an analysis of saudi arabian and u.s. managerial coaching ... · an analysis of saudi arabian and...

JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUESVol. XIX Number 2 Summer 2007: 271-287

An Analysis of Saudi Arabian and U.S. ManagerialCoaching Behaviors

David M. NoerErank S, Holtjr, Professor of Business Leadership

Elon University

Christopher R. LeupoldAssistant Professor of Psychology

Elon University

Matthew ValleAssociate Professor of Business Administration

Elon University

The use of coaching as a way to en-hance performance and bone lead-ersbip skills is a popular and growingmanagement development strategy(Goldsmitb and Lyons, 2005). As withany emerging field, there is consid-erable ambiguity as to what consd-tutes effective coaching, tbe relation-ship of coaching to other disciplinesand tbe relative value of using exter-nal versus internal coacbes (Lyons,2005; Sherman and Freas, 2004). Theconcept of executive coaching ap-pears to be oriented to the udlizationof external coaches helping individ-ual executive clients (Feldman andLankau, 2005; Stober, 2005), whilemanagerial coaching focuses on theutilization of managers witbin organ-izations engaging in belping reladon-

sbips witb their fellow employees(Kouzes and Posner, 2005; Noer,2005). This exploratory researcb fo-cused on managerial coacbing usingpardcipants from Saudi Arabian andU.S. organizations.

Regardless of its orientadon, tbefoundadons of coacbing seem to berooted in tbe modern Western (pri-marily U.S.) managerial values of par-dcipadon, accountability, and i reecboice (Hargrove, 1995; Witwortb etal, 1998). However, tbere has beenlitde empirical research or cridcalanalysis of the specific behaviors in-volved in the process (Campbell,1989; Day, 2001; Kilburg, 1996).From a global perspective, there hasbeen no research tbat bas examinedtbe link between coacbing bebaviors

JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. XIX Number 2 Summer 2007

(271)

272 NOER, LEUPOLD AND VALLE

and culturally defined values andnorms outside tbe U.S. or WesternEurope.

In tbis study, we describe and testa model of managerial coacbing witba sample of Saudi Arabian and U.S.managers and examine cultural influ-ences on coacbing bebaviors. Follow-ing a brief explanation of tbe radon-ale for tbe study, we review tbeliterature on coaching and compara-tive studies of Saudi management cul-ture, and present our bypotheses.The study methodology details tbecomposition of tbe two samples andtbe researcb instruments employed.The analysis and results secdons focuson describing tbe observed differ-ences in coacbing bebaviors betweentbe two subject groups. Finally, tbediscussion secdon presents lessonslearned from tbe researcb and in-sights about limitations and possiblefuture directions for continued re-searcb in this area.

RATIONALE FOR THE STUDY

Saudi Arabia is an increasingly im-portant economic and political ally ofthe United States. The Saudi organi-zadon witbin wbicb tbis researcb wasconducted is large, multi-faceted, andcontrols, wbat bas been estimated, asa quarter of all the known oil reservesin the world (Ray, 2005). As manag-ers from the Saudi and U.S. culturescontinue to interact, an understand-ing of cultural similarities and differ-ences can facilitate cross-culturalcommunications and boundary span-ning. Recendy, Golden and Veiga(2005) developed a cross-culturalboundary spanning model based onfive cultural dimensions ardculatedby Hofstede (1980, 2001), and pos-ited tbat effecdve cross-culturalboundary spanning by teams and or-

ganizadons necessitates an under-standing of tbese dimensions. Tbisstudy uses a similar framework to un-derstand coacbing bebaviors in Saudiand U.S. organizations.

Tbe Saudi organizadon wbere tbisstudy took place was facing tbe needto increase efficiency due to risingcosts and global competidon, man-age a growing number of interna-donal joint ventures requiring cross-cultural understanding, and deal witba significant reducdon of U.S., Brit-ish, and Canadian expatriate manag-ers due to a government mandatedreducdon in tbe number of non-Sa-udi employees. From a talent man-agement standpoint, tbe exisdng per-formance appraisal, professionaldevelopment, and succession plan-ning systems were not seen by topmanagement as adequately preparingthe organization and its people forthese imminent challenges. Seekingto quickly remedy this situadon, theorganizadon turned to managerialcoaching as an intervention andmeans to facilitate the necessary em-ployee development in order to con-tend with the new business climate.

We were unable to discover any ev-idence of coaching as a managementdevelopment strategy within otber or-ganizations in the Kingdom of SaudiArabia and, altbough our host organ-izadon is widely recognized as themost modern and progressive em-ployer in the Kingdom, tbere was nohistory of a coaching strategy.Through a consuldng reladonshipwith the top execudve of tbis firm, webad tbe unique opportunity to belpcreate a coacbing strategy for man-agement development and, concur-rendy, pursue research on culturallyderived Saudi coaching bebaviors.


