Jenny Plaister-Ten shares how her popular Cross-Cultural Kaleidoscope“ has evolved

Kaleidoscope 1.0

I originally developed the Cross-Cultural Kaleidoscope© as part of my Masters dissertation in 2008.

At that time, I had no idea that it would become accepted by coaches, supervisors, universities, teams and multinationals as a tool of choice when working interculturally, or that it would be used as far and wide as Africa and the Middle/Far East. This article tracks the tool’s origin and evolution.

The power of the model was identified as its ability to drill down quickly and deeply to cultural, group and personal identity. This is achievable with no need to mention a person’s race, cultural affiliation or nationality. Instead it focuses on the meanings that a person/people attribute to membership of certain groups, or following key life experiences or traumas.

The current trend toward inclusion suggests that all people are the same and equal. Yet, assuming that we’re all the same can cause unintentional offence. Sue and Sue (2008, p.45) concur: “It is ironic that equal treatment (in therapy) may be discriminatory treatment.”

Aiming to treat everybody the same may come from a place of good intention, but it can cause tensions in organisations that want diversity of thought because it creates homogenised, inflexible policies from a majority assumption. You wouldn’t, for example, want to be treated in the same way as a prisoner would you?

My philosophy is that everyone is not the same and clearly, some people are more equal than others, depending on factors such as individual status, wealth and power, as well as relative position in family, workplace or society. Tajfel and Turner (2004), suggest ‘in-groups’ and ‘out-groups’, where people naturally select ‘in’ and ‘out’ based on similarities and differences.

These groups may change their shape, form and membership as new ways of differentiating are created. Hence the cultures shift. Young people, as an example of a sub-culture, create new trends or ‘in-groups’ through language, dress and technology-adoption, for example.

The political correctness imperative may be a barrier to raising deeply held aspects of awareness in the coaching relationship. People don’t want to be seen as discriminatory or biased or be guilty of exclusion. This means that important considerations can get swept under the carpet or even ignored completely.

Treating everyone as worthy, however, is a nuanced point of difference. It can have a big impact on how a person treats another and it communicates respect for a fellow human being. This aligns with a humanistic perspective and the doctrine of “unconditional positive regard” (Rogers, 1967).

 

Why a Kaleidoscope?

The image of a Kaleidoscope arose from research that spanned all the continents in the world, represented 20,000 coaching hours and almost

Figure 1: Cross-Cultural Kaleidoscope® © 10 Consulting Ltd

 

50 nationalities. One of the key findings was that a universal approach to coaching and mentoring is inappropriate considering the diversity of experiences, allegiances, beliefs and values globally.

The Kaleidoscope was found to raise awareness of the impact of culture in the coaching relationship – both for the coach/supervisor and the coachee/supervisee. It was also found to enable culturally appropriate responsibility, allowing the person to identify what made most sense given current context. Since it works at the level of values and beliefs, it works at depths not previously available to those who feared they would offend or fail to adhere to a diversity and inclusion policy (see Figure 1).

 

A systems approach

Oshry (1996, p.125) states “our subjective experiences are not simply personal phenomena, they are systemic phenomena, they are clues to our condition within the system. The ability to see systems that we are a part of may be the next level of human evolution. Throughout our history, the absence of such ‘seeing’ has resulted in endless cycles of misunderstanding.”

From a coaching/supervision perspective, this means we’re looking for patterns and the relationships between parts of ourselves and stakeholders to understand why systems behave as they do. A person can change when they’ve increased awareness of who they are, rather than trying to be what they’re not. Second order change will come from the ripple effect, influencing on a bigger scale. For example, team coaches who make small changes following supervision, can effect changes in the members of the teams they are coaching.

