Cultural Contexts for Executive Coaching
Each year I am approached by a number of senior leaders who are not happy with some of the coaching experiences or models that have been presented to them. Many senior leaders from the global south or high power distance cultures, want coaches attuned to not just the commercial mores, but also the cultural dimensions that shape their leadership or reaction to leadership.
Executive coaching has long been heralded as a powerful tool for leadership growth, yet many of the most widely used models have emerged from specific cultural frameworks—primarily Western, individualistic perspectives. While models such as GROW, CLEAR, and Co-Active coaching have been instrumental in shaping leadership development worldwide, their applicability across diverse cultural landscapes requires careful consideration.
Let’s take a look at some of the popular coaching models shaped in the global north.
The GROW (Goal, Reality, Options, Will) model is one of the most well-known coaching frameworks. Developed by Sir John Whitmore, It is structured around guiding a coachee through goal-setting, assessing current realities, exploring options, and committing to action.
It works well in low-context, individualistic cultures, e.g., the UK, USA, and Germany, where open dialogue and self-directed goal-setting are encouraged, but in high-power distance cultures e.g., China, and Saudi Arabia, where hierarchy and deference to authority are deeply ingrained, coachees may expect a more directive approach rather than a purely exploratory one.
In the past, I have been “disqualified” from consideration on executive coaching benches purely because I said I find it a limiting model and not very inclusive for high-power distance cultures.
The CLEAR (Contracting, Listening, Exploring, Action, Review) model emphasises structured listening and reflection before committing to action. It is particularly useful in complex environments where coaching needs to be iterative.
With its emphasis on listening and contracting works well in cultures with strong relational foundations, such as Japan and the Middle East, where trust-building is key. In my experience action-oriented cultures like the US or UK find this reflective process may be perceived as slow or overly abstract.
I am a fan of Co-active coaching. This model, developed by Kimsey-House is based on deep collaboration between coach and client, seeing them as equals in a transformational journey. I drew on that quite a bit when working with what I would call the flat-hierarchy cultures of the Netherlands - I hear it is popular in Scandinavia too - where co-creation and participatory decision-making are valued.
Again cultures with strong seniority-based leadership where tenure and seniority are highly valued - such as Japan, Korea, and Nigeria - clients will struggle with the model’s assumption of equal agency.
Each of these models has its merits, but they also reveal how executive coaching can fail if it is not tailored to the cultural realities of leaders. Power dynamics, communication styles, and decision-making preferences all influence the success of coaching engagements.
High-context cultures like China, Nigeria, Japan require a relationship-driven approach where indirect communication and deference to hierarchy are respected.
Low-context cultures such as US, Germany, UK favour direct, structured, and goal-oriented coaching conversations.
Collectivist cultures found in Latin America, the Middle East, and some Africa countries often require coaching that considers community impact and group harmony over individual aspirations.
Individualist cultures like the UK, US, Australia, support models that emphasise personal growth and autonomy in leadership.
So I decided to lean into these but develop my own with a culturall adaptive approach.
The BRAVE Model™️ which stands for Bold, Resilient, Agile, Visionary, and Ethical, is uniquely positioned to bridge these cultural divides.
Unlike prescriptive models, BRAVE draws on multiple coaching methodologies, including appreciative inquiry, systemic coaching, and polarity thinking, while integrating cultural intelligence. This cultural intelligence has allowed me and my associates to adapt to working with teams across territories getting them to understand how leadership shows up in other spaces.
So how do I combine this with the other coaching approaches.
Appreciative Inquiry ensures that coaching is rooted in strengths, which resonates well in cultures that value harmony and positive reinforcement.
Systemic Coaching helps navigate the complexities of organisational structures, particularly in hierarchical or consensus-driven cultures.
Polarity Thinking allows leaders to balance opposing forces—such as individual versus collective leadership or tradition versus innovation—without defaulting to binary thinking.
Rather than forcing a one-size-fits-all approach, BRAVE ensures that coaching is context-driven and adaptable. Whether working with a CEO in London who thrives on agility or a board director in Singapore who values structured consensus, BRAVE enables coaches to flex their approach while maintaining core leadership principles.
At its heart, executive coaching is not about rigid frameworks but about meeting leaders where they are. Our models are simply different vehicles to get our clients to their destinations.
The most effective coaches understand that while models provide structure, they must be tailored to fit cultural, organisational, and personal leadership contexts.
As executive coaches, we must continuously refine our methods, ensuring they align with not just what works in theory, but what resonates in practice. Because in a world where leadership is more global than ever, the ability to coach across cultures isn’t just a skill—it’s a necessity.
I am David McQueen, an executive coach, global speaker and business advisor
Feel free to reach out here to find out more about my coaching services https://davidmcqueen.co.uk/work/coaching