SAUDI AND U.S. COAGHING BEHAVIORS 273

COACHING AS A HELPINGRELATIONSHIP

Coacbing has been generally de-scribed as a one-on-one approacb tofacilitate individual learning and be-havioral change (Day, 2001; Hall etal, 1999). It involves the use of a widevariety of bebavioral metbods andtechniques to assist a client to achievepersonal and/or professional goals(Kilburg, 1996). Some of tbe morecommon activities include develop-ing self-awareness, learning and prac-ticing new skills, in-deptb role-play-ing, behavior modeling and intensivefeedback. In addidon to improvingpersonal performance, Katz and Mil-ler (1996) suggested that coachingcould be used to understand and af-fect any number of important organ-izadonal changes, thus improving or-ganizadonal performance. For anycoaching to be effective, it is impor-tant that the coach have the ability toestablish an authentic connectionwith the person being coached, or asPeterson and Hicks describe, "forgea partnership" (1996: 29). Quick andMacik-Frey (2004) describe tbecoacbing relationsbip as one tbat re-quires mutual trust and respect, and,from the coach's perspecdve, a deepinsight into the needs and values ofthe other person. Kilburg (2000) ecb-oed tbis sentiment by conceptualiz-ing coacbing as a belping relation-ship, and Witworth, Kimsey-Houseand Sandahl (1998) suggested thatcoaching would be most effecdvewben tbe agenda of the person beingcoached was the sole focus of thecoaching reladonship. For the pur-poses of this research, we conceptu-alize coaching as a client-centeredhelping reladonship that benefitsboth the individual and the organi-zadon.

COMPARATIVE STUDIES OF THESAUDI MANAGEMENT CULTURE

Compared to other geographicregions, there has been reladvely lit-de management researcb in Arabcountries in general, and witbin Arabcountries, even less in Saudi Arabia(Dedoussis, 2004; Robertson et al,2001). A review of tbe hterature pro-duced no studies on tbe relationsbipof tbe Saudi management culture tocoacbing behaviors. Given tbe scantliterature base from which to build,we sought to support the relation-ships between coaching and Saudiculture posited by this study by ex-tending the literature base availablefrom other Saudi managerial studies.Hofstede's (1980) oft-cited classicalcomparadve study provides a usefulframe of reference. However, it didnot single out Saudi Arabia, butrather bundled it with a group of sixotber "Arab countries." As Robert-son et al (2001) pointed out, tbereare a number of differences amongthe management cultures of Middle-Eastern and Arab countries. Bjerkeand Al-Meer (1993) attempted to rec-tify this gap by applying Hofstede's di-mensions to a study of Saudi MBA stu-dents and managers.

Table 1 compares Bjerke and Al-Meer's results for Saudi Arabian man-agers with Hofstede's (1997) updatedresults for U.S. managers. Tbe resultsindicate tbat Saudi managers scorebigb on power-distance (comfort andpreference for a social distance be-tween hierarchical levels), high onuncertainty-avoidance (need andpreference for structure and predict-ability), reladvely bigb on tbe dimen-sion of collecdvism (group vs. individ-ual orientation), and tend toward thefeminine (concern for others and


274 NoER, LEUPOLD AND VALLE

p

3 ^« s

o

oU

U.S

3a-<I•3cs

CJ

Q

OCL,>o

anee

QD

OCL,

bO

c

s

Pow

er-

11)

1

(Ran

ge

c

oc

o

"It;DO

B

Hig

hin

eevo

i

<

1B

o

oida

<

idi

o

"^

1(NT—(

(Ran

ge

B033-o

idiv

i

60

XU

IS

ali

Low

I

(U

-4—t

Uec

o

03

1 Ind

ivid

1—I

1ON

(Ran

ge

Uni

ty

3CJ

S3

ledi

1

Hig

ulin

ity

CJ

s3

O

mity

a

(U

-4—t

ini

1 M

aseu

len

1

(Ran

ge

tONON

00

enONON

•T3

0)

03

o


SAUDI AND U.S. COACHING BEHAVIORS 275

nurturing) orientation on the mas-culinity/femininity dimension.

From the U.S. perspective, Saudimanagers have a seemingly contradic-tory need for concurrent stratifica-tion and equality. Rosinski (2003) at-tempts to reconcile this incongruityby framing a dimension called "Hi-erarchy/Equity." He describes such acultural orientation as one in which"society and organizations must besocially stratified to function prop-erly," and "people are equals who of-ten happen to play different roles"(2003:55).

Trompenaars (1993) presents an-other set of cross-cultural compara-tive lenses that complement those ofHofstede. Although there appear tobe some methodological issues (hissample did not include Saudi Arabia,and "Arab" cultural values were gen-eralized from separate samples fromEgypt, Kuwait and the United ArabEmirates), his findings are none-the-less useful for the context of the pres-ent study. He postulates five culturaldimensions of relating to people: (1)universalism versus particularism(the cultural preference for rules orrelationships), (2) collectivism versusindividualism (group or individualpreferences), (3) neutral versus emo-tional (the range of expressed feel-ings), (4) diffuse versus specific (thedepth and range of managerial in-volvement), and (5) achievement ver-sus ascription (the method of accord-ing status). Managers in the U.S. arereported as showing a preference foruniversalism, individualism, neutralemotionalism, a specific orientation,and achievement. Saudis are re-ported as exhibiting the oppositepreferences for particularism, collec-tivism, a tendency toward an emo-tional orientation, diffusion, and as-cription. These opposing preferences

are consistent with the polar dimen-sions reported by Hofstede (1980),and have implications for establish-ing effective and culturally compati-ble coaching relationships.

Saudi Management CulturEilOrientations: Past, Collectivist andHierarchical

The Saudi management culture isheavily infiuenced by traditional Is-lamic values and strong tribal an,dfamily orientations (Ali, 1995; Assad,2002; Rice, 2004). When compared toother Islamic cultures, Saudi Arabianmanagers and employees are re-ported to be less susceptible to out-side influences and more persistentin adhering to traditional values(Robertson et al, 2001). In his classicstudy. Hall provides an overall socio-logical perspective for this past ori-entation:

The Arab looks back six thousand years forhis/her own origins. History is used as thebasis for almost any modern action. Thechances are that Arabs won't start a talk ora speech or analyze a problem without firstdeveloping the historical aspects of theirsubject (1959: 144).