The Kaleidoscope first examines the key external or macro influences as represented by the external lenses in the model. It explores the relationship between the pertinent life experiences selected and examines how these have contributed to a person/team’s sense of ‘self’, taking into account cultural identity. Thus, a person with a feeling of persecution or bullying, for example, can represent this without naming where this happened, or by whom. A person identifying resonance with the history lens might be identifying with slavery or oppression in their past system – the important aspect is to identify if – or more importantly – how, this impacts them today. The model is therefore less aligned to working with the content and more with the ‘vessel’ in coaching terminology.

Kaleidoscope 1.0 started life as a one-dimensional graphical illustration. A Kaleidoscope appeared to represent the overlay, merging and mixing of multiple experiences over the course of a lifespan and where multiple cultural influences impact how a person shows up in the present moment. Cultures are not static; they are constantly evolving.

The model has evolved to incorporate change across a lifespan in context of evolving systems. It seeks to identify how these influences impact our values and beliefs and how they influence our sense of self/selves in the current context, which is often the organisation culture (see Figures 2 and 3).

Figure 2: Sense of self in context © 10 Consulting Ltd

 

 

Figure 3: The organisation culture © 10 Consulting Ltd

 

 

Kaleidoscope 2.0:

Systemic Constellations:

TIme, place, belonging

The next step-change of the Kaleidoscope 2.0 incorporated concepts from the field of systemic constellations that are particularly suited for exploring time, place and belonging – notions that take centre-stage for inter-cultural and inter-racial aspects. A desktop mat provides for a methodology that incorporates the use of objects such as counters.

In placing a chosen object on a lens of choice the practitioner is able to seek understanding about the emotional ‘wiring’ attached to this lens. This is done by asking the coachee or supervisee to place a finger on top of the object while identifying what is going on at emotional and embodied levels.

The next level of the tool incorporates a floor mat, along with model people or cardboard footprints. Using the same principles as with the desktop version, the floor mat appears to enable the participant/s to ‘own’ some deeply rooted patterns, at the same time providing a meta view that keeps them safe as they delve into some deeply held convictions as represented by imperatives such as ‘should, ought-to and must’.

At a final level, participants are invited to stand on the mat and identify their embodied responses. This quickly provides depth of exploration for a team looking to explore their purpose as informed by their values and beliefs. Cultural norms are quickly observed yet not actually relevant to the final finding or output. Thus, risk of stereotyping, labelling or bias is mitigated.

 

With Kaleidoscope 1.0 and 2.0, multiple perspectives may be accommodated:

  • one-dimensional model – for visual experiencing from a meta view
  • multi-dimensional model – to incorporate evolution through lifespan
  • desktop model with counters – to incorporate a felt experience
  • floor mat model – with feet and human models to incorporate a meta view among teams or groups
  • floor mat model – for full experiential sensing of meaning and purpose for individuals and teams

 

Benefits of using the Kaleidoscope for coaches and supervisors:

  • Quickly reaches depths of understanding
  • Provides a safe structure for delving into complexity and sensitive issues without risk of being seen as non-politically correct
  • Provides a means for discussing sensitive issues such as race, ethnicity and other aspects of diversity
  • Paves the way for a discussion about the meanings derived from multiple experiences and multicultural contexts across the lifespan, without having to name the country of origin, nationality, race or tribe
  • Enables an exploration of personal and cultural identities (both coach/supervisor and coachee/supervisee
  • Provides a pathway for the unlearning of aspects that no longer serve the client in their current context
  • Can inform diversity and inclusion policies in a non-discriminatory manner

Case Studies

  1. An individual using a desktop mat

My client, a VP for a large pharmaceutical company, was suffering from considerable work stress.

He found it difficult to say ‘No’ when asked to perform more and more work. His team were also finding things difficult as they felt they were lacking in direction and purpose.

During coaching, my client was recounting the journey he had been on to get to the position of VP. Originally from India he reported how he was still financially responsible for many of his family back in India as well as his own family in the UK.

When asked what lens resonated for him, he pointed to the Economics lens. “All of my life has been about making sufficient money given my extremely poor beginning.”

