Culural Collision in Organisational Change

Maybe True, Maybe Not True – Better You Believe: Cultural Collision in organisational change, Nepal

1 | P a g e Jo Chaffer MADT Dissertation SOUT7180 2014 University of Cumbria

Maybe True, Maybe Not True

Better You Believe:

Cultural Collision in organisational change,

Nepal (a case study)

University of Cumbria, UK

March 2014

Maybe True, Maybe Not True – Better You Believe

Sherpa saying

This case study has been developed following the ethics guidance of the University of Cumbria1

All organisations and people in this case study have been given pseudonyms to maintain anonymity

The original data collected during the study is available for interrogation on request to the author

Abstract

Many Development Trainers and other organisational consultants now work across cultures. There is much

discussion and advice on specific cultural traits and on organisational culture but little on the process of

different cultures meeting within the organisation and the impacts this can have, particularly on change. This

case study uses a critical ethnographic approach to understand the change process on people in a Nepali

organisation facilitated by a Western Development Trainer. It specifically looks at agency, its relation to culture

and how the meeting of cultures affects its development. The study finds that in this instance the state of

cultural release and the ability to make explicit and make meaning from noticings on the emergence of cultural

traits is critical to the process. Additionally that specific interventions are less effective than long term

exposure and relationship building.

Key words

Agency, culture, organisational change, power, Nepal

1 http://www.cumbria.ac.uk/AboutUs/Research/ResearchOffice/EthicalGuidelinesTaughtDegree.aspx



Contents 1. Introduction

2. Scene Setting

1. The voices of others: the professional & theoretical contexts

2. The case study: some essential background on the place, people and context

3. Methodology

4. Findings

5. Discussion & Analysis

6. Conclusions

Acknowledgements

Bibliography

Appendices



Section 1. Introduction

Overview

This paper takes the reader through the story of change in the case study organisation (TS) and the story of

change in the development trainer (the author) facilitating this process. Both parties are from very different

philosophical and cultural backgrounds. The aim of the study is to expose and understand how these differing

groundings and perspectives affect and are affected by their meeting and by the change process.

Its focus is on the process of change and what this brought to light in terms of behaviours, actions and

attitudes both in the organisation’s people and in the development trainer. For this paper’s concern the

outcomes of the process are less important.

The noticing of the behaviours, actions and attitudes that surfaced, the interpretation of these as indicators of

their different cultures and the subsequent judgement of and choice of ethical treatment of these in practice

form the base of the critical inquiry: What emerged (as a result of the cultures meeting)? What does it mean in

this instance? What could it mean and how could it be useful for development trainers operating outside of

their cultural norms?

These questions are referenced against the voices of others from a theoretical and from practitioners’

perspectives considering the historical and current contexts.

The key concepts are agency, power and transformation: how these are seated (or not) in culture and how

their evolution may be influenced by the different cultural foundations. I also briefly examine culture as a

dynamic paradigm particularly the socio-politicisation of Sherpa.

A note on style

I have used the active voice wherever appropriate preferring a more direct, accessible and confident style.

For the most part data and detailed information are contained in the appendices with the main text body

containing a summary only of the key findings and ideas.

Much of the process, evidence, reflection and discussion around these are written in a narrative style: this is

intentional and employed to mirror the sense of the study itself. The literature review however approximates a

more traditional academic writing style.

I intend to provide a practical and useful tool that could be tested, adapted and applied by practitioners in

similar contexts, but that is firmly grounded in theory drawing on multiple fields across the academy

The fields I have drawn on for understanding, for context and to provide challenge for my own lines of inquiry

span the following study areas:

About organisations: To understand what is best practice for facilitators engaged in organisational change; to

source an appropriate change methodology; to understand the theory relating to organisational behaviour as

understood in Western academies; to understand how location culture affects organisations (cf organisational

culture)

About the key concepts: To understand how culture, agency, power and self-actualisation interplay and play

out specifically in the context of organisations



About the underpinning theories: Critical Social Theory was my initial basis for the investigation. This is still

very relevant but I now also consider Critical Ethnography and draw insight from anthropological theories,

particularly around Sherpa peoples.

I have to date found very little in any of the above fields (including Development Training) that addresses

cultural, generational interplay in the context of organisational change from a critical ethnographic, positivist

perspective in theory or practice and certainly none in S Asia. This indicates a gap in understanding. But is there

a need to fill this gap? The next section evidences that there is.

What is the need for this case study? What is the need for this case study? What is the need for this case study? What is the need for this case study?

The niche

I elucidate on the niche from two perspectives: firstly, the niche in the field (Development Training) relevant to

developing organisations; secondly, as a development trainer relevant to developing competencies and

practice.

The field – why this is needed here and now

Change is now considered by many to be the normative state of many organisations: in S Asia at least

cultural collision / transformation is already a factor in this yet there is little understanding or guidance for

any party in how to ethically manage this. The case study gives an opportunity to examine this at the micro

level.

In the current economic and politically unstable environment and with rapid steps-up in technological norms,

organisational survival and success in all sectors has meant, for most, that the ability to change, respond and

adapt internally and / or in their operating space is an imperative. Nowhere is this more true than in emerging

economies (and particularly in their high-growth sector pockets): in such situations organisations that are

highly flexible, that can quickly assimilate new technologies, new processes and new strategies into their

business models, when combined with cheap manpower, have opportunities to leapfrog more cumbersome

competitors and gain international market advantage. They can shoot from the back of the field to the front.

This phenomenon is well documented in S Asia, particularly India. Indian shooting stars could be said to fall into

one of two camps: traditional family businesses that have reformed and embraced a new approach, such as

Tata Group or very high growth start-ups such as Flipkart. In the former case (the re-visioned family power

house) change is often instigated by a leader’s ‘personal vision’ and achieved through internal cultural and

structural changes (Cappelli, P et al 2010). In these circumstances organisational consultants, specifically

Western consultants with the potential to bridge cultures, are increasingly being called upon to create and

embed the change. It is noteworthy that the majority of practices and techniques (including recent adoptions

of socio-psychological approaches such as Emotional Intelligence) are grounded in Western philosophy (with

little relation to Confucianism and Eastern bases2). Consultancy groups have been adapting their approach but

largely only as a response to the clients’ demands for greater Return On their Investment (Mahanta, V 2013 &

Plunkett Research Ltd 2013).

2 Indian Leadership Network, LinkedIn 2014

http://www.linkedin.com/groupAnswers?viewQuestionAndAnswers=&discussionID=5803418137202286592&gid=54235&

commentID=5804469275339022336&trk=view_disc&fromEmail=&ut=3MCF-aTEC3Gm81



The same change phenomena also exhibits, albeit on a much smaller scale, in Nepal. Here there are far fewer

organisational change consultants and the majority are home-grown.

TS, the case study organisation, is an example of the traditional family business. Since their inception 25+ years

ago they have maintained a high growth rate expanding from a simple small-shop trekking agency to a

multimillion dollar turnover group of travel and tourism companies.

TS has been experiencing various internal cultural collisions since before the start of the study. It is challenged

from the following sources

• TS interfaces with Western agents and clients on a daily basis – on the client facing side it is challenged

in the international marketplace to compete, to adopt others’ practices

• N, the son is a Western educated highly international man, he is second in command and keen for

change

• TS is reasonably highly technologically enabled

The above sit alongside a Nepali (Sherpa) family structure and culture that is virtually the same in rigidity and

power distribution as that of the original TS in the 90s.

The tension between the modern and traditional, the West and Nepali is palpable. It seemed to be at the root

of some internal fractures but also an ‘unstoppable force’ that they needed to move with. Hence TS too looked

for a ‘bideshi’ (foreign) friend to steer them towards a more adapted future.

The Development Trainer The Development Trainer The Development Trainer The Development Trainer –––– the need from an individual perspectivethe need from an individual perspectivethe need from an individual perspectivethe need from an individual perspective

Over the last two decades I have lived and worked in many different cultures some far from and some close to

my ‘home culture’ (UK). As a result there have been shifts in my own cultural referents and my ability to notice

these in play. These shifts have also had an influence on my perception and practice as a Development Trainer

working both with individuals and organisations. My role’s primary purpose is to facilitate my clients’

appropriate and desirable (by them) growth and change. I hold very highly the responsibility I have to my

clients to support them as sensitively and respectfully as possible: in establishing what appropriate and

desirable for them means; in pursuing this change in an appropriate and desirable manner. To be effective, to

act responsibly and with integrity I feel it is my ethical duty to fine tune my noticing skills, to have as much

understanding as possible about their culture (from macro to micro) and equally, if not more importantly, to

have as much self-awareness and self-knowledge of the filters, biases and interpretation models I am running

as a result of my experiences and specifically my cultural, philosophical grounding.

In this case study my presence is equal in impact to that of the people in TS: to not understand who I am and

what I bring; what I miss; what I fail on would render the interpretation of the findings fairly meaningless.

This case study provides an opportunity to understand my own professional journey through different stages of

cultural release and immersion and the impact this has on my ability to be effective as a Development Trainer

working in an ‘other’ cultural context.

The narrative, reflection and critical assessment of my journey (through the interventions) represent both part

of the evidence supporting my thesis (and later my claim) and the “specific conditions under which [] the



scholar’s point of view would hold true” 3 These form part of the credibility, sensitivity and basis of the

judgements I make. Thus their inclusion is an essential part of the construction of the academic argument. It

forms the ‘ethos’ element of the classical (Aristotle) argument.