This Saudi collectivist orientation ap-pears to be well supported by re-search (Ali, 1993; Al-Jafary and Hol-lingsworth, 1983; Assad, 2002).Loyalty and commitment to the fam-ily, the group or the extended familyfuels this focus (Ali, 1992; Rice,2004). Concurrently, Saudi managersdemand loyalty, obedience, and seeka social distance from those they man-age, which may be partially attributedto authoritarian beliefs in Islamic so-cial systems (Bjerke and Al-Meer,1993). The hierarchial and paternal-istic elements of the culture are at-tributed to the legacy of the Ottomansystem of governance and the influ-



ence of Bedouin tribalism (Ali, 1990;Rice, 2004). Elashmawi and Harrisoperationalize this orientation in thecontext of performance appraisalwhen they characterize the Saudi su-pervisory orientation as "mentor,"and the person receiving the feed-back as representing a "child in fam-ily" (1998: 177).

A CULTURAL BRTOGE

As has been discussed, the rootsand values of executive coachingseem to be anchored in what may ap-pear as Western concepts of partici-pation and free choice. It may, there-fore, seem difficult and culturallyinappropriate to apply these conceptsto the Saudi culture. Ali (1990,1995),however, argues that the Saudi cul-ture is strongly participative, egalitar-ian, and sensitive to the beliefs of oth-ers. He postulates that Saudimanagement environments are "pol-luted by foreign elements" (1995: 26)that block this natural orientation. Inan exploration of a model that willbridge cultures, Assad writes:

There is no inherent conflict between theWestern model and the Islamic model. TheIslamic model stresses a human orientationfocusing on such aspects of management asinterpersonal and intergroup relations, in-dividual dignity, and personal growth(2002: 74).

Business organizations in Saudi Ara-bia are currently going through a pro-cess referred to as "Saudisation"(Madhi and Barrientos, 2003), a gov-ernment-mandated reduction in thenumber of expatriates, with the ob-jective of achieving a workforce em-ploying more Saudis. As a result ofSaudisation, the organization fromwhich the Saudi sample for this studywas drawn has experienced a substan-tial reduction in the number of U.S.,

British and Canadian expatriate man-agers. With the continuing imple-mentation of Saudisation and thesubsequent reduction of managerswith Western management values,there may be more fertile soil for thehybrid system suggested by Assad totake root. Moreover, with a greaterconcentration of Saudi national lead-ers who reflect traditional Saudi cul-tural values, it becomes imperative tounderstand the form and context ofwhat constitutes optimal coaching inorder to maximally benefit thesemanagers and their organizations.

HYPOTHESES FOR THECURRENT STUDY

Given the pervasive historical influ-ences which have created, and whichsustain, a strong form of Saudi na-tional culture, we propose that the Sa-udi managers as a group would bemore homogeneous in their ap-proach to coaching and thus exhibitless variance in their specific coach-ing behaviors than would the U.S.group. Based on our analyses of theavailable literature that indicates Sa-udi Arabian managers have culturallyderived styles that combine tradi-tional (familial and nurturing) andcollectivist orientations, it is believedthat Saudis would score higher onsupportive coaching behaviors thanmanagers in the U.S. Also, because oftheir preference for hierarchy andhigh power-distance, it was predictedthat Saudi managers would also scorehigher than U.S. managers on chal-lenging coaching behaviors. Becauseboth the Saudi and the U.S. samplesconsisted of managers and executiveswith analytical, technical and engi-neering backgrounds, no significantdifference in assessing coaching be-haviors was anticipated. Therefore, a



summary of the present study's for-mal hypotheses are as follows:

HI: Satidi managers will exhibit less vari-ance (e.g., be more homogeneotis as agroup) within the supporting and challeng-ing behavioral dimensions, while U.S. man-agers will exhibit significantly higher vari-ance (e.g., be less homogeneous).

H2: The Saudi sample will exhibit signifi-cantly more supporting and challenging be-haviors than will the U.S. sample.

H3: There will be no significant differencesbetween groups on scores for the assessingdimension.

METHOD

Participants

The sample consisted of 151 (71U.S., 80 Saudi Arabian) managerswho held upper-middle managementpositions. All participated in three-day coaching workshops conductedbetween 2003 and 2004; all of the Sa-udi workshops took place within theKingdom of Saudi Arabia, and theU.S. workshops were held in the U.S.The Saudi sample was comprised ex-clusively of males from the petro-chemical industry, whereas the U.S.sample included males and femalesfrom a variety of industries. As will bediscussed later in this article, an ini-tial degree of caution is warrantedwhen comparing these two samples.However, given the exploratory na-ture of this research, there are certainsimilarities between the samples thatmake this comparison useful and ap-propriate.

Similarity of Levels and Functions.From an organizational hierarchyperspective, the samples were similarin that both consisted exclusively ofindividuals holding upper-middlemanagement positions. Despite com-ing from different industries in theU.S. and different organizational

units within the same organization inthe Saudi sample, all had similar lev-els of accountability for the perform-ance of their organization and theirpeople, as well as similar scope andresponsibility for the traditional plan-ning, organizing, controlling and di-recting functions of management.

Technical Orientation of the Busi-nesses. All individuals came from tech-nically-oriented businesses. The Sa-udi sample was comprised ofmanagers of technical operationssuch as refining, chemical and petro-leum engineering, information sys-tems, software development, and sup-ply chain management. The U.S.sample was primarily made up ofmanagers of information systems,aerospace engineering, systems engi-neering, software development, andcommunications technology.

