This final analysis of differences between USA and non-USA coaches reveals no significant differences regarding current influences. We find similar negative results when looking at other categorizations of coaches. For instance, very few differences were found between personal and organizational coaches. When it comes to sources of influence at the present time, everyone seems to be going their own way (as indicated by the high variance scores). It should be noted, however, that there are a cluster of t-scores that hover on the edge of marginal significance—suggesting that there might be something here that the current study has not been able to access. Perhaps there are some real differences when the non-USA respondents are more carefully sorted by country.
Even though no significant differences were found between USA and non-USA coaches, I would offer my own opinion (perhaps bias) that dialogue might be of great value if the forum for this dialogue is global in scope. We have much to learn from our coaching colleagues in different regions of the world. As I noted in a previous essay:
Given the isolation to be found among coaches (as we noted in an earlier report based on these two surveys), it might be important to identify and support those areas where dialogue does occur and where the walls of the professional silo can be breached.
Discussion
In bringing this essay to a close, I start with the most obvious finding: there are not many significant differences among survey respondents as a function of the country from which they come. The same negative conclusion was reached in most of the earlier reports regarding differences as a function of age, gender or the type of coaching in which they are engaged. This was not the case, however, among respondents as a function of whether or not they completed ICF certification. The results, overall, suggest that primarily focus in future studies should be directed to the impact of certification on coaching development and performance—though in each of the eight reports I have identified several specific areas for further study.
Those few significant or near significant differences we did find between USA and non-USA coaches must be considered tentative and our interpretation of these differences is speculative at best. Once again, we should be cognizant of Rey Carr’s cautionary note regarding Survey Monkey results. Furthermore, we need to be reminded that when many statistical calculations are being performed, the use of .05 and .01 confidence levels become suspect. Put simply, if one hundred calculations are performed, then five of them will be significant by chance. Technically, the levels of confidence should be adjusted, and the “bar” of significance raised when multiple t-test (or analyses of variance) are performed. Nevertheless, I will venture forth and do some speculating.