When asked which other lens he felt drawn to, he pointed to the community lens and explained how he felt loyalty to his family of origin to provide for them. Along with the need to better himself, he recognised that he was striving for more and more and wondered to himself when enough would be enough – when he would eventually be able to say ‘No’.

I asked how the identification of this pattern informed his self-identity. He pondered the realisation that he really never felt good enough and that his origins would never be shaken off unless he made a conscious effort to do so. He realised that he had to start saying ‘No’, in order to stop allowing his past to run the show and also to stop other people taking advantage of him. He began to set boundaries and his team in turn reported feeling like they had more of a sense of direction to guide them.

 

  1. Groups using floor mats

My client, an IT startup headquartered in Spain wanted to build a cohesive multicultural team across several geographies, including Spain, Portugal, Germany and India.

The startup realised that differences in working practices were getting in the way of progress, along with differing perceptions of what the company’s purpose was.

Using two facilitators and two floor mats, the participants were invited to explore, either by placing feet or model people onto the lens that held the most resonance for them. Or, for those who felt brave enough, to stand on the mat.

Interestingly, the participants all chose to stand on the mat and one by one they explored which lenses appealed to them most.

Spain, Portugal and India all being collective countries by cultural orientation, most chose the communities lens. They described how they felt very loyal and connected to this lens. When asked what other lenses stood out, some chose education, others chose diversity and yet more chose geography and a few
chose science.

Again, they were asked how these lenses were embodied in their systems. Upon standing in the middle and being asked how these experiences affected them in their current position, most described notions of what good practice and good leadership looked like. There was consensus from the collective countries and dissent from the people from Germany, an individualist country.

The latter were looking for more structure, rules and systems as compared with the relationship orientation of the majority. The discussions became quite heated when comparing what good practice looked like.

Eventually, we agreed on a both–and approach to incorporate priorities which did not need to be mutually exclusive. People started to realise how their imperatives were getting in the way of good teamwork. Working from this point of collaboration, bridges were built and the team went on to articulate its purpose while being considerate of every viewpoint.

 

Next steps

There are many potential applications for the Kaleidoscope“. The following have been identified by practitioners:

  • To inform a diversity and inclusion policy
  • To explore inter-generational differences
  • To explore political, racial, ethnic differences
  • To identify a social group’s perspective compared with another
  • To explore differences in perspective around climate change, and sustainability issues

 

References

  • B Oshry, Seeing Systems, San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers Inc., 1996
  • J Plaister-Ten, The Cross-Cultural Kaleidoscope, A systems approach to working amongst different cultural influences, London: Karnac, 2016
  • C R Rogers, ‘Towards a modern approach to values: The valuing process in the mature person’, in C R Rogers and B Stevens (eds.), Person to Person, The Problem of Being Human, London: Real People Press, 1967
  • D Sue and D Sue, Counseling the Culturally Diverse: Theory and Practice, 5th edition, New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc., 2008
  • H Tajfel and J C Turner, ‘An integrative theory of intergroup conflict,’ in M J Hatch and M Schultz, (eds.), Organizational Identity, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004

 

Further information

  • For a demonstration of the interactivity of the Kaleidoscope, please visit: https://bit.ly/3x4rKYg
  • Practitioners wishing to use the Kaleidoscope in practice may contact Jenny.Plaister@10consulting.co.uk for an exploratory conversation about their training needs. Jenny offers masterclasses, webinars and a training programme that provides for certification.
  • She is offering a half-day masterclass on using this tool, for Coaching at Work, on Monday 13 September, 2-5 pm (UK) online. See page 4 for more details
  • To buy the Kaleidoscope kit, visit: https://bit.ly/3g3W1Rn
  • Plaister-Ten’s book, The Cross-Cultural Coaching Kaleidoscope, was published by Karnac in 2016 and is available on Amazon. Use the link below for a 20% discount on the book: https://bit.ly/3xatyif