What makes you commit? ‘Believer, calculator or supporter?’

After two months on our volunteer job, we’re already calling it a day. It’s not because we don’t like the job or they want us out a.s.a.p. In all fairness we can say it’s because we’re moving on. Nevertheless it does feel a bit like quitting. Not like it did when we left our jobs last summer, but still. We try to make the best of it before we leave and then we say our goodbyes. Off we go, stuffed with memories and afterthoughts. As a coach, I often meet people contemplating on their job and career choices. I find it interesting always, to see how strongly committed people actually are to their jobs. If only their organizations could see half of it. Today - quitting jobs for the second time in a year and juggling (and struggling) with commitment myself - I wonder how people get so committed? And what about commitment across cultures?

Just imagine your company spirals downward. Or continuously having fights with your manager? What if ethics changed? What if your stress-level keeps getting tested? What if you’re salary lags your responsibility and efforts? Or what if you’re developing a serious dislike for your job? Across cultures, people tend to respond differently. Yes, there are strong economical and personal influences, but research filtered out some interesting cultural aspects. We all know the world famous example of Japanese workers. Their loyalty and obedience by far exceeds what we’re used to in Western societies. As well as thoughts about quitting an organization based on costs and benefits are rare in Japan. Such decisions were often made a long time ago; sometimes even based on family heritage.

But what is commitment? The best description I found is ‘persistence with a purpose’. An inner force or action, that feels like attachment, identification or loyalty. If it comes to being committed to our jobs, we can distinct three types:

• Affective commitment is ‘a strong belief in and acceptance of the goals and values of an organization’ (Porter). I’d like to talk about believers. 
• Continuance commitment is a more calculative for of commitment; the result of ‘side-bets’ or investments that increase the costs you would accrue if you leave the organization (Meyer). Let’s call these calculators. 
• Normative commitment is a sense of obligation, feeling you ought to remain with the organization (Meyer & Allen). I’ll call these supporters.
  

I’m guessing you might already feel a certain response - familiarity, allergy, itch - when going over one or two of these different types of commitment. Am I right? Why do we respond like that? What makes you commit? Culturally, this is mainly related to dimensions such as individualism versus collectivism and power distance. Individualism feeds both believing and calculating. When you identify less with groups, you’re more likely to stay committed because of inner values or individual benefits. Collectivism on the other hand, is positively associated with supporting. If you identify with groups, you’re more likely to feel obliged to stick with those. Power distance - the extent to which people accept differences in power - is higher in places like Japan, South-East Asia, Argentina or Spain in comparison to Northern Europe and the US. Power distance feeds supporting. The greater the power distance the greater the emphasis on obedience and loyalty. If power distance is low, it’s a lot easier to evaluate authority and assess personal benefits. Not to mention it’ll be a lot easier to confront your boss.

There are interesting paradoxes though. Research proved that turnover - and turnover intentions - were a lot lower in Japan compared to the US. Nevertheless, self-reported levels of commitment in the US are generally higher than in any other culture. Wouldn’t you expect a lower turnover then? It turned out that in the US, a sense of obligation to the organization - supporting - hardly influences the intention of staying; unlike any other country. In the US, I’m sure, this is related to job security; the level of commitment of organizations and governments towards individuals.

Yet how strong are these cultural influences? Not particularly strong. We universally recognize each of these commitment types. Our tendency to be committed - either as a believer, a calculator or a supporter - varies within cultures, from person to person and time to time. For just as much reason, someone could blog about commitment and gender. Nevertheless I’ve learned there are a few universal reasons for sticking to our jobs. In random order this is because (1) we feel we are fairly compensated, (2) we feel we want to make a contribution (to either the organization or its goals), (3) we feel we are still able to learn something, and (4) we feel we can fit the job on a daily life that meets with our other needs.

Leaving We women foundation I’m genuinely happy to have felt strongly committed to an organization, without any interference of calculative commitment. I find believing and supporting are the more likable forces within. My own heroes are not as such because of their skills, talents or intelligence. What I admire is their ability to be human: not knowing, making mistakes, going different ways, losing temper or patience and then - because of commitment to a cause, a person or a group - reflect, learn and get back on track. If that happens to you: stay! That’s when you know for sure how much you really care.

Commitment to a cause - www.coachcultures.org

For some reflection on our volunteering at We women, see our We women blog: “Looking back over a tealeaf salad”.
For more background on commitment across cultures, see: “Commitment across cultures: A meta-analytical approach”, Fischer and Mansell (2008).

Stuck between two countries and a hard place

Living in Thailand for a few months, we had the pleasure of eating at this amazing Burmese restaurant for a few times. The restaurant - in the outskirts of town - also functions as a community-heart for local migrants from Burma. It’s a good place for them to meet, chat and share their every day lives. Unfortunately, last week Thai police raided the restaurant. What started with parking issues led to much worse: the arrest and possible deportation of six people. These migrants from Burma don’t hold sufficient legal documents to run a business, which are not the only rights they are denied. Stuck between two countries and a hard place. The police of course knew, which makes this nothing more but harassment and a blunt demonstration of police presence. Frustrating enough, there’s not much to do. It’s these frustrations - and others - that cause these migrants never to feel at ease. Stuck in a hard place that - worst case - feeds fear and insecurity.