Summary: Given the gap in the literature on cultural interplay and organisational change, the gap in

understanding of practice coupled with the growing likelihood of Western Development Trainers finding

themselves operating in S Asian environments and lastly my personal-professional need to develop my own

practice and desire to contribute to the field, I formed the following Research Questions. These are the basis of

the inquiry and case study.

The Research QuestionsThe Research QuestionsThe Research QuestionsThe Research Questions

What is (and could be) the role of a Western Development Trainer in an ‘other’ culture

(Nepali, Sherpa) organisational change process?

What behaviours and attitudes exist and emerge?

What does examining these tell us about the agency, power roles of the individuals?

What is my sensitivity to notice and respond to the awareness / exposure of these behaviours and

attitudes? What are my judgements about these based on (my prior assumptions and experience)?

What do these tell us about the cultures at play and their meaning?

What does this mean for other Development Trainers operating in different cultures?

What is an appropriate ethical framework within which to do this?

To Contents

3 http://wps.ablongman.com/long_faigley_penguinhb_2/39/10069/2577819.cw/index.html download date

February 9th 2014



Section Two: Scene Setting

2.1 theoretical backgrounds – bringing in the voices of others

OverviewOverviewOverviewOverview

I have found very few resources available within either the professional or the academic domains that address

the idea of cultural interplay in a specific setting. Those that do have focused on transnational business

collaborations where whole organisations partner, interact or merge with other whole organisations (Dahles, H

2005). The cultures referred to are mostly organisational cultures (cf national, tribal or faith based). Discourse

is around cultural dominance and diversity (Child & Faulkner 1998; Fung 1995 and others in Marrewijk, A 2004).

The studies by and large examine the cultural interplay as facets of strategic, management and operational

process (Marrewijk, A 2004). These have provided useful understanding of some of the issues and challenges

faced by the organisations (and therefore by implication of the people within those) but their usefulness tails

away when examining the issues and effects at the individual level (one person interacting with an

organisation; individual people within the organisation) and their ability to operate, be advantaged by the

interplay.

I have, within the limitations of this study, found none that look at West-East cultural interplay within a single

organisation in a change environment.

On the other hand there is much written around the individual aspects comprising the study e.g. Sherpa

culture, changes in Nepali society, organisational change processes; organisational leadership, structures and

constraints in S Asia and of course the big themes of power; agency and identity

There are many broad sweep concepts referenced in this paper. It is helpful to clarify how I have understood

and used them.

CultureCultureCultureCulture

There is an enormous body of work defining and re-interpreting culture (and cultures). For the purposes of this

study I have drawn from the following definition:

“It is helpful to understand culture in two dimensions: firstly as a living, evolving system of values, beliefs,

social heritage and rituals that help us form (our sense of) who we are (identity) and why we are here

(purpose). Secondly, as the expression of culture through cultural practice and activities.” (Chaffer, J 2013).

In this case study I focus of the former dimension. This sits within the hermeneutic tradition wherein we accept

that culture shapes our ability to give the ‘social world meaning’ (Weinberg, H, 2003) and partially comprises

moral and value assumptions. The anthropological understanding of cultures as delineating groups is helpful

although my interpretation is that people ‘belong to’ and are shaped by multiple cultural mores at any one

time and that these change through time. I reject the narrow interpretation used by Welsch and derived from

Herder, which to my mind is more akin to national identity, in building his argument for ‘transculturality’

(Welsch, W 1999). Equally I have not found much resonance with the work of Trompenaars and his renowned

guidance on organisational cultures preferring to notice potentially culturally-indicative behaviours and

attitudes as they emerge and use judgement in the context of the whole person located in the particular time

and place frame. I am more interested in the process of noticing and judging and what this says about the

actors and the relationship than in understanding what was noticed in a category frame. Having said that



Trompenaars’ seven dimensions of relationships (Trompenaars, F 2004) were very helpful in the initial stages of

the study providing a handrail to entering the discourse of ethnography, anthropology and culture. The notion

that expressed by the seventh dimension: Internal vs. external control (Do we control our environment or are

we controlled by it?) was specifically helpful.

I noticed I have a preference instead for an integrative, holistic approach drawing from multiple theories and

fields, as argued for by Pfeffer & Fong in their 2005 paper.

Culture and cultures in this paper are the unspoken, pre-conscious social rules and norms, the pushes and pulls

by and from the ‘group’ that tacitly influence our behaviour, to which we are on some level ready to accept in

order to be acknowledged as part of that group. In this paper culture is, as Parsons first noted, the domain of

symbols and meanings4, a semiotic concept that Geertz elegantly and influentially called ‘the webs of

significance’ that man has spun around himself (Geertz, C 1973).

In my experience these webs are dynamic, they ebb and flow, break and form as we shift between different

places, through time, with different ‘others’ and different needs: our behaviour, our meaning-making, our

judgement and sensitivity will be more or less influenced by one or the other cultural threads comprising the

webs.

[An aside – I couldn’t find any Asian founded derivations, etymologies of ‘culture’ when doing the (necessarily)

brief research for this paper. How is ‘culture’ understood from a Confuscian perspective, in Sanskrit, in Buddhist

philosophy, in the Arab traditions?]

Western culture Western culture Western culture Western culture

Many would say that there is no such things as Western culture: it is too broad sweep, too amorphous and

contains too many cultural identifiers within. However the fact remains that people across the globe, in a host

of academies and sectors, talk about Westerners and Western culture.

In the context of this paper Western culture is post-enlightenment, reason-based thinking (including critical

thinking); the notions of individualism (with responsibility for self); ideas of rights. The concept also relates to

the societal functioning. Western culture includes the notion of a society (community) that functions as a

series of rules and codes: within these rules and codes an individual has autonomy, freedom to operate, think

and act without checks or bounds, unless and until they come up against a rule. At this point they may

challenge and stretch the rule, possibly even creating new rules e.g. Women’s right to vote; or break the rule

and suffer punitive consequences from state, society or both.

AgencyAgencyAgencyAgency

For this case study I use an understanding of agency loaded with both its power based derivation and meaning

laden underpinnings from Geertz’ writings on cultural theory as described in Ortner (Ortner, S 1997). Agency as

the socially determined (culture, meaning) right and ability (power) to have a perspective, to act and make a

difference (to the world).

4 ‘culture’ 2009, in Encyclopedia of Social and Cultural Anthropology, Routledge, London, United Kingdom, viewed 06 July

2011, <from http://www.credoreference.com/entry/routencsca/culture



So agency has two aspects: on the one it is essentially about empowerment, “It is that dimension of power that

is located in the actors’ subjective sense of authorization, control, effectiveness in the world” (Ortner,S 1997).

On the other it references the underlying social constructs and mores (the meaning) from which an individual

creates and asserts their perspective when engaged in a task or action; the cultural underpinnings that

influence an individual to self-direct: their ‘for what’ or ‘to what’

It correlates to concepts around freedom (to think, to act, to choose), being a responsible human, self-

determination and some sort of progress to improvement, a better condition. Where we derive our belief and

perception of our power (in ourselves, in the concepts) depends on our ‘webs of significance’ binding or freeing

us.

PowerPowerPowerPower

In this study I understand power as a reification, a construct that is created, challenged, shaped, exerted,

perceived by the multiple discourses, interactions and playing-outs of relationships between people,

organisations and other actors (the state, media etc). As a concept power is intrinsically linked with meaning,

with culture and with identity. From Foucault5 “not an institution, and not a structure; neither is it a certain

strength we are endowed with; it is the name that one attributes to a complex strategical situation in a

particular society”. The perception of power, its association with structures, with caste, its use in coercion,

liberation, agency and transformation are the interests of this paper.

Critical Social Theory (CST)Critical Social Theory (CST)Critical Social Theory (CST)Critical Social Theory (CST)

Founded in the Frankfurt School’s thinking Critical Social Theory is one interpretation of Critical Theory. Max

Horkheimer was the chief proponent “critical theory may be defined as a self-conscious social critique that is

aimed at change and emancipation through enlightenment, and does not cling dogmatically to its own

doctrinal assumptions”6

In my understanding CST is about critiquing ‘for’ something (autonomy, liberation, release) – it is in the service

of democracy (all affected by a decision should be involved in the making of that decision) and autonomy

(individuals must have the cultural, financial and intellectual resources e.g. time, money, language) to participate

in the decision making process. Critiquing for something is central to the process of developing agency – noticing

social structures and relations, noticing oppression (internal, external), having a notion of ‘otherwise’ and the

ability to dream, having a voice / part in decision making. As opposed to more traditional, observational theories,

CST is proactive and creates real outcomes.

“CST does not ask people to wait until answers to difficult social / organisational problems are

available……………but to pose it as a problem, to ask questions about common answers rather than to answer

questions” (Shor 1993) in Leonardo, Z p 13.

Critical EthnographyCritical EthnographyCritical EthnographyCritical Ethnography

Developed by Carspecken (Vandenberg H, & Hall, R 2011) as one of many derivations of Critical Theory, critical

ethnography addresses power relations within the research and necessitates that the researcher has the

5 ‘power’ 2009, in Encyclopedia of Social and Cultural Anthropology, Routledge, London, United Kingdom, viewed 06 July

2011, from http://www.credoreference.com/entry/routencsca/power 6 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_social_theory



reflexive skills to notice and understand their own biases (and how these affect the study). It anticipates that the

researcher makes a reflexive journey through the research process, hold ethics in high regard and are probably

motivated to research through egalitarian beliefs such as social justice and co-creation (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005).