Diverse and Decentralized Nature ofthe Saudi Organization. Although fit-ting the generalized description of a"petrochemical company," the linesbetween its core business and quasi-governmental functions are, in fact,quite blurred. The organization, forexample, manages a significant por-tion of the health care, telecommu-nications, and energy distribution iti-frastructure of an entire province.The participants in the coachingworkshops came from a variety of rel-atively self-contained organizationalsystems and, in this regard, they re-flected the same degree of geograph-ical and organizational diversity asthe U.S. sample.

Gender Composition of Samples. Al-though the Satidi sample consistedentirely of males, while the U.S. sam-ple consisted of males and females, aseparate study (Noer, in press) usingU.S. participants did not reveal a gen-der effect in coaching behaviors (asmeasured by the same instrument



used in the current study). Given thedemonstrated lack of a gender effect,the U.S. sample was deemed homo-geneous in this regard and, as such,appropriate to compare to the all-male Saudi sample.

Western Education of the Saudi Man-agers. All the Saudi managers werefluent in English, and most had tech-nical undergraduate degrees fromU.S. institutions. Many had MBA's orother advanced degrees. This empha-sis on, and organizational funding of,"out of Kingdom" education wasunique to our client organization andis not typically the case in other Saudiorganizations. This had two implica-tions for our research. The first wasthat there was linguistic and educa-tional compatibility between the U.S.and Saudi samples. The second wasthat any differences in Saudi coach-ing behavioral preferences would oc-cur despite U.S. linguistic and cul-tural familiarity. These differencescould be construed as demonstratingthe power of Saudi cultural valuesamong a unique group of managerswho, compared to their colleagues inother Saudi organizations, were veryfamiliar with the U.S. managerial cul-ture.

The Coaching Behaviors Inventory

At the beginning of their coachingskills workshop, participants com-pleted the Coaching Behaviors Inventory(Noer, 2005) to assess their coachingbehaviors. This 80-item self-assess-ment inventory is based on the Tri-angle Coaching Model (Noer, 2005),which conceptualizes the coachingprocess as the dynamic interaction ofthree sets of behaviors: assessing,challenging, and supporting. Thesedimensions are similar to the dimen-sions "diagnosis," "coaching," and

' 'maintenance/support," describedin the Individual Coaching for Effect-iveness model developed by Person-nel Decisions, Inc. (Hellervik et ai,1992). Two primary roots of the tri-angle model were the client-centeredresearch stream of the Center forCreative Leadership (e.g., McCauleyet al, 1998) and the three dimen-sional interventionist theory (i.e.,valid data—free choice—internalcommitment), first articulated by Ar-gyris (1973). Each of the three di-mensions is purported to have mul-tiple behavioral components. Thesecomponents and their definitions arelisted in Table 2.

Anchor points for each of the thirtyitems (ten per dimension) rangefrom (1) " / almost never use this behav-ior'' to (5) "I almost always use this be-havior." Scores on each item aresummed for the ten items making upeach scale. Sample items are " / helpthe person I am coaching assess gaps be-tween the way things are and the way he/she wants them to be" (assessing), " /help the person I am coaching focus onconcrete, actionable behaviors" (chal-lenging), and " / make it a point to ac-knowledge past achievements and suc-cesses of the person I am coaching'(supporting). Dimension scores arecalculated by summing the scores ofthe ten items that comprise that di-mension; a maximum score of 50 in-dicates that a coaching dimension isalmost always used, whereas a score of10 indicates a dimension is almostnever used. For this study, internalconsistency reliability analyses of thedimensional scales produced Cron-bach's a's (.81 for assessing, .79 forchallenging, and .67 for supporting)that indicated strong internal consis-tency.



Table 2Triangle Coaching Model Dimensions

Assessing: using analytical processes that lead to measutement and goal-setting. Thebehaviotal components are:

• Data gathering - collecting information that will be of use to the person being coached.• Gap analysis - utilizing the difference between the current reality and the desired future

state to develop action plans.• Goal setting - helping the person being coached develop concrete plans to meet desired

objectives.• Measnrement/Feedhack - establishing criteria to assess progress against goal

achievement and developing mechanisms for feedback of behavioral changes.Challenging: stimulating the person being coached to confront obstacles, re-conceptualizeissues, and move forward with energy and self-reliance. The four behavioral components are:

• Confronting - helping the person being coached face and understand issues, behaviors,or perceptions that are blocking him or her.

• Focusing/Shaping - moving the coaching interaction from the general to the specific,toward concrete, actionable outcomes.

• Re-framing - helping the person being coached examine and validate his or herassumptions and inferences. This involves helping him or her discover alternativeinterpretations of the data used to form conclusions.

• Empowering/Energizing - helping the person being coached develop an increased senseof purpose, energy, and self-reliance.

Supporting: creating an interpersonal context that facilitates trust, openness, respect andunderstanding. The five behavioral components are:

• Attending - using body language, voice tone, eye contact, and physical setting to reducedefensiveness and create an open, trusting coaching environment.

• Inquiring - asking questions to elicit information, clarify perspectives, and promoteunderstanding.

• Reflecting - promoting clarity and demonstrating by the coach stating, in his or her ownwords, what he or she thinks the person being coached is saying or feeling.

• Affirming - communicating that the coach believes the person being coached has theability to learn, change, or develop.

• Airtime - managing the coaching conversation so as to allow the person being coachedto have ample opportunity to reflect and express his or her feelings.

Source: Noer (2005).

