, feeling blessed to live close to nature and to be able to eat well and share lockdown with loved ones. At other times, I felt I was at a 4 – particularly when arguments with loved ones meant we weren’t speaking or even eating together! Such was the nature of my own personal journey during the roller-coaster of life during lockdown (referred to jocularly by many as the Corona-Coaster). However, I’m only one of around 7.7 billion people. Each person’s unique individual circumstances and level of resilience has a bearing on their response to this question.
Coaching and supervision took a turn in 2020/21: many of us might be working with depths of trauma we may not realise the extent of. Wellbeing and resilience coaching have seen an upsurge. Yet other coaching engagements seem to have bypassed the Coved narrative completely, with the only repercussion being the need to work remotely and grapple with new technology such as Zoom. At a surface level, we may have little insight into the context that our coaches work among. Those of us who’ve done work in the NHS in 2020 for example, know that the context there is ‘tricky’, to say the very least.
Familiarising ourselves with organisation/team cultures, national cultures, stakeholders, family background … as well as hopes and dreams, can help to position the coaching in a grounded reality.
However, to take a gloomy perspective, the effects of this pandemic could be long-lasting. The World Bank has indicated we’re approaching a lost decade, with many people facing unemployment, not to mention mental health issues. Yet, at the same time, many companies are reporting skills gaps and cannot find the right people for jobs. Remember, the entire time that the world has been paused, digitalisation continues apace. These forces all combine to cause uncertainty.
Research
A survey conducted by my consultancy, 10 Consulting Ltd, just over a year ago, during March and April 2020 covering some 20 countries, illuminated the uncertainty inherent within the global pandemic. It highlighted that people’s ability to cope with that uncertainty can in part be determined by national culture.
The survey posed questions about sources of comfort, sources of stress, reactions to the behaviour of fellow citizens, observance of cultural norms and government response in the respondent’s country-of-origin or country-of-residence.
Trust in government emerged as a leading theme in the survey. Rules in society are passed as laws by governments and upheld by law enforcers. Rules serve to influence or limit the choices and opportunities available to citizens. On the other hand, ‘agency’ is the capacity of individuals to act independently and to make their own free choices or not (Giddens, 1984). A key finding is that the impact of culture is manifested in different reactions to rules and the subsequent behaviour this evokes.
Another leading theme was that the virus was exacerbating whatever conditions already existed. We’ve seen a disparity between the ‘haves and have-nots’ to the extent that lockdown to some was considered a luxury – a time to reflect, to slow down, to work in the garden or learn a new skill. For others, lockdown has been hellish, with loss of jobs and income, not being able to feed the family, and living in cramped conditions with a correspondingly higher risk of infection.
Concern for self or other
Cultural norms have something to teach us. One way of exploring differences, proposed by Hofstede (2001), is a country’s place on dimensions. One such dimension is individualism at one extreme and collectivism at the other. Countries that are culturally more collective in orientation, more naturally form obligations and dependencies to groups in society. The groups include family, team, company, society and nation, even social community.
Living conditions play a role, and these can also be culturally bound. In collectivist societies it is not uncommon for multiple generations to live together. Many Asian countries often have three generations under the same roof in cramped conditions. The virus can be more easily transmitted under these circumstances. Migrant workers living in dormitories or factories, as reported in Singapore, were found to be fertile breeding grounds for virus transmission and serve as a pointer to the impact of neglecting marginalised communities.
So even in collectivist societies, people aren’t considered equal and the formation of groups causes ‘in-groups’ (people who are part of the majority, the powerful or popular) and ‘out-groups’ (people who are marginalised, part of a minority or simply disliked).
The opposite to collectivism is individualism. Individualism indicates that there’s a greater importance placed on attaining personal goals and individual freedoms. Lockdown in the highly individualist Netherlands was termed ‘intelligent lockdown’. The state in the Netherlands gave clear guidelines for its citizens to follow, however, it was nowhere near as prescriptive as its southern neighbours.
Prime Minister Mark Rutte described the Netherlands as a “grown-up country”. “What I hear around me, is that people are glad that they are treated as adults, not as children,” he said. The autonomy of individuals in the Netherlands means that ‘equivalence’ is an important cultural value. People are considered to be more or less equal and everyone is entitled to a voice.
In individualistic cultures there are different rules for personal space; an Englishman’s home is his castle, is an old adage that refers to a country with a history of invasion. This possibly explains why some English people can be quite isolated and don’t always feel the need to talk to neighbours or think about other people before themselves.