Critical ethnographers conduct research that is meaningful to and positively impacts on the community being

studied.

To Contents

2.2 Scene setting: the case study The purpose of this section is to provide the reader with a practical understanding of the case study scenario:

the players; the context (historical, socio-political, cultural, personal) and the timeframe. It is by nature a

largely factual narrative, albeit the facts have been selected and presented by me, the author.

The theoretical and conceptual context, what others have said and, to some extent, done is represented in

Scene Setting (2)

The information here is organised into four short chapters:

About TS: this is described in order to establish their business position, the context and to highlight the key

influencers and characters

About Nepal, about the Sherpa people: a brief overview of the current situation in Nepal plus a little about

Sherpa is shown largely to provide a reality check against some romanticised perceptions held by many in the

West (and potentially the reader); also to provide a brief insight into Sherpa tradition and culture.

These two sections form the ‘pathos’ (Aristotle) for the development of the argument.

About me: I provide a concise picture of my operating values, practice, training and experience to establish my

credibility and to show how the study evolved

Timeframe: to show the scope of the study; to give an overview of how events and interventions relate to

each other through time.

Note these are summaries with more details in the appropriate appendices

About TS Since their inception 25+ years ago they have maintained a high growth rate expanding from a simple small-

shop trekking agency to a multimillion dollar turnover group of travel and tourism companies. The heart is still

in adventure tourism with the logistics arm forming the core from which multiple brands and assets are

maintained. At one time it (the core company) was the leading trek, expedition and travel agency in Nepal

however although, whilst still very successful, that position has been challenged over the last 5 years. The core

of the organisation is a medium-large (175-200 permanent and 150-200 temporary employees) enterprise. The

structure at the core though is still very much an ‘adhocracy’ (Morgan, G 1986) that, in the highly volatile

international travel segment, is less and less fit for purpose.



TS works with many partner global travel agencies acting as local supplier for all services direct to these agents’

clients whilst they are in Nepal. As such TS interfaces continuously with Western style organisations on many

different levels (financial, marketing, sales, strategic). It also increasingly works directly with clients from all over

the world – Free Independent Travellers (FITs).

TS’ staff are all Nepali, some have been working across cultures for tens of years, but many have not.

The founder (The Boss) and a handful of his original team retain absolute control at the head of the company.

The Boss ‘holds the reigns very tightly’ (TS interviewee, 2014) but is very well respected, loved and feared by

employees. He has considerable business acumen and is an accomplished entrepreneur. The senior team (The

Old Guard) though have power largely through loyalty and longevity of position rather than competencies or

skills.

The founders’ son (N) plays an increasingly powerful role in the leadership and management of the group: he

brings a Western education, is a sophisticated technology user, and connector within multiple international

networks. The integration of these with his father’s experience, business acumen and extensive local networks

is often an uneasy interplay.

They are a Sherpa family from the Solu-Khumbu region. The Boss’ wife / N’s mother (now deceased) is held in

very high esteem for her earlier mountaineering achievements. As the first Nepali woman to summit Everest she

remains a national icon to this date. The Sherpa values, traditions and role as guardians of the Himalaya can be

observed in the family and are leveraged through the TS brands.

About Nepal, about the Sherpa peopleAbout Nepal, about the Sherpa peopleAbout Nepal, about the Sherpa peopleAbout Nepal, about the Sherpa people

Nepal is a largely Hindu (81%) country of 27 million people. Closed to the rest of the world until 1949, Nepal

had been a caste-bound monarchy for most of its 250 year history until the Maoist insurgency, a 20 year

bloody civil war, succeeded in the creation of a federal republic in 2007. Since 2008 there have been two full

elections, but with unstable and very weak governance Nepal is still one of the poorest (GNI = $700 pa7), least

developed countries globally (HDI 157 from 1878), categorised as a fragile state, despite major international

development support and heavy, but highly politicised investment from its two, vying, superpower neighbours.

Many Nepalese and other commentators see Nepal as sliding backwards: GDP remains static with the major

economic contributors being foreign aid, remittances sent by non-resident Nepalese and agriculture;

corruption is rife and increasing; pollution is rising; and infrastructure is minimal with even the major cities

suffering 12-16 hours load-shedding daily (despite the country having the capacity to supply most of the region

with hydro power). Kathmandu, the capital, has one of the highest rates of urbanisation globally (16%) and

brings with it the full range of problems resulting from no urban planning. Labour is cheap, but heavily

unionised. The cost of living is escalating and the country is frequently brought to a standstill by bhande

(protests). It’s a difficult place to do business but yet a growing number of entrepreneurs thrive: some from old

money, some from nowhere. There is now a very visible super-rich and a growing middle class. Caste and

traditional Hindu practice are the biggest factors shaping society and, with some exceptions, wealth

distribution.

7 http://data.worldbank.org/country/nepal 8 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index



The reality for most Nepalese is far from the happy Himalayan kingdom of shining white spires, fluttering

prayer flags and simple, smiling Sherpa painted in the Western imagination..

Nepal is by and large a network-based society where people are held, with some flexibility, but held

nonetheless by multiple, multi-dimensional relationships. These provide support and can be great enablers, but

can also be limiting of freedom of choice and engender a degree of fatalism. Group (family, caste) supersedes

the individual’s freedoms and functioning and status is conferred through gender, caste and in the

organisational context through loyalty. Language is highly idiomatic with many set phrases; actions, jobs within

the house and roles are traditionally highly ritualised and fixed (e.g. rice is cooked in this way by this person at

this time…it’s not that this is the best way, there is no other way) epitomising to many observers’ minds a

signifier of pre-enlightenment style relation to the world: we have no control over the external and life is

comprised of a series of patterned behaviours. These traits are the subtext of life ‘in the village’ and for some

first generation migrants, life in the cities too.

SherpaSherpaSherpaSherpa

Sherpa has two meanings: one is the job ‘sherpa’, meaning assistant guide on trek or expedition; the other is

the ethnic group Sherpa, meaning the ‘people from the East’ who shifted from Tibet in the 16th century to what

is now their homeland, the Solo-Khumbu (Everest) region. Conflating the two terms is to be avoided.

Sherpa religious practice is largely based in Nyingma Buddhism. Previously animism and shamanism were also

part of the daily spiritual mix (Obadia, L 2008) although today a more pure form of Buddhism predominates,

partly as a result of Western interest (Ortner, S 1977). In Sherpa culture the relationships between people and

the gods manifest in two forms: there are benevolent but remote gods and there are dangerous and

destructive demons. The belief that the benevolent gods must be enticed into a closer relationship – to come

into the home – by pujas and offerings. Once closer and ‘listening’ they can be persuaded, gently negotiated

with and almost lured (“polite requests and subtle manipulations” Ortner S p146) into providing active support

/ protection against the demons and to aid success. This is enacted as ritual “over and over again in daily life”.

Reframing this in terms of power and agency then one needs a powerful protector to get through life and to

defend against evil… so one must work to attract the protector and get them on side, to appease, to placate, to

charm them. Once on side then all will be well. Hence I do not possess power myself but I do have powers and I

can therefore be an agent in engaging the powerful ones; I have power to negotiate and I have power to be

clever and flatter them into helpfulness. My power is in words, my intention is not overt. However against evil

forces I am powerless on my own. And if I am arrogant or stupid enough to believe I have any powers then

protection will be withdrawn and the evil forces will wreak destruction. From this perspective the ‘nominally

unpowerful’ have a great deal of agency – it’s not about bowing down to power or resisting it – it’s about being

clever, figuring out to work with it and “shape it to one’s own purposes”.

Sherpas are adept at adapting, at taking on the new and blending this easily with the old. For example when

sick many, even sophisticated Kathmandu-ites, will visit both the doctor and the lama to cover all basis to

recovery. This apparent capacity to remain true to ancient culture (meaning and belief) whilst adopting modern

life and business behaviours and practice many would say has contributed to their success (prosperity).

There are further notes on the link between Sherpa & Adventure Tourism in the Appendices



About the Development Trainer (author)

My professional background starts with scientific training, moves into tourism as eventually a business leader,

thence into teaching, training, facilitation and coaching leading to the international consultancy and

development business I have today. Recently I have focused on strategic planning and organisational change

being fortunate enough to work alongside some deep experts.

The approaches I work with on a daily basis are grounded in the idea that we have all the resources we need to

enact our own change and change in the world, that we have potential and that our flaws and difference are

what make us interesting and capable. The professional skills I value in myself are those of noticing, reflexivity,

creativity and the ability to become sufficiently expert in something to get stuff done; I continue to work with

mindfulness and balancing being in the intellectual (head) and physical domains.

Over the last nearly 20 years I have worked in many places, in uncertain, post / mid-conflict states on the one

hand and huge, high-growth corporates, flabby INGOs, lean innovators and immensely bureaucratic public

institutes. And as a mountain guide in the high hills of the world. This huge breadth of experiences leaves me

robust, resilient, and in a position of being able to detach from and observe layers of difference, similarity and

connectivity.

I have been living in Nepal, working across S Asia, for over four year now and have journeyed some way into

knowing and understanding the culture and people here.