RESULTS

Prior to hypothesis testing, eachscale was examined to ensure partic-ipants' dimension scores were nor-mally distributed. Separate analysesof the scales for U.S. and Saudi sam-ples found no major violations of thisassumption. Each coaching dimen-sion is comprised of four or five spe-cific subscales. The means and stan-

dard deviations of the assessing,challenging, and supporting dimen-sions and their respective subscalescan be found in Table 3.

To test the first hypothesis, that Sa-udi managers would be more homo-geneous as a group than U.S. man-agers in their coaching styles, theseparate standard deviations and var-iances for each group's dimension

JOURNAL OF MANAGERL\L ISSUES Vol. XIX Number 2 Summer 2007


Table 3Means and Standard Deviations for Supporting, Challenging,

and Assessing Scale Scores and Subscale Scores

AssessingData Gathering (3 items)Gap Analysis (2)Goal Setting (3)Measurement/Feedback (2)

ChallengingConfronting (4)Focusing/Shaping (2)Reframing (2)Empowering/Energizing (2)

SupportingAttending (2)Inquiring (2)Reflecting (2)Affirtning (2)Airtime (2)

Saudi

M

33.049.266.99

10.466.33

37.7215.437.617.397.29

4L118.758.437.538.288.13

SD

5.431.991.351.901.79

4.442.321.041.251.12

3.42.95

1.081.311.221.34

U.S.

M

33.119.286.89

11.006.49

35.4915.027.536.966.72

36.798.177.816.098.177.11

SD

6.212.121.632.401.71

5.862.491.401.571.29

4.931.391.281.851.391.78

scores for assessing, challenging, andsupporting behaviors were examined.A series of Levene's tests for equalityof variances was performed to com-pare the relative variance of eachgroup on each scale. A statistically sig-nificant difference was not found atthe p = .05 level when comparing thegroups on the Assessing scale (F =L99, ns). Results indicated that theU.S. managers exhibited significantlymore variance than did Saudis on theChallenging (F = 4.66, p < .05) andSupporting (F = 12.05, p < .01)scales, thus indicating that Saudiswere indeed substantially more ho-mogeneous as a group in their rat-ings. As such, this pattern of differ-

ences provides strong support for thehypothesis that Saudi leaders, per-haps due to their strong past, collec-tivist and hierarchical orientations,are more homogeneous compared toU.S. leaders who, due to their individ-ualistic culture, are more varied intheir coaching styles.

As the predicted differences ingroup variances were statistically sig-nificant for the supporting and chal-lenging scales, the resulting hetero-geneity of variance necessitatednonparametric methods for subse-quent scale comparisons by group.To test the hypotheses that the Saudimanagers would score relativelyhigher on both of these scales than



would U.S. managers, Mann-WhitneyU analyses were performed. For thesupporting scale, results indicatedthat the mean rank for Saudi (94.64)managers was considerably higherthan that for U.S. (55.00) managersand this difference achieved statisti-cal significance (U = 1349, z = -5.58,p < .01). Follow-up analyses on thesupporting dimension sub-dimen-sions (data for all sub-dimensionanalyses was available for 46 U.S. andall 80 of the Saudi participants) re-vealed that the Saudi sample scoredsignificantly higher than the U.S.sample on all but affirming behaviors(attending, U = 1453.00, z = -2.23, p< .05; inquiring, t.js = -2.96, p < .01;reflecting, U = 1043.00, z = -4.27, p< .01; airtime, U = 1254.00, z = -3.19,p < .01). As such, one can infer thatSaudi managers consistently demon-strate more frequent behaviors acrossthe broad general supporting dimen-sion. Similar results were found whencomparing the groups' scores for theChallenging scale. The mean ranksfor Saudi and U.S. managers were84.01 and 66.98, respectively, and thisdifference was statistically significant(U = 2199.5, z = -2.39, p < .05). Fur-ther analyses of the challenging sub-dimensions revealed that this overalldifference was primarily driven by theempowering sub-dimension, as it wasthe only one in which the Saudigroup was (statistically) significantlyhigher (t. s = -2.60, p < .05). Sincethe homogeneity of variance assump-tion was not violated with regard tothe assessing dimension, groupmeans rather than ranks were com-pared to determine differences onthe assessing scale. An independentsamples t test indicated no statisticallysignificant difference at the p = .05criterion (t,4g = .08, ns) between theSaudi (M = 33.04) and U.S. (M =

33.11) group means. In summary, thepattern of results lend clear supportto the hypotheses that the Saudi sam-ple would exhibit less overall varianceas a group in their coaching behav-iors, and that they would exhibit sig-nificantly more supporting and chal-lenging behaviors than their U.S.counterparts.

DISCUSSION

The results of this study providestrong evidence of differences incoaching styles between U.S. and Sa-udi managers. More specifically, thegeneral pattern of coaching behav-iors appears to support the more gen-eral managerial orientations outlinedin past comparative cultural studies.One key finding was that, comparedto the U.S. sample, the Saudi sampleas a whole exhibited significantly lessvariance in their coaching behaviors.This pattern of consistency, whichcould alternatively be conceived as agreater unwillingness to depart fromthe norm, is a likely outcome of amanagement style heavily influencedby Islamic culture. Hofstede's (1997)findings that Saudi managers weremuch more inclined to both avoiduncertainty and adopt a collectivistorientation might well predict thatthey would have a more consistent,less individualistic style when it cameto coaching others. This consistencyis congruent with the findings of Rob-ertson et al. (2001) that, when com-pared to other Islamic cultures, Sau-dis are more persistent in adhering totraditional values. Likewise, the cul-tural values of obedience, loyalty, andbeliefs grounded in an Islamic socialsystem (Ali, 1990; Assad, 2002; Rice,2004) give further perspective on thereasons Saudi managers display more

JOURNAL OF MANAGERL\L ISSUES Vol. XIX Number 2 Summer 2007


homogeneity than their U.S. counter-parts.