However, many reported a change in this behaviour during lockdown. For example, people in Northern Italy, a relatively individualistic culture, were seen to be singing from balconies early in lockdown and a respondent to the survey characterised this as ‘bringing joy to others’. Furthermore, the Italian Ministry of Health asked for medical professionals throughout Italy to volunteer in Covid units and put their lives at risks to help others. They were inundated with volunteers.
The US, a highly individualist country, was one of the first to experience protests claiming an infringement on individual rights. This is the freedom of each individual to pursue the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness without interference from other individuals, as stated in the United States Declaration of Independence (1776). These protests led to an increase in police presence and as we saw later, aggression. Increasing federalism in the US meant that each state was responsible for its own response to the Covid-19 threat; a centralised approach could have resulted in cohesive action. Cases in the US have been among the highest worldwide.
Trust in government
Another aspect of culture, according to Hofstede, is power distance. In hierarchical societies power resides at the top, and people expect to be told what to do, whereas egalitarian societies tend to see a wider distribution of power. Most, but not all, hierarchical societies are also collective and most egalitarian countries tend to be individualistic. These tendencies typically develop citizens who think/do for themselves or citizens who think/do as others expect.
In hierarchical Singapore, the cost of non-conformance to Covid-19 rules was high. Rule-breakers could be fined as much as $10,000 SGD and could even face a prison sentence. As one of the respondents said, they’re happy to follow the rules and grateful that the government is helping to make them feel safe. This may be reinforced by efforts designed to control the population, such as ‘My Singapore’, a campaign designed to instil a source of national pride and support for all things local. Playing down the impact of the virus can also be seen to be a protective measure, rather than a lack of transparency, as it would be perceived in egalitarian societies.
In the UK, we saw examples of both allegiances to self and other. The government pulled on the nation’s collective heartstrings by appealing to the need to care about others, particularly frontline workers. This was an attempt to control the drain on the UK’s much-loved National Health Service, a public institution. People followed the rules when they were eventually put in place, although by this time, the government had lost the trust of some of its citizens. This has been further exacerbated by confusing and unclear instructions.
Germany, despite low hierarchy, places a high value on structure, planning and discipline. Consequently, there’s more of a tendency to listen to experts and follow advice. Here, rules reduce uncertainty. Indeed, across the world, governments have been at varying levels of preparedness versus improvisation. Governments that took decisive action and communicated the rules have fared better so far (New Zealand, South Korea and Mongolia).
Anxiety-provoking
The survey revealed many sources of anxiety as well as comfort. Unfortunately, the list of anxieties was longer than the list of comforts. Some sources were on both lists, such as family and food. This reinforced the ‘up and down’ nature of the ‘Corona-Coaster’; where family support could be a positive factor in one instance and a stress and anxiety-inducing factor in another. Key stressors were the media, politicians, non-compliance to rules, failing relationships and lack of protective equipment. Comforts included slowing down, learning, zoom calls, exercise and cooking. Some, though, reported feeling ‘zoomed out’ due to an excessive amount of computer time. Lack of face-face contact was said to contribute to feelings of burn-out.
Some societies are more naturally prone to anxiety than others. France, for example has a high score on another of Hofstede’s dimensions: Uncertainty Avoidance. This can mean a high need for structure and planning in French society that can lead to a ‘need to know’. Yet, France is unusual in that it’s a highly hierarchical yet individualistic society. Ordinarily, French people can demonstrate a reluctance to respect rules. However, France has recently (April 2021) gone into its third lockdown, after curfews and other measures designed to avoid a complete lockdown have largely failed.
Deeper divisions
Covid-19 has brought out the best and the worst in human beings. In the research, blatant flouting of the rules was cited – from large groups banding together in protest to illegal parties. Clearly this puts people at increased risk of catching the virus and only serves to increase anxiety in society.
Anxiety embedded within a group, community or country can lead to some deep social problems. The Black Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) community are among the hardest-hit by the Coronavirus, which has led to questions around why that should be, and about the availability of safety nets for vulnerable people. Suggested reasons include existing health inequalities, housing conditions, public-facing occupations and structural racism. Lockdown has seen increased police presence and aggression along with the tragic murder of George Lloyd and a resurgence of the Black Lives Matter movement.