Timeline

The study began in November 2009, continued fairly consistently until early 2012. There was a break for most

of 2012 – 13 with a full re-start in late 2013 continuing until March 2014.

For the full timeline of events see the appendices.

To Contents



Section Three: Methodology The purpose of this section is to describe the process and shape of the interventions that form the basis of this

study to assure the reader of the credibility and validity of the findings and subsequent discussion.

It sets out why I chose this methodology (and not others), what was done, how, when, (where) and with

whom. I also use this section to comment on the interventions as they ran and add some reflections on why

this may be.

This study is founded in the processes used and how they played out. The results and the process are highly

interlinked and the linkage between these is in many ways the essence of the study (how did the process lead

to the outcomes) hence to maintain focus on this ‘how did it happen’ (cf what happened) some of the findings

are also referenced here.

Overview I used a social constructivist approach with positively framed collaborative inquiry tools alongside coaching and

more typical organisational and strategic change tools.

They included:

1. Critical appraisal and strategic planning

2. Coaching of senior figures

3. Appreciative Inquiry

And largely out-with the scope of this case study but related and influential:

4. Direct Business Support

The interventions were across the entire office base of the company (but not field staff) over a period of 4

years from end 2009 to start of 2014. The peak intervention periods were in 2010 and 11.

These are detailed and discussed below. First it is helpful to look at why I used these tools.

Rationale: Why this intervention approach? The rationale for the choice of interventions evolved from my own prior experience initiating, driving and

facilitating change in a variety of organisations globally; current literature on organisational change theory and

practice (in the Western world) and working from the perspective of critical social theory and critical

ethnography. An additional and very important factor was the negotiated agreement with the organisation

themselves: what they wanted to achieve from the interventions as well as the permissions, support and

guidance on acceptability, politics and cultural factors to be aware of.

Drawing on all the above influences and needing both a directly practical outcome (for the organisation) as well

as, I hoped, practice and models that would contribute to Development Training and other fields (for the

academic award) I opted to use a variety of interventions founded in a collaborative inquiry process wherein

the participants and (myself as) participant- observer became active agents for change. The change direction

being the betterment of the organisation (with betterment understood from multiple perspectives) and change

being driven as a ‘middle-out’ process (cf top down / bottom up).



“I don’t mind change, but I don’t like being changed” (Seel, R p1 2008)

I chose to use several positive (cf negative critical ‘what’s wrong with us?’) or ‘towards’ (cf ‘away from’ - NLP

theory) positivist (in intention) approaches as well as some standard (in the West) organisational development

diagnostic tools that look for problems and needs.

I chose also to include the problem based diagnostics for several reasons: to allay N’s (and other’s) anxieties

about starting this change journey and to provide an outlet for his (and others) concerns (personal and

professional); using a positivist inquiry alone would have been a step too far given his / others very limited

prior experience of organisational process and the newness of the tool in Nepal (N needed to be able to

validate his position with peers).

The experience of talking about and understanding TS as an organisation was in itself very new: there had been

virtually no thinking or discussion on who we are, what we do and how we do things across the company. This

was evidenced by the structures and systems (or lack of them) that shaped TS and the ‘it’s not our role, we just

do what we’re told’ position of the vast majority of staff. Even the owner and the senior team rarely talked

about TS in this way - there had previously been very little that could be conceived as strategic thinking. The

approach could be described as ‘keep doing more, keep seizing opportunities as they arise, keep getting bigger’

– the ‘why’, ‘where to’ and ‘what for’ questions had almost certainly not been addressed.

Care therefore needed to be taken to gain acceptance (not be rejected), to gain trust and to grow the change

slowly and transparently without loss of face or challenge to status. As with any other organisational change

process internal communication, sensitivity, acknowledgment of politics and authorisation for the process all

need to be addressed and worked with in whatever form they were playing out (Bushe, GR 2007)

Summary of the intervention types in use

1. Critical analysis and appraisal of the organisation’s base-line (2009) and developing situation

This was a series of interventions working largely with N that used various business tools such as SWOT and

later (2010) a strategic visioning process using a vision wheel and associated tools (see appendices). The set up

and running of the analysis and appraisal was devised in an open negotiation with N in terms of depth, who

was involved, to what degree, when and for how long. It was important for me that he trusted in the process

and we built a trusting professional relationship. He needed to perceive the tools as effective. His personal

drivers revolved around a better and fuller understanding of the organisation in order that he understand and

grow his role in it along with establishing this role, respect and recognition from staff and his father. He needed

to become credible in his own and others eyes relatively quickly. Hence these interventions had to be a

learning process with some quick wins for himself and for the company. With very limited exposure to business

practice N highly valued these processes and placed a high personal importance on them.

We also compromised on openness and the involvement of others in order to protect N’s self-esteem and

status as the owner’s son. Whilst these processes ran largely in parallel to the adapted Appreciative Inquiry

process (see below) and drew on each other, the separateness of the strategic analysis, visioning and later

planning processes from the main staff body created some tension and was a dilution of the inclusive



collaborative inquiry approach. However without such compromises there would have been no champion or

authorisation within the company and hence no study.

Noticing these compromises and their foundation in the need to maintain status and distance as a

manifestation of cultural norms, is, I feel, valuable in itself.

In late 2013 and 2014 we resumed with a review process (what was achieved, what changed and to what

extent, what the impacts were and who we could take the best of these forward) and intentioned next steps

towards a whole company analysis towards a re-structure.

More details and an intervention timeline are given in the Appendix: Methodology - Details

2. Coaching N (and later with S)

I worked with N over a series of 2 years on a regular basis and a further 1.5 years sporadically providing

coaching support as an aid to his personal and professional growth and development. His personality, his role

and his (working) relationship with his father are tightly interwoven with the organisations’ development and

management. In the initial two years we maintained a relatively tight ring fence around the contracted

coaching processes, over time, and with the specific trigger of a critical family issue, our meetings became

more a mix of coaching, mentoring and very occasionally light-touch counselling.

When S started as HR Manager in early summer 2010 I provided a mix of business support, mentoring and

coaching. The coaching helped S to understand his strengths and his potential. This acted as an enabler helping

him develop and defend his own position in the company in the face of often fierce resistance and occasional

hostility from the senior team (‘the old guard’).

With both N and S the coaching process contributed to this case study in several ways:

• it was a practical intervention supporting the change process;

• a window into the different perceptions of power held around N and S [N with the power he was

assumed through his position in the family and then the organisation (structural, hierarchical) and to

some extent a largely ,as Foucault would describe, unfounded constructed power (employees’ belief

that N brought certain knowledge, skills and experience with him through some sort of birth-right that

in fact at that stage he did not possess) alongside the opposite belief by the senior team (no skills, no

experience, he is just the baby son of The Boss). S had nominal power through the seniority of his

position (hierarchical) but limited constructed power as neither employees (at that start) nor the older

senior managers believed he had the skills, experience and charisma to effect change (whereas in

actual fact he did);

• an opportunity to notice in detail the change process’ effects on two individuals

Details on the coaching style used and the two coaching processes are to be found in the Appendix:

Methodology - details

3. Appreciative Inquiry (AI) process (adapted)

AI was developed by a team at Case Western Reserve University, Ohio in the 1970s led by Professor David

Cooperrider (Cooperrider et al 2008). AI extends positivism into an organisational change process by modelling

the best and extending and adapting it. It is a form of social constructivism applied to organisations that

encourages change in small often simultaneous steps and as a continuous ongoing state (cf other change –



freeze – change models). It relies on storytelling and an optimistic, anticipatory (Seel, R 2008) approach to

future carrying forward the ‘best of the past’ (Hammond, S 1996) and the assumption that we are all co-

constructors of our realities and that difference (in these) is to be relished.

Different facilitators have taken Cooperrider’s original AI theory (‘the positive principle’) applying and adapting

it in a variety of community and organisational settings. In most instance facilitators attempt to include as

many people in the organisation as possible.

Seel (2008) describes a four stage model using two slightly different nomenclatures (stages usually

overlapping). His preferred version is the:

• Discover – talking to one another, generally through structured interviews telling stories of when the

people and the organisation are at their best. (‘what was..’)

• Dream – where people ‘imagine and co-create’ the future (Seel, R 2008); to describe the organisation

in its best imaginable form (‘what if…’)

• Design – how the organisational dream is turned into a reality. This has been done by Busche and

others (1995) as a ‘design possibilities map’

• Deliver (or Destiny) – the implementation phase

The second version described is the 4-I model, which includes an earlier stage than the 4-D model above and

conflates the final two stages:

• Initiate – introducing AI and getting set up, a very practical phase

• Inquire – this relates to the ‘discover’ phase above: it’s about training interviewers and talking

• Imagine – taking the core common outputs from the inquiry, turning these into ‘provocative

propositions’ (the vision)

• Innovate – involvement by as many people as possible in creating and enacting the changes needed to

bring the provocative propositions to being

The 4-I cycle also has review, checking and validation running through it.

Some practitioners have chosen to run AI over a lengthy period of time; some have chosen intensive ‘summit

days’ in which to run all stages; some have a mix of these.

