Proposal for Fern
Working across cultural difference, context and collaboration at Fern.
The practical lens
Frameworks are hypotheses: ways to notice possible differences and ask better questions, not predictions about individuals.
Culture first. Context second. Power adds complexity rather than replacing the intercultural analysis.
Proposed four-hour journey
00:00–00:30 · Start with difference
Participants encounter differences before they encounter theory.
“If I disagree, I would normally say so during the meeting.”
“If somebody asks for my opinion, they genuinely want challenge.”
“Relationship-building before the task improves collaboration.”
“Reopening a consensus decision should be exceptional.”
“A group deadline should generally be treated as fixed.”
00:00–00:30 · Start with difference · Step 2 of 2
This follows “Whose normal?” Participants now move from mapping preferences to testing how observation becomes interpretation and judgement.
A facilitator summarises the emerging consensus and asks for major objections.
Nobody objects.The next morning, two participants challenge parts of the decision and ask to reopen it.
What somebody does and what we understand that behaviour to mean are not necessarily the same thing.
00:30–01:30 · Case 1 · Inside Fern
Fern is reviewing appraisal conversations. A colleague proposes a common structure behind them, without requiring identical wording.
Case 1 · Round 1 · Cultural diagnosis
Groups examine both the appraisal proposal and the way colleagues disagreed about it.
15 min group diagnosis + 15 min plenary: compare hypotheses and make ambiguity discussable.
Case 1 · Round 2 · Reveal new information
After the first diagnosis, the facilitator reveals how colleagues have experienced appraisal feedback and the meeting itself.
Decide: what should be standardised across Fern, and what should remain adaptable?
01:40–03:00 · Case 2 · Across cultures with partners
Fern and a partner want to influence an upcoming policy decision. The policy window is moving faster than expected.
What changed: the proposal, the room, who held authority, or how safe disagreement felt?
Case 2 · Round 1 + plenary
Do not assume that silence means agreement, or that hierarchy and gender explain everything. Groups build competing intercultural hypotheses.
How might Fern interpret its main contact speaking less when her manager is present?
What might she be navigating when voicing disagreement?
What changes when several organisations meet as a coalition?
15 min group diagnosis + 15 min plenary comparison
Case 2 · Rounds 2 + 3
New information complicates the diagnosis: manager presence, coalition size, seniority, gender and organisational mandate.
01 Whose way of voicing disagreement becomes the default?
02 How do gender, seniority and manager presence shape who can speak?
03 What is cultural, organisational, interpersonal, or several things at once?
The task is not to choose one explanation. It is to notice how culture is expressed inside hierarchy and gendered settings.
Case 2 · Final challenge · 20 minutes
Groups make an actual decision. Mutual adaptation does not mean Fern becomes infinitely accommodating.
03:00–03:50 · What does this mean for Fern?
This is not another case. It gives the room time to connect both dilemmas to Fern’s actual practices.
03:50–04:00 · Close
Each participant identifies one interaction where they want to experiment with this approach.
Decolonial theory does not “correct” intercultural frameworks. Each body of thought answers a different question.
Power is one condition within an intercultural encounter; it does not replace cultural analysis.
The intended shift