We all know our own bits and pieces about fear. Let’s just call it a highly unpleasant, very strong emotion. In general, we get afraid in the anticipation of loss. But it gets even more frightening if we depend on the good will of others, such as Thai police, or others in power. Fear is stressful at the least, but the long-term effects - often overlooked - are possibly far more severe. I would even go as far as to say daily exposure to fear is like practising it. As with most things we practise, we get good at it. When practising fear - including anger as a ‘bonus-emotion’ - you run a serious risk of becoming a fearful and angry person. It takes strong will, character and at least some social support to stop this. Unfortunately fear and anger often become standard when dealing with new challenges. I can only admire the way these people from Burma have compensated fear with courage. Because that - and something of a happy-go-lucky attitude - is what it takes to set up a community-heart when stuck in a hard place.

Very important to the community though, because if you add to this the insecurity that goes with having to be on your guard every day, you understand why these migrants need to seek and meet each other. Insecurity feels like always climbing up a mountain without seeing the top. Others describe it like the feeling of having no freedom of action or choice; always having to do something else then you prefer. Out of this insecurity, it’s understandable for people to become defensive. Over-controlling emotionally - not allowing others in - is just one of the many strategies. As an unfortunate paradox, insecurity - defensiveness, over-controlling, not allowing others in - often tends to trigger conflicts instead of preventing them. This risk of downward spiral is of course the last thing you need when afraid and insecure. Again, the relative safety and security of a community-heart - like the Burmese restaurant - puts things into perspective.

Now this - long introduction - is what I find so frustrating about politics today. So many strategies and policies are based on fear and insecurity, which result in even more fear and insecurity. Strict immigration-rules, catch-22 situations for refugees, strong - often inflicting - words by politicians, stressing differences; it all adds up to nothing much of a way to go. Understanding the long-term effects of fear and insecurity makes it even more annoying to listen to up-tight politicians who lead on these exclusive and excluding policies and ideas from behind their brave and macho masks. Like the former bullies at school; we all know they always turned out to be neither brave nor interesting. We see politicians behaving defensive, we look at them over-controlling emotionally and we know for a fact they are not letting anyone in or close. All I can think of is: insecurity. It just goes to show fear and insecurity cut both ways. These seemingly brave and macho figures - bullies in power, frightening and harassing others - actually get more scared and insecure every day they do so. Good practise! Downward spiral, just what we need, especially from the boys and girls in the lead…

Come on world, is this how we’re going to deal with future challenges? If we all want to be less afraid and insecure - which we do - there’s no other choice but to take some risk in changing our behaviour. Which actually means we have to trust others and expose ourselves; take some risk of getting hurt. Luckily, lots of people are brave; like these people from Burma. Those in better positions on the other hand - like the ordinary you and me, or leaders and politicians - could do with some more healthy and humorous belief in them selves. Aren’t we far too busy overcoming insecurity by finding support - votes, followers, Facebook-likes - all the time? As a strategy to halt the downward fear and insecurity spiral, I say it’s about time we deal with our highly exaggerated need for acceptance and approval. It’ll save us lots of time, lots of fuzz and lots of future troubles.

Stuck between two countries and a hard place - www.coachcultures.org

Throw off your bowlines or cherish your harbour?

When discussing the coaching framework with Ursula at We women foundation, we dwelled upon how women from Burma point at their heart when talking about both their heart and mind. If you’re into Buddhism, you’ll know more about this. It’s very different from a Western upbringing, in which we clearly see the mind in one place and the heart in another. I often state that coaching is all about being you; both connecting our inside to what we show on the outside and connecting our hearts and minds. It feels like we can easily spend a lifetime ‘unconfusing’ ourselves. But what if a Burmese upbringing - or maybe a Buddhist upbringing in general - causes a different sort of confusion? What would it be like? And how does it influence a coaching approach?

I’m only starting to dig in, so obviously I’m far from having the answers. Plus I’m not what you might call an expert on Buddhism. Nevertheless, I feel like I am slowly waking up to a different coaching approach, to actually fit the local context. We women works within a very specific local context. They support female refugees from Burma - illegal migrants in Thailand - whose passions, goals and motivation implicate them as future leaders of Burma. Most women that take part in the project - talented and motivated as they are - are under a lot of pressure to finish their education. At the same time, these women have to manage their very intense lives. Therefore, coaching is already a vital part of their project.

So what changes a coaching approach compared to western style coaching? This is what I’m thinking:

• “Stuck in our future or past, trying to work out the present” could well be the most common starting point for coaching in the West. I feel we Westerners are mind racers - disconnected from our feelings or heritage - often far from knowing what it is that actually drives us. Western people do lots of future thinking; having big individual dreams. Not to mention we often have unresolved issues in our past. All together we seem to have lots of difficulties sensing and understanding our present - feelings, anxieties, thoughts, life’s questions - to back up our dreams and future thinking. Coaching is often about exploring today’s reality to get a better grip on our future oriented behaviour. 