AI in this study

My application of AI keeps a basis of socially constructed generative action but tempered by the practical and

politico-cultural dimensions noted above. In my interpretation AI is essentially a way of asking as many people

(in the organisation) as possible, ‘what is it that we do well’, ‘where is there excellence’, based on the answers

to these ‘if we could be excellent what would that be, look and sound like’ and ‘how can we do more of this to

become excellent’. These approximate to the Inquire / Discover and Dream phases. At TS I was able to run the

above through the first and second set of structured interviews with myself and then later S doing the

interviewing.

In an ideal scenario I would have chosen to engage as many people as possible in the Imagine / Design and

Innovate / Deliver phases, however the constraints were such that the Design process, whilst founded on the

outputs from the peoples’ ‘Dream’, was constructed largely by N. We did not have the authority of the



leadership to allow staff to ‘improvise’ (Busche, G 2007) designs and actions. Equally in my opinion (at the

time) there was not sufficient momentum, experience or confidence in staff to be designers or activators.

We were able to open out again and include many more people (although not all) in the Innovate /Deliver

phases that occurred.

I was also able to run reviews and checks through the second (2011) and third interview (2014) rounds, and by

being present in my ‘business support’ capacity on a regular basis.

Actions and timeframe

Initiate: December 2009 – January 2010 with N and assistants

Inquiry: First round of interviews in Jan & Feb 2010

Additional unstructured conversations with approx. 20 field staff and non-interviewees at a

company picnic, March 2010

Second round of interviews May 2011 conducted in conjunction with HR

Third round in February 2014

Additional unstructured conversations with non-interviewees at a company weekend retreat,

Feb 2014

Imagine / Innovate: Feb & March 2010: I consolidated the interview key themes and dreams (positive and

negative) and introduced these as a report to N (with the intention of sending back out to interviewees

although this was later vetoed). Both interviewees and N asked me to handle this task to protect their

confidentiality. N used the report as a platform for discussions and ideation in the strategic planning and

change process described above.

The disengagement of the interviewees in the final two steps took us quite far from the ‘pure’ AI processes

which I was at first uncomfortable with. However on reflection the decision to proceed in this way actually

showed a greater trust (from them) in me and the process and hence was not disempowering in the sense of

removal of power, but actually empowering (from their perspective) in finding an advocate or champion with

access to the hierarchical power sources to give voice to their concerns and dreams with minimal risk to their

position and future. Importantly from the top tiers of power the messages I reported were perceived as non-

adversarial and given credibility through my own professional background (“if Jo, as a qualified consultant with

all her experience, thinks these are reasonable suggestions then we should at least listen”). Hence far from

reducing personal agency the collaboration with the facilitator turned reporter created a protected space in

which to think, to discuss and to initiate actions for the common good.

Details on the number of interviewees and the process are in the Appendix: Methodology - Details

A reflection on the generative questioning used

The newness of this approach, in fact the newness s of (and particularly as someone seen to be representing

the senior team) even talking to staff and asking their opinions on the company, their roles, the future etc

cannot be underestimated as a powerful and change making process in itself. The egalitarian ‘we are all in this



together, I believe in you, I value your opinion and you CAN make a difference’ messaging that these

discussions modelled and portrayed was unique and somewhat revelation-ary in itself. Just asking and

(authentically) listening with a genuine positive intention was hugely significant both in itself and as an

inculcator of hope, a sensation that there might just be a better way and a relief for those feeling ‘stuck’.

From Busche’s work (Busche, G 2007) I anticipated the questions would be surprising (they were), also uplifting

in some way, helped build relationships (partially true) and forced a change in perspective. This was particularly

true in the first rounds of questioning in 2010.

4. Direct Business Support

Related to but not intrinsic to this study is the direct business support I have been providing across the

company: development of an HR manager post; co-creation of HR and communication systems, tools and

process; strategic planning facilitation; staff training and some coaching; marketing campaigns and client

relationship development

Why reference this here? This direct business support has emerged from the study and in turn affected the

study: it has deepened my understanding of the people, the organization and the operating environment and

challenged my assumptions about all of this and myself as a development trainer. The long-standing

involvement at multiple levels has to some extent also coloured my opinions and judgment of different people:

in a positive frame this allows me to notice and interpret behaviours and attitudes (and their relation to

culture) at a more subtle level, but in a less positive way I notice my preferences and likes / dislikes of different

personalities. Achieving and staying in an objective, neutral position has become harder and requires effort

which can sometimes distract from the noticing of the stories and processes.

It has also changed people’s perceptions and assumptions about me with varying effects. These attitudes and

allowances have ebbed and flowed as my availability and ability for support changed across time and as the

outputs changed. Many staff saw direct change in some areas as a result of the interviews (the obligation to

the organization), my role therefore became (perceived as) intrinsically linked to the sensation of change – for

good and bad. For example the creation and recruitment of the HR manager post alongside my visible support

for the incumbent brokered new relationships, friendships and respect from staff. It also angered some of the

senior team and created distance. Similarly the loss of this post and the subsequent breakdown of some of the

highly valued communication and HR systems when the HR manager left and was then failed to be replaced

caused some loss of faith and respect. I have also become friends with some and worked less closely with

others.

These changes in our relationship and many more I feel played out in the second and third rounds of staff

consultations with openness, resistance, alliance and support being more present in the interactions.

To Contents



Section Four: Findings This section provides some answers to at least the first two of the Research Questions:

The observation: What behaviours and attitudes exist and emerge?

The observer: What is my sensitivity to notice and respond to the awareness / exposure of these behaviours and


The nature of this case study focuses more on the processes and relationships (plus the parallel reflexive

process of the participant-observer) hence the descriptions here are of dynamic change rather than fixed

outcomes.

I have included observations on the organisation itself as these provide an important understanding of the

factors which limit and/ or encourage certain behaviours and actions; they tell us about organisational norms

and culture; the 2014 description suggests the extent to which the change process was effective and allows us

to later consider what may have been the main causes; it provides another window on the pushes and pulls of

both cultures and how these play out. These are in the Appendices.

TS People TS people at the start point of this study, in the middle and at the end: what changed and what didn’t

Overview 2010

The picture that emerged in 2010 was one of frustration, passive-aggressive behaviours, huge power-divides,

isolation, no sense of company identity/ involvement and for the majority a ‘just do the job and go home’

attitude. Innovation and creativity don’t appear to be in the realm of work. Those with ambition see limited

opportunities. The Old Guard managers behave like a super-elite and staff are highly deferential to them (they

are called sir or mam e.g. N-sir). Perhaps mirroring the country’s political situation, there’s a sense that most

are resigned to ‘this is the way that it is’ but still retain a vague, almost childlike, hopefulness that change will

come to them (not by them). Behind this though there are very vital forces at play, some are brimming with

unexpressed ideas and drive, and for all there’s a pride in what they do and a strong work ethic.

“There’s no coordination so I don’t really know who the other people are apart from the ones I work with”

“my contract says I can be fired at any time – it makes me afraid”

“I’m more involved here than where I used to work…… I feel much more competent and fortunate”

“its like living in a mental disorder where no one works together and no one is supporting”

“I’d like to use my management training more”

“the notices saying we will lose a whole day’s pay if we’re 15 minutes late in the off season don’t seem fair

when we work 18+ hours a day in the season without overtime payment. There needs to be some give and take”

“We would like to go on a trek so we can understand (how it is for clients). We can feel more confidently talking

about the treks with clients”



Q: What do you know about TS’ story?

“I’ve been here about 8 years only so I don’t really know – started by 3 brothers, maybe because of Ama9?”;

“I’m new here (1-3 years) so I don’t know much

Many of the staffs’ sentiments (and occasionally the behaviours) are echoed by N: frustration, low

understanding of the company’s functioning, no big picture, lack of information (partly withheld, partly just not

there), a freshness (and also naivety) that was in danger of being subverted by the old guard. Above all an

uncertainty about what to do (how does it all work), how to be (what should I do), legitimacy (I’m the son, but I

know nothing about mountains or adventure tourism) and wavering desire to be there (I still want my US

student life).

N’s summary of now (2009): Frustration, lack of clarity, lack of structure, lack of transparency, no-confidence,

powerlessness to drive change, no peace of mind

2010 Visioning (dream) by staff

Everyone felt that the organisation should improve the quality of service to the clients and the quality and

professionalism of the way in which people work together and the approach to business. This was their goal –

ideal state. What this means is described in the multiple small and large scale actions and ideas for the company

to improve.

Noting that some of the ideas came after discussing a negative situation and then ‘shadowing’ – creating the

opposite, positive scenario. However most were ideas that they had obviously spent some time thinking about

but not voiced.

The suggestions can all be understood as actions which would reduce the power gap (with management);

promote an atmosphere of trust, fairness, sharing, openness and respect. They are about better communication,

more team working; better clarity around job roles; feedback and recognition of performance; involvement in

decision making and opportunities for professional development.

“I would like to know the field staff that run the trips I send clients on”

Their suggestions are detailed in the Appendices.

N’s Vision: we worked on goal setting during the coaching sessions. The goal he sought in 2010 is:

“To have a motivated, efficient, effective team working together in a transparent, clearly structured

environment towards the organisations goals and in harmony with the Thamserku ethos.”

The journey to today (2014)The journey to today (2014)The journey to today (2014)The journey to today (2014)

Overview

I see the stories of people’s journeys within TS as having two broad pathways: there are those who have been

part of the journey of change and agency- the softening of the power divides, the move towards openness and

sharing; growth in confidence; expression of creativity and innovation; recognition of motivations;

9 Ama is the code name used to mean the founding woman, wife of The Boss, mother of N



development of support and trust mechanisms….. and the others who have persisted, resisted or simply not

known how or been able to change.