As hypothesized, Saudi managersreported using more supportivecoaching styles and behaviors thandid the U.S. sample. The preferencefor using these more relationship-based, nurturing behaviors would bein line with Hofstede's (1997) findingthat the Saudi culture tends to bemore feminine, a construct that em-bodies a focus on establishing andpreserving relationships in contrastto the more distant, task-orientationtaken by U.S. managers. Trompe-naar's (1993) findings that Saudis ex-hibit a greater emotional orientationand prefer ascription to achievementcan similarly help explain this find-ing.

The significant difference betweenthe Saudi and the U.S. samples on thechallenging dimension appears to bebased on a combination of Saudi ori-entations toward collectivisttraditions and hierarchy (e.g., as-cribed status). Most interesting wasthe finding that the empowering sub-dimension appeared to have a tre-mendously greater impact than didthe other sub-dimensions. However,when one considers the various waysin which a coach can move anotherperson to action in a constructive way,empowering could arguably be de-scribed as having the greatest poten-tial for establishing an emotional con-nection with the other person. Whileenabling others to reframe issues, re-focus efforts, and confront obstaclesare all helping behaviors, empower-ing and energizing better lend them-selves to emotional appeals and thegeneration of the most positive affect.In a culture where a premium isplaced on ascription and respect, em-powering may very well yield thegreatest impact.

In terms of assessing behaviors, asexpected, no differences were ob-served between the two samples.Since participants in both sampleswere high-level managers in profes-sional fields with substantial account-ability for the performance of theirorganizations and people, one wouldexpect both samples to exhibit simi-lar levels of goal setting and perform-ance measurement and feedback.Considering the heavy technical andanalytical professional orientation ofboth samples, it is interesting that themean scores for assessing coachingbehaviors were the lowest of the threesets of behaviors. One possible expla-nation may be that both groups sawcoaching as a "soft" skill and, as such,an activity that did not lend itself toan objective, analytical, approach. Acorollary explanation could be thatobjective, analytical processes tran-scend cultural influences, whereasthe human interactions involvingsupporting and challenging behav-iors are more susceptible to culturalinfluences. Future research may shedsome light on this phenomenon.However, what is important to takefrom these results is that Saudi man-agers are in no way less focused onthe more technical side of assessingbehaviors. In other words, while theircoaching behaviors may be more sup-portive and challenging, Saudi man-agers are equally as focused as U.S.managers when it comes to quandfi-ably gauging others' performanceand development.

Lmutations and Directions forFuture Research

Further research both in cross-cul-tural coaching and in other dimen-sions of leadership is very importantto equip managers with the necessary

JOURNAL OF MANAGEIUAL ISSUES Vol. XIX Number 2 Summer 2007


skills and understanding to operatemore effectively in a global environ-ment. In addidon to providing usefulinformadon and guidance for en-hancing Saudi Arabian and U.S.coaching behaviors, the current studyadds to the reladve dearth of cross-cultural literature on the topic ofcoaching and effecdve managerialhelping behaviors. While the presentstudy's results are promising and amajor step in better understandingcross-cultural differences in manage-rial coaching, the exploratory natureof this research brings with it somemethodological limitadons. By ac-knowledging the cautions below, fu-ture research may build upon thesefindings to further extend this cur-rendy narrow, yet important, field ofstudy.

Our radonale for the comparabilityof the samples was in part based onthe fact that, although it was in thepetrochemical industry, the Saudi or-ganization was noted for its Westernmanagement orientadon and wasconsiderably more diverse and decen-tralized (i.e., more similar to U.S. or-ganizadons) than other Saudi organ-izations. In essence, this, coupledwith the fact that the Saudi managers'education and business philosophycould be described as more Western-ized, actually increased internal valid-ity by minimizing non-cultural factorswhich may have potendally biased re-sults. It could be argued that, were asample employed represendng moretypical Saudi organizations, the re-sults may have been different How-ever, the inclusion of addidonal andmore diverse Saudi organizadons, interms of both industry and manage-ment philosophy, is essendal to for-mally test this assumption. As the U.S.sample came primarily from techni-

cal backgrounds as well, a similar callfor diversity in sampling is merited.

Although there does not appear tobe significant differences betweenU.S. male and female coaching be-havioral preferences (Noer, in press),the lack of females in the Saudi sam-ple represents a limitadon to the ge-neralizability of this research withinSaudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia, with only11 percent of women in the work-force, ranks lowest in a survey of 12Arab countries (Nydell, 2006). Of this11 percent, a much smaller percent-age can be presumed to be occupyingmanagerial roles. This small samplesize and related accessibility issuesmake follow-on gender oriented re-search within Saudi Arabia challeng-ing. Future researchers may findmore fertile ground in Arab countrieswith a larger percentage of women inthe workforce or among Arab womenemployed in the U.S.

There are significant cultural dif-ferences between Arab countries, andSaudi Arabia is seen by many as themost conservadve Arab nadon (Ny-dell, 2006). Since the non-U.S. sam-ple for this study consisted of Saudimanagers, caution must be used ingeneralizing the results to other Arabcountries. Future research compar-ing coaching behaviors betweenother Arab countries and betweenthose countries and the U.S. would bemost helpful in this regard.

