There is a fourth possible reason that relates to the near significant difference (p<,10) found regarding the turning to other resources for assistance with a difficult client. Non-USA coaches report that they are more likely to “consult relevant articles or books” than is the case when USA coaches respond to this question. Could this be a greater tendency for non-USA coaches to turn to external authorities for assistance than is the case with USA coaches? We might find that USA coaches are more “self-reliant” – looking to their own experiences rather than turning to another source. If it doesn’t work out for the USA coaches, then they can simply refer out to another professional: a quick, action-oriented, pragmatic solution. As an aside, I wonder if there is a cost associated with this quick referral (and self-reliance). There might be less personal learning on the part of the USA coach.
There is another way to frame this potential reason. It might not be a matter of turning elsewhere for assistance. It might instead be a matter of the resource to which a coach is likely to turn. While USA coaches might be more inclined to turn to another professional (via referral), the non-USA coach might look not to another person, but instead to a nonhuman resource. If this is the case, then we might ask if the turning to an article or book is somehow related to the more “bookish” orientation of non-USA coaches.
The USA coaches might be less bookish. Perhaps, these coaches are more likely to choose action rather than reflection when dealing with client difficulties. Once again, it might be a matter, in part, of professional coaching outside the USA being less established. When a coach looks to an article or book for guidance, they are now letting it be known to other members of their society that they don’t have all the answers (as demonstrated in the act of referral). Action is stopped as the coach sits down to read an article or book. In the term used by Daniel Kahneman (2011), the bookism coach is engaging in slow thinking (rather than fast thinking) – and their clients might begin modeling this more reflective approach to their problem(s).
There is one other possible reason which always must be considered when cross-cultural or cross-national comparisons are being made. Are there some powerful societal norms that help to determine the actions to be taken? In the domain of human services, we might find that personal failings are stigmatized. These failings (and related fears and depressive thoughts) must be kept out of public view. They are to be confined as “secrets” that are held by family members (and perhaps some religious official who, in some form, can hear “confessions”).
In some cultures, not only is professional coaching (and many other human services) not fully accepted. Any “exposure” of a client receiving these services is unwelcomed. This push toward secrecy might even apply to asking another professional to do work with a difficult coaching client. We hide our problems, even if this means not receiving proper care. I would suggest that this problem of secrecy (and the fear of stigma associated with revealing any personal failing) is to be found in the USA as well as many other countries – it just might not be as great a problem in the USA.