The overall feeling from both groups was that there had been great improvements made during the time S was

in place as HR Manager. Every single person was extremely appreciative of the changes he had made, referring

to him as ‘the bridge between managers and staff’; being fair and implementing systems that all appreciated as

transparent and creating equity. Since S left things had got worse and all the positive changes they had noticed

were lost. Things had gone backwards in the last two years.

“We need a new S. He was really perfect. He needed to tackle by persuading, by request, he was good with

politics”

“When S was here I developed self-confidence.”

During the interviews there were only a few comments on inequities in the systems. It could be that the

smaller group format was less incisive, however my observations of the people at work indicate that generally

people seem more content in their roles, more professional and more enabled. Most people say that the

company is more organised now, runs more smoothly and has better systems than before.

There were two members of staff who fall between these two broad-sweep groups – both were in intrinsically

difficult positions and receiving no support from teams, senior managers or peers. Their disappointment, stress

and unhappiness were specifically located in these situations. They had both tried, to some small degree, to

change the situation, one had also asked for help however they remained isolated and anxious.

“I can’t ask them (managers) directly. I used to but now I just stopped. They threaten me. They say if so and so

doesn’t do really well in his job then…” makes knife across throat gesture

The stuck people - those that are just getting on with it.

The perception amongst these staff was that their opinion was not used or needed, that there was no point in

putting forward a suggestion. Some were dismissive of the increased meetings and communication initiatives

saying there was too much talk and not enough action. Some wanted the reinstatement of the meetings and

better communication. There were injustices and unfairness at play but these have been largely accepted

passively.

An example: D (a manager) came into his office one morning to find a stranger at the assistant’s desk, and it

sounds like neither spoke or confronted the situation for around half a day. Eventually it became clear that the

previous assistant had been replaced (by The Boss) without any prior notice. D didn’t question this for at least a

week though. His reflection: “they don’t trust me. He could have at least asked if it was ok. It was a busy time

and caused a lot of problems for clients”

It seemed that the complaints they made were about specific things that in reality were relatively minor or

singular events that may have had a big impact at one point in time but in the overall scheme of life at work

and job satisfaction could also be seen as relatively minor. It could be that these minor events are symptomatic

of deeper and more challenging issues that these staff found difficult to enunciate; or that complaining and

waiting for someone else to respond is all that is required and they are in some way content enough to remain



in their current position whether the change happens or not. Or they have tried in the past but have long since

stopped: the new approaches have simply come too late.

I asked everyone about loyalty, and whether they would stay at TS: only one person wished to leave. Most

others seemed surprised that this would be an option. A couple had evidently thought about it but were feeling

unable to move. One feared for his future “I will stay as long as they will keep me”.

The changemakers

These staff are very positive and proactive: they had seen many changes for the better, yes there were

problems but it was up to them to get them sorted and to make improvements.

“we have to be ready to change at any time. Ready to multi task. I have a role in making change happen yes.”

Noticeably this group are the ones who work directly or closely with N and the companies that N has more

direct control over with the exception of D who works directly with N, the boss and Ann. They had been with

the company for 6+ years so had seen the positive changes and moves as well as the stasis.

They noticed the slides backwards, the frustrations with inconsistency and HR related problems as much as the

‘stuck’ group. They had also suffered injustices and unfairness.

“Before (2009) they (managers) didn’t teach us they didn’t talk to us ‘why are we getting more tortures from

them’, I was feeling scared. We are small. I was thinking this before”

However they remained positive and optimistic. They take a professional approach, are pro-active in sorting

out problems and seeking solutions or improvements to situations that are not satisfactory. They have self-

confidence, ambition and feel trusted and able to act. They are perceptive and have an understanding of the

overall company and what makes it successful.

“There is a tension between N and The Boss. This is good. It is very helpful. The Boss has much experience and N

is very modern. They are the only two people who can challenge each other. They can take risks too where

normal people can’t and this is good for TS. This tension is what makes TS great.”

“My motivation is because I was given responsibility; I have learned a lot. They have confidence in me and trust”

They are respectful of the older generation in how they talk about them (still everyone address the seniors as

XXXX-sir or YYYY-mam) and yet the use of the ‘of course my boss has much more experience than me’ type-

phrase is then followed by a politely phrased comment about how situation TTT could be better or an ambition

or idea that they have tried to take forward and either not been recognised for or not taken up. The sense is

that they are astute enough to protect themselves through respectfully acknowledging the old guard but are

fearless enough to challenge them and to be proactive in pushing for change.

They perceive the power balance between manager and staff as more equal (than before).

“Before I was very new in my job and I had no idea about tourism. Now I have learnt much about tourism from

the company (my manager and all team members – my manager and me are like brothers, we share our

feelings and we hang out together).”



“We have awesome bosses. Lots of opportunities to learn; when they believe in someone they really nourish

them. “

I asked this group about loyalty and whether they would stay: most have considered this and are thinking in

terms of ‘how long will I stay’; two have ambitions to continue their education and / or become entrepreneurs

(in different sectors).

Sherpa influence?Sherpa influence?Sherpa influence?Sherpa influence?

A key component of the external face (brand) of the company is the leveraging of the Sherpa background. I

wanted to find out whether TS being Sherpa led has made a difference to staff or if they perceive it as have any

influence on the company. Many people responded that it makes no difference. Some added that ‘we are all

the same’ hence I wondered whether the question was interpreted as ‘is their discrimination’. In a society with

so many rules relating to social position this would make sense. Some other opinions:

“Sherpa is a genuine mountain people so we can say we are real mountain adventure company. It wouldn’t be

right if it was trekking company from a Shresthha or some other tribe. It is natural for us.”

“Sherpa is the name, it is the famous one for the mountains.”

“We make a huge impact to show our identity (we are not just porters, still people are very confused on this)

who we are reflecting our values, how we do things – its important!”

“They are very jealous people, they say bad things about you. They will support us but only if they want

something from us. They seem like nice people on the outside but inside they are very cunning – they are always

trying to trip you”

“they are quite calm managers, not like say Newari… other castes are quite rude; it’s a good strong family

business”

A change for the betterA change for the betterA change for the betterA change for the better

To revisit the ‘Dream’ elements of the previous AI process I asked staff to think about one thing they would

change that would make TS a better, happier place. I asked what one thing they would change (if they were

The Boss) to make the company a happier, better place. There were a range of answers: one person wouldn’t

change anything; one couldn’t think of anything but the rest replied very quickly with confident answers. The

responses are similar in many ways to those noted in 2010. The main themes are:

• Staff would be evaluated, recognised and have feedback on this plus any subsequent support for

development and growth. There would be recognition and understanding of who they are, on their

performance and abilities (fairness, recognition, valuing). There would be clear work plans and

definition of roles and targets.

• Everybody should be treated equally: there should be fairness, transparency and openness – an

excellent HR system with a strong senior level lead.

• There would be better communication between each other (informally and at work), they would know

each other better and there would be an environment of ideas sharing.

• Everyone should be involved in decision making



There is a sense from these answers that, as with the assessment of now, they have an active interest in the

company, they see a role in it for themselves and they wish to be empowered to take this on. What the balance

is between achieving empowerment through being given permission by others or by going ahead themselves is

not quite clear.

This is agency understood as power (empowerment) and meaning (what norms, values and lores shape our

understanding of being empowered).

In the section, Discussion & Analysis, I will explore what the meanings might be, how I, as someone outside of

those cultural layers, have been able to understand and interpret those (or not) and the framework I have

come to use to ethically and usefully manage these in the organisation.

The observer: What is my sensitivity to notice and respond to the awareness / exposure of these behaviours and


Having lived and worked in many countries and cultures around the world, sometimes in very harsh

environments, where to retreat inside one’s ‘home culture’ would have severely diminished chances of survival

or at the very least, success in whatever form that took, I started my journey into Nepali life from a relatively

floating cultural position. The years of being outside my home culture had enabled me to notice the different

strands of that web through the varying lenses of the ‘other’ cultures and had released me from many of these:

having exposed certain traits, such as the downward pull on personality to conform, to ‘be like us’ that I notice

very strongly in the UK, I have made active choices to change my response to this through behaviour, through

emotional state change practice and increased mindfulness. Similarly small things such as the immediate social

need to define someone by their work (the 2nd question on meeting, “so Jo, what do you do?”) are practices I

have changed and choose to understand through a different lens.

I visualise the cultural webs here in Nepal, the pushes and pulls that help us make meaning from the worlds we

inhabit, as a sliding scale of influences. For me this has my ‘home culture’ and embedding of UK society norms,

unspoken rules and tacit compliances at one end and a synthesisation into Nepali cultures at the other. For the

TS people I have come to know I imagine a sliding scale with their home, caste culture as lived in ‘the village’

(most are only second generation Kathmandu urbanites, some are first) on one end and a version of Western

cultural practice and norms thriving in the urban Westernised lifestyles found locally, the business practices

growing in TS and the regular encounters and relationships with Western culture-centric people (in and out of

Nepal)

Over years I have tacitly absorbed many local ways, meaning interpretations and behaviours. Even my use of

English language also now reflects spoken and expectation Nepali-isms. I have come to notice this process only

as I encounter new-to-the-Du foreigners noticing my doing / knowing / feeling through their not doing / knowing

/ feeling. The second scenario is on returning to Europe – the reverse culture shock, the feeling of not knowing

(yet assuming I should know) what people are doing or why in my former ’home’; feeling very connected, but

also feeling disconnected. The associated pain has, in the past, caused me to push further away from the home

culture and view myself as a ‘homeless’ visitor: the detachment is helpful in the long term but also generates a

secondary need to have a ‘home’.