A wide variety of cultural norms influence a citizen’s response to government intervention, to following the rules and to levels of anxiety in society-at-large. They also contribute to the levels of competition in society and an allegiance to self or other. Trust in government appears to be key during this pandemic. The more benevolent or caring governments appear to have fared better – such as New Zealand, Canada and some Scandinavian countries. But some governments don’t always anticipate the actions of their people well. The larger the population and the more heterogeneous, the more difficult this becomes.
The ‘new normal’
Many of us have been contemplating what kind of society we’ll be left with and how this will affect the coaching profession. Is the pandemic a disruptive force for a better or worse future? If there is a ‘new normal’ what will it be? Or will we simply revert back to life as before?
On the whole, communities appeared to pull together and exhibit the level of caring that in recent years has been missing from many of our lives. A focus on communities and support for all things ‘local’ could mark a shift away from globalisation. Despite this, communities have witnessed some examples of poor civic behaviours, especially around social distancing, the wearing of masks and the perceived curtailment of individual freedoms.
Entrenched inequalities can cause huge social unrest and the current crisis appears to have shone a spotlight on several of these, magnifying to a great extent what was already there. Poor living and working conditions, poverty, overcrowding and marginalised groups have put some people at risk of the virus, while others live and work comfortably. Undeniably, the pandemic is a global health threat, so it seems necessary that governments, people and societies work together to solve this.
Coaching and supervision can provide the support, challenge and reflection needed to help to overcome some of the challenges.
Gender inequalities have also been illuminated, with women reporting that they’ve had to do their own work, plus the housework and childcare, thus potentially eroding many years of progress in equality. Not only that, we appear to have taken a step backward with approaches to the elderly. A healthy 65 or 70-year-old can be stigmatised for being old and has been ‘lumped’ into the same category as an 80 or 90-year-old with different needs that should result in different government policies.
Digitalisation has, on the other hand, seen massive progress. Many people have learned new digital skills. Learning and collaborative platforms have been built. Additionally, many societies have experimented with working from home (WFH). However, loneliness and isolation caused by WFH was said to have increased, particularly from those identifying as extrovert in nature.
If the future is digital, how do we make sure that large segments of society are not left behind? Adapt, learn new skills or become obsolete, is a harsh message, but flexibility, creativity and agility have already become core skills required to adapt, not only to the virus, but a whole new future of work.
Calls for collaboration as a way forward
This is, in many ways, an existential crisis. It’s the first time that many of us have contemplated our mortality. It’s uncomfortable. People look towards their governments to relieve the burdens that have increased as a result of the pandemic, such as social care, mental health, old age provision, unemployment and to provide support to sectors of the economy at risk.
Leaders have found they need to be far more paternalistic, supportive and compassionate than ever before amid the pressures of workloads and the additional anxiety of illness and possible loss of life through Covid.
This pandemic has presented us with some regressive steps in society and an illumination of deeply entrenched inequalities. But, to end on an optimistic note, of huge significance is that the survey has illuminated the desire of ordinary people for governments to work together on global issues, to help each other and to learn from each other. In this respect, the pandemic crisis has the potential to be a good leveller.
As attention turns to the race to produce sufficient vaccines for the entire world population, it would seem that collaboration would make far more sense than competing, inappropriate or isolating policies.
In conclusion, we have an opportunity to position our profession as a trusted partner in a learning journey, even though we appear to be in an existential crisis.
- Jenny Plaister-Ten (www.10Consulting.co.uk) is an executive coach and supervisor with a speciality in the intercultural field. She is the author of The Cross-Cultural Kaleidoscope (Karnac/Routledge, 2016).
- She may be reached at: Jenny.Plaister@10Consulting.co.uk
Things to contemplate together with our clients
- What is the context your clients are living and working amongst?
- How is their mindset affected by what has gone on in 2020 – and continuing further into 2021?
- Is that mindset serving them or not serving them?
- What new skills/relationships are required in order to thrive in the future?
- Do they need/are they able to seek out a new context?
- What will their ‘new normal’ look like?
References
- A Giddens, The Constitution of Society, Polity Press, Cambridge, UK, 1984
- G Hofstede, Cultures Consequences, Comparing Values, Behaviours, Institutions and Organisations Across Nations, Sage, London, 2001
- United Nations, accessed 28/10/20 https://www.un.org/en/sections/issues-depth/population/
- World Health Organization, accessed 10/11/20 https://covid19.who.int