One potendal limitadon of thisstudy was the use of self-report dataat a single point in dme. As such, thetypical threats associated with surveyresearch such as social desirability, re-sponse set biases, and other demandcharacterisdcs are present. Future re-search might examine subordinatespercepdons of their managers' actualcoaching behaviors and comparethese behaviors to their preferences.



Table 4Comparison of Saudi and U.S. Managers

Saudi

Preferencefor

ParticularismPreferetice

forCollectivism

Tendencytoward

Emotional

Preferencefor Diffuse

Preferencefor

Ascription

U.S.

Preference forUniversalism

Preference forIndividualism

Tendencytoward Neutral

Preference forSpecific

Preference forAchievement

Trompenaars' "Advice" re-phrased as Tipsfor Coaching in a Saudi Arabian

Environment• Focus on relationships.• Prepare for personal "meandering."

• Patience for time outside the coachingdyad for external consultation.

• Frame individual coaching in desiredcollective outcomes.

• Avoid detached, objective, and cooldemeanor.

• Don't be put off with close interpersonalspace and touching.

• Respect a person's title, age, background,and family.

• Expect and don't be put off with anoverlap between personal and businessissues.

• Be sensitive to an unwillingness tochallenge people with higher authority.

• Don't threaten the ascribed status of theperson you are coaching.

Source: Trompenaars (1993).

This would not only provide anothermeasure of coaching behaviors, butalso serve as a measure of the degreeto which culture determines subor-dinates' assessment of effective help-ing behaviors.

Implications for Application

These findings can be helpful toboth Saudi and U.S. managers seek-ing to establish more authentic andproductive coaching and overall in-terpersonal relationships. It is impor-

tant that managers in both culturesunderstand the relationship of cul-ture and coaching behaviors. In thisregard. Table 4 summarizes Trom-penaars' dimensional preferencesand rephrases his "advice" as coach-ing tips in a Saudi environment.

For U.S. managers attempting toengage in authentic coaching rela-tionships with their Saudi colleagues,understanding the need to groundtheir efforts in personal relationshipsand collective, rather than individual,outcomes can facilitate more produc-

JOURNAL OE MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. XIX Number 2 Summer 2007


tive coaching processes. Many of the"tips" in Table 4—respecting an-other's ascribed status, allowing forless personal space, and engaging inmore personal "meandering"—areessentially correlates or versions ofbroader attending behaviors. Recip-rocally, awareness by Saudis that theirU.S. counterparts prefer a more emo-tionally neutral orientation and aremore prone to challenge those withhigher authority can be helpful whenplanning a client-centered helpingrelationship. Authentically engagingin a helping relationship with some-one who exhibits different culturalvalues, and to some extent polar, canbe an against-the-grain experience.Awareness by managers in both cul-tures of the significant differences insupporting and challenging behav-ioral preferences can help amelioratecross-cultural coaching shock.

For example, U.S. managersshould be fiexible and prepared forwhat may seem like abrupt shifts fromcollegial to authoritarian perspectivesduring coaching conversations withtheir Saudi counterparts. Recipro-cally, Saudi managers should beaware that their greater preferencesfor challenging and supporting be-haviors, and the ease with which theyswitch between the two sets of behav-iors, might confuse their U.S. col-leagues. Saudi managers can expectthat their U.S. counterparts willspend less time on supporting behav-iors. Whereas the Saudi manager mayspend time on supporting behaviors,the U.S. manager will display a pref-

erence for "getting down to busi-ness." Therefore, when coachingU.S. managers, Saudis may find ithelpful to move more quicklythrough attending behaviors thanthey would with their Saudi col-leagues.

Although the context of this studywas managerial coaching behaviors,there are broader implications forcross-cultural communication out-side of a formal coaching environ-ment. The supporting behaviors of at-tending, inquiring, refiecting, andaffirming are foundations of basic in-terpersonal communication, andU.S. managers could stand to benefitfrom practice and behavioral re-hearsal of these skills prior to at-tempting to communicate with theirSaudi counterparts. Saudi and U.S.managers are operating in an increas-ingly politicized environment, that,when combined with the continuingimplementation of Saudisation andan increasing dependence on Saudioil, necessitates even more authenticand accurate cross-cultural manage-rial communications. The fundamen-tal Islamic values of participation,equality, and respect for others (Ali,1990, 1995; Assad, 2002) are com-patible with the values underlyingU.S. coaching approaches (Argyris,1973) and, thus, have the potentialto serve as a conduit for deeper andmore authentic mutual understand-ing. The coaching behaviors meas-ured in this exploratory study rep-resent a means to facilitate thiscommunication.

References

Ali, A. 1995. "Cultural Discontinuity and Arab Management Thought." Inter-national Studies of Management and Organization 25: 7-30.



1993. "Decision Making Style, Individualism, and Attitudes TowardRisk of Arab Executives." Intemational Studies of Management and Organization23: 53-73.

.. 1992. "Islamic Work Ethics in Arabia." The Journal of Psychology 126:507-519.

_. 1990. "Management Theory in a Transitional Society: The Arab's Ex-perience." Intemational Studies of Management and Organization: 7-35.

Al-Jafary, A. and A. HoUingsworth. 1983. "An Exploratory Study of ManagementPractices in the Saudi Arabian Gulf Region."/oMrna/ of International BusinessStudies¥z\\: 142-152.

Argyris, C. 1973. Intervention Theory and Method. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Assad, S. 2002. "Sociological Analysis ofthe Administrative System in Saudi Ara-

bia: In Search of a Culturally Compatible Model." Intemational Journal of Com-merce and Management 12: 51-81.

Bjerke, B. and A. Al-Meer. 1993. "Culture's Consequences: Management in SaudiArabia." Leadership and Organization Development Journal 14: 30-35.