At the start of the study I believed myself to be fairly open to newness, unafraid to encounter different ways of

being and relatively culturally sensitive. On reflection I now know how little I knew about Nepal, how unaware I

was of the layers of tacit rules associated with caste, with age and in particular the active establishment and

holding of distance with foreigners with many people. The latter took me a relatively long time to name (even

though I had probably noticed it subconsciously) the nature of relationships with Nepalese being suffused with

warmth, openness and curiosity which effectively mask the slight taboo of closeness with the ‘other’. I felt I was

closer than I actually was.

The other significant factor affecting my ability to interact effectively, to notice and judge TS, the people and the

changes was the Nepal-expat ‘love story’.

This is a cycle that I have noticed many friends go through and retrospectively, myself too. I have not noticed this

phenomenon in other places I have lived.

There are several distinct stages to the cycle: first enchantment. In the first 6 – 10 months there’s an intoxication,

like falling in love, with the city, the people, the colour and chaos everything. There’s a magic, a marvellous

quality to life; an exploration phase – of the self, liberated by the unknown; of the people, places and language

– a kind of self-congratulation from marking oneself out as ‘not just a tourist’. It was during this golden time that

I first started working extensively with TS. This undoubtedly coloured my perception and my judgement: perhaps

being more shocked and ready to take at face value the harshness of the staff’s comments; but equally perhaps

acting as a stronger driver to continue and support change and self-development. At this stage I also had a very

limited understanding of the Sherpa culture as it is. I was fiercely proud and felt privileged to be working so

closely with not just a reputable business of this stature having only just ‘landed’ but a Sherpa family business.

The second phase is disenchantment: the dirt; the crazy traffic; the lack of electricity; the slippery approach to

time, to meetings etc; protests and shutdowns; the sheer effort required to get anything done and above all the

peeling back of the naivety around friendships and the realisation that you are actually very far on the outside.

Not ‘at home’ at all and the sense that your liberated self was just a chimera. It can leave you feeling raw, exposed

and vulnerable. Some people get angry and rage about absolutely everything almost like they’ve been cheated

by a sly lover. For me this coincided with my first monsoon and multiple sickness bouts. I didn’t get angry: I was

just sad and lost again. Some people never move beyond this phase- they stay angry or they leave. I was fortunate

that having already experiences reverse culture shock back in the UK I was able to use the same strategy of

emotionally disengaging from the disappointment. I was also fortunate that the work with TS intensified and I

was able to re-anchor in Nepal. In some ways TS has been my anchor, a constant over the four years of time

here. I would say I am emotionally invested in the organisation. Not something that has ever happened with

organisations I have worked with in any other country.

This is the third phase: life just becomes ‘normal’ – the intoxication is gone; the rawness passes and routine, just

getting on, accepting … I call it ‘TIN’ – This Is Nepal. When you have learnt to remove logic, erase your Western

approach, to accept that things will happen and to let go of pointless angst and frustration. At this time cultural

traits reveal themselves to you on a daily basis, small insights that add to the richness of overall understanding.



Some adaptions came easily, for example with trust10: I have learned to work largely in affection based trust even

in transactions. I have learned to suppress calculation based trust and to take people for who they are or might

be (within some safeguards). I have found that being cynical in Nepal doesn’t get you very far, being open hearted

and open minded, particularly in initial stages allows Nepal to get past Western barriers and allow the

unexpected to happen.

Taking a moment of reflection somewhere in this phase allows the cycle to reveal itself and for me I have been

able to re-evaluate the noticings and actions of the former years.

I now understand how much I missed in the first phase of interviews, even the coaching and observation of the

company. I can see now how much I still was seeing through Western eyes. I also now understand the advantages

this brought too.

What this means for the interpretation of the findings and moving forward is discussed in the Discussion and

Analysis.

To Contents

10 a note on TRUST: as Dahle notes (Dahle, H 2005) in her discourse on the interface of Western and Chinese companies

/cultures there is a difference in the acceptance of affection-derived trust in businesses founded in different cultures. In

non-Western cultures affection-based trust is viewed as inappropriate, a product of a bygone era inferior to modern

management practice. Trust, in Western management thinking, is essentially a risk-based calculation. In Nepal affection-

based trust between colleagues is not only accepted, it seems to be the norm (my observation of trust between people in

different organisations is a mix of calculation-based and affection-based trust: where caste or family ties exist, affection-

based is sufficient. Where they do not, then calculation-based surfaces)



Section Five: Discussion & Analysis

What is (and could be) the role of a Western Development Trainer in an ‘other’ culture

(Nepali, Sherpa) organisational change process?

What behaviours and attitudes exist and emerge?

What does examining these tell us about the agency, power roles of the individuals?

What is my sensitivity to notice and respond to the awareness / exposure of these behaviours and


What do these tell us about the cultures at play and their meaning?



What emerged about Sherpa culture?

That it is not active in shaping the activities of most of the company; the only impacts are on the brand and the

perception of the company internally and externally – the pride of being ‘a true people of the mountains’

company; effectiveness with clients.

Certainly there is no significant relationship between Sherpa and the people constituting the ‘changemakers’

group. They are from a mix of castes – high, low, mountain and Terai.

The main influence that Sherpa culture, or the idea of Sherpa had on this study, was on me. It coloured my initial

perception and gave me an extra stimulus to be involved. There was a certain pride in working with ‘the genuine

article’.

It is possible to correlate the power play of N and The Boss with the known Sherpa beliefs around ‘bargaining

power’ with the protectors: I could attribute them in role of negotiators. However without knowing more about

their belief levels and suspecting that for N at least these are not major contributors to behaviour, this is just

really my phantasy. I have no evidence to support any claims here. One could also consider the Sherpa staff may

be contracting with N and The Boss as the protectors (and also occasionally demons), however this is also unlikely

particularly with the younger generation. Equally it is interesting to postulate that this trait of bargaining with

the powerful is at play in the role of TS with Western agents: cunning used to gain market share. But it is only

interesting – not substantiated in any way.



In my consideration the key to understanding a little more about agency, about how cultures influence this –

their various pushes and pulls – is to be found in the two different groups that emerged during the change

process: the ‘stuck’ people and the ‘changemakers’.

What is the correlating factor between the people I perceive as ‘stuck’ group?

And similarly for the ‘changemakers’?

The ‘stuck’ group

These people, those feeling resigned to or unable to make change, are mostly of an older generation, have

been with the company for more than 5 years. Many are high caste Nepali and Newari. Many have more senior

positions – nominally managers. As ‘manager’ one might assume that the power paradigm of agency might be

an opportunity to self-actualisation, however my estimation is that, having listened to many stories and

observed the power interplays, ‘managers’ are in many cases only nominally empowered. The actual sense of

being empowered (and power itself to act and make change) is for most relatively low – their circle of influence

is very small (downwards) and the reign of control (from above) are very tight. Their decisions and work is very

visible and under direct scrutiny from the old guard and The Boss and they act as buffers between their teams

and this scrutiny. Hence in my view the operating culture, the meaning making, actively works to prevent

activation of the power dynamic thus agency is capped. The ‘stickiness’ lies in the dominance of the traditional

Nepali (the original working) culture as a personal mind-set and work operating paradigm – this seems to be

the cause of ‘stuck’. Their behavioural loyalty remains high – they have no desire to move on - even if for some

the emotional loyalty has been eroded. Rao describes this as ‘trapped’ (Rao, A 2006).

The changes in the working environment, the culture, of TS instigated by N and including the interventions by

the author seem to have been in some cases actively resisted and avoided by this group. The opportunities that

there various changes presented were picked up and run with by the changemakers have either not been

understood by the ‘stucks’ (maybe as a result of ineffective implementation by N and myself - insufficient

support, motivation and guidance – we didn’t do enough, consistently for long enough) or their existing

internal motivation and ambition were not sufficient or similar enough (they simply did not want to self-

actualise or have agency in the new shape TS – this may be particularly true for the higher caste people. Why

change to an uncertain world when the certainty of the existing world is highly beneficial to you?).

The Changemakers

The generation, most are mid-twenties to mid-thirties, is a common factor and almost certainly a key contributor

to attitude and behaviours. The changemakers were nearly all brought up in Kathmandu, not necessarily with

financial advantage but with parents who pushed them forward. They are technologically savvy and hence their

world is in many ways similar to that of people their age in many other countries in this respect. The connection

with ‘the village’, with traditions and with religion is relatively weak – many do not speak their mother tongue,

have very rarely visited the ‘home - ghar’11; and attend pujas and other ceremonies only when necessary

although the connection and respect for immediate family is strong. Many have chosen not to take arranged

11 In Nepali there are many ways to talk about home – using ‘ghar’ means where were you raised; using ‘kota’ means

where do you live in the city (your temporary home even if it is actually permament); using ‘maiti’ with a married woman

means your parents’ home as your ‘ghar’ shifts to that of your husband when you marry..… ghar is therefore very

important in locating your people and your place in society.



marriages and some (including some women) live alone. They have strong friend’s circles both overseas and

locally and enjoy active social lives. Most are involved in societal change through local NGOs they have joined or

set up.