 

• “Stuck in the present” might fit Buddhist cultures better. Over here, it is far more difficult to hold big dreams and goals in life, particularly as an individual. If only because Buddhism focuses on today. But for the women from Burma the reality of today is omnipresent, often shaped by being a responsible representative of a larger community. Then there’s the refugee context. These people have fled experiences of poverty, sometimes violence and other significant life experiences. On top of this, living as illegal migrants in Thailand adds to the insecurity and reality of a life in which there are less opportunities to chase dreams and aspirations. You could question the ethics of digging out dreams within this reality, right? On the other hand, people are much more aware of their feelings, anxieties, primary thoughts and life’s questions.

In addition, Asian cultures are often high context cultures; which means a lot less is spelled out and experiences and ideas are often much more implicit, So how to discuss matters as a coach? (Click here for more information on high versus low context). You might start to feel that a Western style of personal coaching is a total misfit for female refugees from Burma. But for now, I disagree.

Why? Let’s just simplify by saying that coaching is about personal leadership. I would argue that it’s all about opening up to your own journey. If that is the case, I feel Eastern and Western cultures have an interestingly different view on the concept of a life’s journey. A Buddhist quote on personal leadership states: “Like the captain of a ship, a leader must have a definite goal; only then can he chart his course and steer his ship in the right direction.” This journey - on the one hand - is all about responsibility and about being a role model within your community who may lead the way. Mark Twain - a famous American writer - puts it differently. In lines well known to Western travellers he states: "Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that you didn’t do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbour. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover." This journey is about courage, experimenting and discovering new ways by being an individual. Different values shape our journey.

I feel these different concepts of a life’s journey - plus being stuck in the present versus future or past - shape a non-Western coaching approach. Not entirely different, but different for sure in terms of pace, focus, methods and behaviour. Feel free the comment. I’m happy to get back to you later with more specific ideas. But for now, I’m trying to withhold myself from jumping into conclusions; happy to learn from these more time-plentiful cultures.

The heart & the mind - www.coachcultures.org

Crisis? What Crisis?

No, this blog is not about Supertramp’s Fourth Album. But it would be a lousy title for my blog if there wasn’t any parallel. Supertramp released their Album during the mid-seventies oil-crisis, ironically denying the crisis. Well, I would love to add some question marks to today’s crisis. A few weeks ago, my colleague Ron got me started, by saying a crisis is nothing more than our world evolving very - very - fast. A very interesting thought. Yes, if we don’t want change, we - our government, financial ‘authorities’, whoever - may speak of crisis. But I feel this time of change holds lots of long-awaited good, which just might make our European or global crisis a most interesting and enjoyable time to discover new ways.

Three weeks ago, in my blog ‘so many ways’, I talked about inspiring Asian entrepreneurs, opening up to a diversity of ideas and solutions. So how about inspiration today? Even better, as I am now surrounded by social entrepreneurs. A funny combination of words ‘social-entrepreneurs’, which is used since the eighties (post-crisis) to label people who use business principles to solve social issues. Instead of focusing on profit and return, social entrepreneurs like to focus on creating social capital. That’s why social entrepreneurs are often associated with voluntary and non-profit sectors. Although there are even more ways. What is most appealing to me is how social entrepreneurs are always most active in times of so-called crisis, no matter the shape, size or geographic location. Social entrepreneurs want to contribute, highly motivated by making positive changes. They see all sorts of opportunities and - most important of all - seize opportunities where others freeze or get frustrated.

Today I myself got the opportunity to contribute to a very interesting, driven social ventures called We women foundation. Volunteering for now, as a coach, which of course in my case is something of a luxury thing. But you’d have to understand that no one makes big bucks in social ventures like these. That’s not how you create social capital. We women is about supporting strong unrecognized refugee women from Burma to build capacity within their community. About increasing their abilities to make and influence policy decisions in Burma, which today are too often made by outsiders. About supporting these women to make it to and through University, to promote their chances of achieving their dreams and goals. All of which is social capital. I can tell you, seeing these things work out is seriously good pay.

Many things happen in Burma today, many of which are very problematic. Problematic and complex in ways that make our European crisis seem very - very - shallow. But no matter the shape or size of crisis, these specifically are times to create positive and lasting change in fast-evolving communities.

So if you ever feel locked in by our European and global crisis, stuck on a train towards change that is not you. Change trains at the next stop and seize your crisis-opportunity to join or become a social entrepreneur. It’s a ‘crisis’, so you’ll find them around. Yes of course, you’ll make less of a buck. But hey, it’s crisis anyway! Maybe you’ll have to adjust your standards a bit. But a few days or weeks down the line you’ll know you’re investing, focused on positive change. And some time later you’ll feel it too. Soon, very - very - soon, you’ll find out how little the word crisis actually means. I’d highly recommend this change of perspective.