Campbell, J. 1989. "The Agenda for Theory and Research." Chapter in Trainingand Development in Organizations. Eds. I. L. Coldstein and Associates. San Fran-cisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. pp. 469-486.

Day, D. 2001. "Leadership Development: A Review in Context." Leadership Quar-terly U: 581-613.

Dedoussis, E. 2004. "A Cross-cultural Comparison of Organizational Culture:Evidence from Universities in the Arab World and Japan." Cross Cultural Man-agement 11: 15-35.

Elashmawi, E. and P. Harris. 1998. Multicultural Management 2000: Essential Cul-tural Insights for Clobal Business Success. Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing.

Eeldman, D. and M. Lankau. 2005. "Executive Coaching: A Review and Agendafor Euture Research."/oMrraaZ of Management 31: 829-848.

Golden, T. and J. Veiga. 2005. "Spanning Boundaries and Borders: Toward Un-derstanding the Cultural Dimensions of Team Boundary Spanning."/oMTOrt/of Managerial Issues 17 (2): 178-197.

Goldsmith, M. and L. Lyons. 2005. "Preface to the Second Edition." In Coachingfor Leadership: The Practice of Leadership Coaching from the World's Greatest Coaches.Eds. M. Goldsmith and L. Lyons. San Erancisco, CA: Pfeiffer. pp. xviii-xxi.

Hall, D., K. Otazo and G. Hollenbeck. 1999. "Behind Closed Doors: What ReallyHappens in Executive Coaching." Organizational Dynamics 29: 39-53.

Hall, E. 1959. The Silent Language. New York, NY: Anchor.Hargrove, R. 1995. Masterful Coaching: Extraordinary Results by Impacting People and

the Way They Think and Act Together. San Erancisco, CA: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer.Hellervik, L., J. Hazucha and R. Schneider. 1992. "Behavior Change: Models,

Methods, and a Review of Evidence." Chapter in Handbook of Industrial andOrganizational Psychology. Eds. M. D. Dunnette and L. M. Hough. Palo Alto,CA: Consulting Psychologists, pp. 823-896.

Hofstede, G. 2001. Culture's Consequences (Second Edition): Comparing Values, Be-haviors, Institutions, and Organizations Across Cultures. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

1997. Cultures and Organizations Software ofthe Mind: Intercultural Coop-eration and its Importance for Survival New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.



1980. Culture's Consequences: International Difference in Work Related Values.Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Katz, J. and F. Miller. 1996. "Coaching Leaders Through Culture Change." Con-sulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research 48: 104-114.

Kilburg, R. 2000. Executive Coaching: Developing Managerial Wisdom in a World ofChaos. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

1996. "Toward a Conceptual Understanding and Definition of Exec-utive Coaching." Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research 48: 134-144.

Kouzes, J. and B. Posner. 2005. "When Leaders are Coaches." In Coaching forLeadership: The Practice of Leadership Coaching from the World's Greatest Coaches.Eds. M. Goldsmith and L. Lyons. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer. pp. 136-143.

Lyons, L. S. 2005. "Coaching at the Heart of Strategy." In Coaching for Leadership:The Practice of Leadership Coachingfrom the World's Greatest Coaches. Eds. M. Cold-smith and L. Lyons. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer. pp. 87-99.

Madhi, S. and A. Barrientos. 2005. "Saudisation and Employment in Saudi Ara-bia." Career Development International 8: 70-78.

McCauley, C , R. Moxley and E. VanVelsor. 1998. The Center for Creative LeadershipHandbook of Leadership Development. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Noer, D. In press. Coaching Behaviors Inventory: Facilitator's Guide (2nded.). Creens-boro, NC: Noer Consulting.

2005. "Behaviorally Based Coaching: A Cross-Cultural Case Study."International Journal of Coaching in Organizations S: 14-23.

Nydell, M. 2006. Understanding Arabs: A Guide for Modem Times (4th. ed.). Boston,MA: Intercultural Press.

Quick, J. and M. Macik-Frey. 2004. "Behind the Mask: Coaching Through DeepInterpersonal Communication." Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Re-search 56: 67-73.

Peterson, D. and M. Hicks. 1996. Leader as Coach. Minneapolis, MN: PersonnelDecisions International.

Ray, R. 2005. "Extent of Saudi Reserves Debated." Knight Ridder Tribune BusinessNews November 1:1.

Rice, C. 2004. "Doing Business in Saudi Arabia." Thunderbird International Busi-ness Review 46: 59-84.

Robertson, C , M. Al-Habib, J. Al-Khatib and D. Lanoue. 2001. "Beliefs AboutWork in the Middle East and the Convergence Versus Divergence of Values."Journal of World Business 36: 223-245.

Rosinski, P. 2003. Coaching Across Cultures: New Tools for Leveraging National, Cor-porate and Professional Differences. London: Nicholas Brealey.

Sherman, S. and A. Freas. 2004. "The Wild West of Executive Coaching." Har-vard Business Review 82: 82-91.

Stober, D. 2005. "Approaches to Research on Executive and OrganizationalCoaching Outcomes." International Journal of Coaching in Organizations 5: 6-12.

Trompenaars, F. 1993. Riding the Waves of Culture: Understanding Cultural Diversityin Business. London: The Economist Books.

Witworth, L., H. Kimsey-House and P. Sandahl. 1998. Co-active Coaching: New Skillsfor Coaching People Toward Success in Work and Life. Palo Alto, CA: Davies-Black.


an analysis of saudi arabian and u.s. managerial coaching ... · an analysis of saudi arabian and...

Documents