Education is a factor for the changemakers: many were university graduates, some post-graduates when they

joined the company. For some the work itself has been a stimulus to develop and they have taken / are taking

formal education courses. So it might be true to say the driver for self-advancement through learning is a

common thread regarding education.

In many ways they are forging their own paths in the world, the world of work is just one of these. The

changemakers loyalty responses are noticeably different from those of the ‘stuck’ group. Through the

engagement, their work ethic and desire to grow and create change they exhibit high emotional loyalty, however

many are considering futures other than at TS, an indication of relatively low long term emotional loyalty. Rao

(Rao, A 2006) posits that this is likely to be due to their perception of the job “simply as a stop gap” before going

on to further education, enterprise or ‘more highly valued’ work. They are what he calls ‘Accessible’.

However in 2010 today’s ‘changemakers’ had ideas and desire for change but took virtually no action to be or

make the change. Something is different: confidence; maturity; sense of self; to some extent a willingness to

take risks, to challenge and put ideas forward…. agency? Undoubtedly the internal drivers and motivations for

progress and to create change were already present in 2010 but there were barriers to expressing and auctioning

these. My sense is that for most the operating conditions, the environment, the power dynamics and the culture

of the organisation were those barriers: oppression in Freire’s sense (Freire, P 1970)

So what has made the difference, supported agency and / or reduced oppression?

One or two of the changemakers have been directly supported and encouraged by The Boss. Their proximity to

him, the ultimate power source in TS, and his recognition of their talents has been enabling and highly beneficial.

It may be viewed as directed development, determined by The Boss’ perspective on what is the ‘best path’

benevolent but strong steer. However it has undoubtedly resulted in a flourishing and high degree of agency

within bounds. This might be seen as agency by permission founded in traditional Nepali cultural norms. The

cultural webs remain the same i.e. the meaning element of agency is relatively constant, it is not cultural change

enabling agency. I believe it is the actor’s power paradigm that has shifted – empowerment is the agency dynamic

at play.

All the changemakers have benefited from and been enabled by the developing positivist, growth environment

brought about by N’s growing influence and the changes he has been able to make, the sense of agency he has

(initially unknowingly then latterly knowingly) created. This might be seen as agency grown through exploration,

self-driven release through cultural change i.e. the meaning making, the threads of the cultural webs have

changed. It is not agency driven through translocation of power (as described above), although empowerment

is ultimately achieved.

Some have also been enabled to flourish by being close to him: he is also a benevolent power source but whose

steer is less directive and more open. His influence directly and on TS culture is liberating partly because he is

also on the journey of growth, liberation and self-actualisation himself and critically he is ‘like us’ to the

changemaker group (generation, education, technology user etc) – his thoughts, behaviours and actions resonate

strongly and provide a model of influence. This might be seen as the actors (the changemakers) generating



agency through both the meaning making, cultural paradigm shift and the translocation of power from proximity

to N. Both cultural dynamic and power shifts are at play enabling the actor’s own drives to agency to emerge.

What is at cause for the cultural paradigm shift?

What has been the impact of cultures meeting? Of my interventions?

I believe there are several closely intertwined factors at work here: firstly the intervention with staff themselves

– giving voice and acting on this; secondly my behaviour and way of working –an alternative, new-to-them option

to consider adopting (or not), a choice; thirdly the fact that N, a power holder, shared many of the traits of the

changemaker group; and lastly, perhaps most importantly, N’s personal journey to agency – how similar this has

been to the changemakers in general and critically how his developing agency played out with greater and

greater impact on the organisation and specifically the organisational culture.

Of these it would be fair to consider the factors one and two as direct results of my intervention and the fourth

as an indirect impact. This is discussed below.

N and I have worked together closely over the years and in my estimation many of the triggers to seek change,

the start point of many of his inner and also business explorations, have come from the coaching sessions, the

exposure to different ways of thinking, door opening to different ways of doing and direct modelling of

behaviours and rationale. The adoption, taking forward (or not) of these has been N’s own journey, self-driven

and also helped and influenced by many others. Indeed this development of resilience, of self-motivation and of

the tactical seeking out of helpful others has been one key element of my coaching and support work with N.

There is much evidence though that in addition to this actualisation of self and others, N and I’s relationship in

has also been highly significant in the shaping of his development and that of the organisation. Throughout the

last years and even today N still requests my input into decision making on a wide range of organisational and

strategic topics. He has many experts and an extensive network of entrepreneurs available to him that he could

(and does also) turn to for information, advice and guidance. We certainly have a high degree of trust and N

trusts me to hold his and the organisation’s best interests at heart. Trust allows us to have the conversation. But

what is it that he perceives I provide? In discussion it is clear that N often holds me in the role of mentor,

specifically as a bridge to a wide range of Western business practice, as a conduit of alternative (to Nepal) cultural

norms. My Western-based meaning making of my experiences and knowledge - the Western cultural position I

can hold is of value not so different from that of any other foreigner. What is unique and highly valued is my

consciousness of and ability to make explicit these tacit filters and rules and my awareness of how and when

these are different from Nepali based cultural filters and rules: where the cultural norms differ and how to make

knowing this difference useful.

In addition I suspect, though I cannot be certain, that my, behaviour and approach also increases the volume of

‘Western’ culture present in the organisation (relative to Nepali / traditional culture) to a level that somehow

‘tips the balance’ in favour of an environment that N perceives as more desirable and conducive to his preferred

way of being.

It could be said then that N’s agency has developed partly as a result of shifts in his cultural paradigm and

reinforcement of the strands of the cultural web that he feels more ‘at home’ in; the strands that free him from

his traditional ‘home’ culture.



N’s current state of agency is also sourced in the power paradigm – he is more empowered. How has N’s

empowerment developed? What were the influencing factors? Again in my estimation a number of factors are

at work: number one would be the confidence he has gained through testing and trying behaviours and actions

– growing into his given position and pro-actively taking this forward beyond what was expected of him. I suspect

also that in the early stages I may have had some influence too here as a model of perceived empowerment.

Reflections on my journey: my cultural position– the sliding scale

Considering the influences and impacts described above, how cultures may have shaped the progression to

agency and my role as carrier of and elicitor of cultural variance it appears that my journey along the sliding scale

of cultures from West to East but landing in neither has been helpful and informative for both the people at TS

and me. The exposure of Nepali and Western cultural traits, how our behaviours are modified and to extent by

the various cultural filters, and how these are different and similar has been insightful for me as a Development

Trainer hoping to extend and challenge my practice. By turn this has to some extent benefitted and still benefits

TS and its teams.

Reflections on how effective the interventions were

It is only now on reviewing the whole process that I have become aware of the importance of all the small,

continuous interventions and my ongoing presence – these were in fact the key to developing understanding

and also to growing change. The AI and coaching sessions though provided a helpful ‘way in’ and focused point

from which to start the study so were helpful to some degree.

In hindsight I now realise the initial AI process, although quite useful as it was, would have had more of a hold

had I worked with the old guard beforehand to try and have the findings accepted more to have provided

more. However this could easily have backfired and closed down the interventions before they started. At the

time I was quite intimidated by the old guard.

I would also have very much liked to work with The Boss directly. His is the critical voice that is missing.

Section 6: Conclusions



In summary my learning is that named tools, specific interventions such as an Appreciative Inquiry process,

have only limited success when trialled in a cultural setting that is not that of the facilitator. They provide a

useful entry point but such is the complexity and depth of (local) cultural mechanism in the workplace, that

even the most resourceful, sensitive facilitator cannot ‘know what they do not know’ and therefore not be

effective beyond a superficial level. They may effect small change – disruption – but for disruption to have

useful, meaningful, ‘sticky’ resonance and benefits, there needs to be a long-standing, gentle support: a

continuous series of nudges and re-adjustments as the more subtle, but powerful, cultural layers reveal

themselves.



As a Development Trainer working across cultures my belief is that the most helpful qualities to develop are

those of noticing and being able to make explicit, to name and make meaning of the noticings in a way. The

revelations and their meaning-making should help loosen the strands of the existing cultural paradigm, add in

more strands to create a rich, fertile environment for any pre-existing seeds of personal agency to flourish; for

a move to sustainable empowerment.

The ethical framework? I suggest this is no different than the ethical framework in which a ‘good’ Development

Trainer would approach any intervention: high degrees of sensitivity, authenticity and reflexivity, an egalitarian

value set grounded in affection-based trust and respect. The difference when working across cultures is the

degree to which one must be prepared to be stripped bare of one’s own cultural strands, to re-evaluate the

whole process of meaning-making, of relationships yet retain enough sense of self and be robust enough to

carry oneself and those one is working with through the journey safely, generatively and towards an idea of

‘betterment’ for the whole.

To Contents



Acknowledgements My sincere gratitude goes out to the people at TS for allowing me to become part of the fabric of their working

lives; to N for his loyalty and friendship and to The Boss for acceptance of the process.

I would also like to thank my Nepali and Bideshi friends for their patience and thoughtfulness in answering my

never-ending questions about our cultures, our ways of being and doing and what this means to them.

Culural Collision in Organisational Change

Documents

Transcript of Culural Collision in Organisational Change