Coachee readiness in Asia is less about whether leaders want to change, and more about whether they are ready to change through coaching as it is typically practised.
Why coachee readiness matters, and even more in Asia
Both Kretzschmar’s (2010) study and van Coller‑Peter & de Vries’ (2022) synthesis show that readiness is a critical precondition for effective coaching, not a nice‑to‑have. They highlight that even a highly skilled coach cannot compensate for a coachee who is ambivalent, unprepared, or misaligned with the coaching process.
In Asia, this gap gets amplified because most coaching models were built in highly individualist, low power‑distance cultures such as the US, UK and Australia. These cultures assume self‑directed learners who are comfortable being asked questions, having their thinking challenged, being reflective and able to think critically. Many Asian leaders, educated in teacher‑centred systems and working in hierarchical organisations (Loh and Teo, 2017), bring very different expectations to a coaching conversation. When readiness is not actively addressed, disengagement can show up as polite compliance, shallow conversations, or quietly dropping out after a few sessions. One of my favourite comments from an Asian coachee who “quietly dropped out” is “My coach is an idiot; he only asks me questions!”
What the research says about readiness
Kretzschmar’s Coaching Client Readiness Model identifies six interlocking layers that influence whether a client is ready for coaching: culture and class, knowledge about coaching, accessibility to coaching, psychological interpretations, feeling safe, and commitment to change. Van Coller‑Peter & de Vries add a complementary lens from change psychology, showing how motivation and readiness evolve through pre‑contemplation, contemplation and preparation stages (Prochaska and Velicer, 1997) before behaviour change takes root.
At the psychological level, readiness involves openness, self‑esteem, basic emotional stability and the capacity for reflection and feedback. At the relational level, it depends on feeling safe with the coach and having a clear, rigorous contract that sets boundaries, expectations and confidentiality. And at the motivational level, it requires a compelling reason to change, genuine commitment and a sense of personal responsibility for doing the work between sessions.
Crucially, the newer readiness framework (van Coller-Peter and de Vries, 2022) argues that coaches should adapt their interventions to where the coachee sits on the change curve, instead of assuming every leader arrives “ready to act”. Coaching a pre‑contemplative coachee as if they were in the preparation stage is a fast track to frustration for both sides.
When Western coaching meets Asian learning styles
In my own research on learning styles, a key tension surfaces: many Asian coachees are highly motivated to learn, but not necessarily ready to learn in the way Western coaching expects. In collectivist, high power‑distance contexts such as Singapore, China, Korea and much of Southeast Asia, people are socialised in teacher‑centred classrooms where the expert provides structure, answers and evaluation. Questioning the teacher, openly challenging ideas or engaging in highly self‑directed inquiry is usually unfamiliar and often discouraged.
By contrast, mainstream coaching—especially as defined by global bodies like ICF—assumes a student‑centred, non‑directive pedagogy, where the coach mostly asks questions and the coachee generates their own insights and solutions. For many Asian leaders, this feels like a mismatch: coaches are often perceived as a senior, experienced expert and therefore should offer advice and make suggestions. Yet when the coach withholds advice, as the coaching process prescribes; the Asian coachee can feel confused, frustrated, disappointed or even angry that their expectations are not met.
This means a leader may be deeply committed to change (high learning motivation) yet still not ready for coaching as a methodology because the “type of effort” required—self‑disclosure, critical reflection, sustained question‑based exploration—sits outside their experience and thus learning through coaching is unfamiliar and uncomfortable. The literature I have read on coachee readiness miss the distinction between willingness to change and willingness to change via coaching, especially in Asian settings.
Practical implications for Asian HR & Talent professionals and coaches
Bringing these strands together, coachee readiness in the Asian context is best thought of as a culturally shaped state that can be assessed and developed—not a binary trait. Several practical implications follow:
- Start before the first session. Expectations of coaching start way before the first session, and so HR professionals can play an important role by doing more than only explaining the coaching process, but creating a safe space to dialogue with the coachee to help surface expectations.
- Name the methodological gap. Asian coachees benefit from explicit conversations about how coaching will feel different from mentoring, training or advice‑giving—and why. This includes acknowledging the leader’s past learning experiences and being transparent about where the coach may be more or less directive.
- Contract for learning style, not just logistics. A robust contract should cover not only goals, frequency and confidentiality, but also preferred learning approaches, comfort with questions, and how much guidance the leader expects.
- Blend directive and non‑directive wisely. Emerging research in China (Percy and Dow, 2022) and elsewhere suggests that a thoughtful blend—what some call a “coaching dance” between guidance and inquiry—can honour cultural expectations while gradually building capacity for self‑directed reflection.
- Treat culture as an active readiness factor. Although Kretzschmar’s (2010) model includes culture and class as a readiness factor, my research would argue that in Asia this needs to move from a background question to an integrated design consideration throughout the coaching engagement.
- Readiness is an ongoing process. Coachee readiness is often viewed as a calibration to make before beginning the coaching relationship. In reality, readiness needs to be an active contract that is updated through the entire coaching process. Checking in by contracting on a session-by-session basis on what the coachee is expecting and how the coach and coachee can best work together to align expectations and experience.
The 1point5 perspective: making readiness visible
At 1point5 Solutions, we take the view that most breakdowns in “coaching effectiveness” in Asia are not failures of coaching as a concept, but failures of alignment. Leaders are often motivated, intelligent and committed; what is missing is surfacing and alignment of expectations, their learning style, and the way coaching is adapted to best suit a strong development outcome.
That is why we advocate treating coachee readiness as a shared responsibility across HR, the coach and the leader, rather than a private judgment about who is “coachable enough.” In practice, this means:
- Building readiness conversations into sponsorship and scoping discussions,
- Using culturally attuned questions from the Coaching Client Readiness Model to explore barriers and enablers
- Explicitly addressing Asian learning styles and hierarchy dynamics when framing the coaching relationship, and
- Allowing for phased adaptation—from more structured, guidance‑oriented early sessions towards progressively greater self‑direction as confidence and trust grow.
Done well, this approach does more than “reduce” coaching drop‑outs, it helps Asian coachees step into a development process that respects their context while still stretching them into new, more reflective ways of leading.
At 1point5 Solutions, we partner with HR and talent professionals across Asia to develop leaders through evidence-based, culturally aware coaching & workshops.
If you like more tips like these, subscribe HERE to receive our latest articles and resources by email.
If you’re exploring how coaching can develop your leaders, book a conversation with us to see what this could look like in your context.
Authored by: John Raymond
References
- Kretzschmar, I. (2010) ‘Exploring Clients’ Readiness for Coaching’, International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring, (4).
- Loh, C. Y. and Teo, T. C. (2017) ‘Understanding Asian Students Learning Styles, Cultural Influence and Learning Strategies’, Jounrnal of Education & Social Policy, 7(1), pp. 194–210.
- Percy, A. and Dow, K. (2022) ‘The Coaching Dance Applied: training Chinese managers to coach’, Coaching: An International Journal of Theory, Research and Practice, 15(2), pp. 228–243.
- Prochaska, J. o. and Velicer, W. F. (1997) ‘The trans theoretical model of health behavior change.’, American Journal of Health Promotion,, 12, pp. 38–48. doi: 10.4278/0890-1171-12.1.38.
- van Coller-Peter, S. and de Vries, D. (2022) ‘Towards building a theory on coachee readiness’, International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring, 20(1), pp. 50–65. doi: 10.24384/HDS1-2J35.
