Eufonía Diversity
01 / 16

Proposal for Fern

Intercultural intelligence
in practice.

Working across cultural difference, context and collaboration at Fern.

A repeatablepracticeUse the four questions together
01Notice
difference
02Check
interpretation
03Add
context
04Adapt
together
Four-hour training proposal · September 2026Use ← → or the controls
Eufonía Diversity
02 / 16

The practical lens

Culture first.
Then deepen the analysis.

Frameworks are hypotheses: ways to notice possible differences and ask better questions, not predictions about individuals.

Cultural differenceUse Meyer and Hofstede to notice patterns in communication, disagreement, trust, hierarchy, decisions, time and planning.
Meyer · HofstedePatterns of cultural difference
Stuart HallMeaning and interpretation
Walsh · Quijano · Lugones · Tuhiwai SmithHistorical and organisational context
Culture first. Context second. Power adds complexity rather than replacing the intercultural analysis.
Click a numbered step to deepen the lens01 Method
Eufonía Diversity
03 / 16

Proposed four-hour journey

Two cases. One lens. Repeated practice.

  1. 00:00Start with differenceWhose normal?
  2. 00:30Case 1Inside Fern
  3. 01:30Break10 minutes
  4. 01:40Case 2Partners + policy
  5. 03:00Meaning for FernConnect to real work
  6. 03:50CloseOne application
Sequencenotice difference → check interpretation → add context → adapt
One ten-minute break included02 Journey
Eufonía Diversity
04 / 16

00:00–00:30 · Start with difference

Whose normal?

Participants encounter differences before they encounter theory.

Round 1Answer from personal preference.
Round 2Where does Fern’s organisational culture tend to sit?

“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.”

Make visible that Fern itself has cultural norms03 Experience first
Eufonía Diversity
05 / 16

00:00–00:30 · Start with difference · Step 2 of 2

Nobody objected.
Was that consensus?

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.

01Immediate interpretationRespond individually.
02Three other explanationsGenerate them together.
03Test the meaningWhat would you ask?
Observation→Interpretation→Judgement
What somebody does and what we understand that behaviour to mean are not necessarily the same thing.
5 min individual + mapping8 min tables10 min plenary7 min theory
Opening sequence: map preferences first, then examine interpretation04 Interpretation
Eufonía Diversity
06 / 16

00:30–01:30 · Case 1 · Inside Fern

A better way to give feedback?

Fern is reviewing appraisal conversations. A colleague proposes a common structure behind them, without requiring identical wording.

The proposed structure 01 Begin with strengths and what is working. 02 Use a specific example of behaviour and impact. 03 Say clearly what could be done differently. 04 Invite the recipient to respond and add perspective. 05 Agree one or two areas to carry forward.
01“Why formalise something that already works?”
02“A formula could make feedback less genuine.”
03“Some structure may stop us reproducing only our preferred style.”
04The room becomes animated: flexibility and relationship meet consistency and predictability.
05Several colleagues say little. No strong objection is voiced to keeping the current approach.
06Later, quiet colleagues express different private views. One wants structure; another rejects the positive-first formula.
What was the meeting's actual position?05 Internal case
Eufonía Diversity
07 / 16

Case 1 · Round 1 · Cultural diagnosis

Turn behaviour into hypotheses, not verdicts.

Groups examine both the appraisal proposal and the way colleagues disagreed about it.

Interactive infographic packEasy-to-digest visual cards translate all seven thinkers into questions. Groups select the cards that help with themes arising in their discussion. No prior theory is required.
Meyer + HofstedeCultural patternsDirectness, explicitness, trust and public disagreement may be experienced differently.
Stuart HallMeaning is interpretedPositive-first can signal care or feel scripted. Silence does not carry one fixed meaning.
Walsh + QuijanoWhose style becomes normal?Which feedback practice is converted into Fern's shared organisational standard?
Lugones + Tuhiwai SmithSituated voice and knowledgeWhose experience defines “good feedback,” and can people interpret their own response?
01Name the evidenceSeveral colleagues challenged the proposal openly. Others were quiet. Different views appeared privately afterwards.
02Form a cultural hypothesisStructure may create clarity and predictability. Flexibility may protect authenticity, relationship and individual fit.
03Generate alternativesA quiet colleague may avoid public disagreement, need reflection, disagree with the formula, or simply not want to prolong the meeting.
04Check the judgementDo not turn resistance into indifference to good feedback, or a request for structure into inability to handle direct conversation.
Round 1 must produce:one cultural diagnosistwo plausible alternative readingsone tension the appraisal practice must manage
15 min group diagnosis + 15 min plenary: compare hypotheses and make ambiguity discussable.
Use each framework as a question, not as the answer06 Diagnosis
Eufonía Diversity
08 / 16

Case 1 · Round 2 · Reveal new information

What else is shaping the same encounter?

After the first diagnosis, the facilitator reveals how colleagues have experienced appraisal feedback and the meeting itself.

Revisit the diagnosis. Do not replace it.What still holds?What becomes more precise?Whose preferred feedback style could become Fern's standard?
ContextNew information revealedHow it can refine the diagnosis
ExperienceSome appraisals have been candid and useful; others have felt vague.The current flexibility is not experienced uniformly.
CultureSome expect direct feedback; others expect greater relational care.Neither the existing approach nor the proposal is culturally neutral.
LanguageSome colleagues give and receive feedback in another language.Subtle feedback may be harder to decode, while directness may land more strongly.
TenureLong-standing colleagues know unwritten conventions; newer colleagues request guidance.Familiarity changes whether flexibility feels natural or ambiguous.
VoicePrivate views after the meeting include both support and opposition.Silence cannot be decoded simply as consent or dissent.
Final challenge · 15 minutesFern will introduce shared guidance. Design a maximum of four principles.
How much structure?How explicit should developmental feedback be?Positive first, or flexible?How can the recipient challenge or reinterpret?
Decide: what should be standardised across Fern, and what should remain adaptable?
15 minutes to refine the diagnosis · 15 minutes to design shared guidance07 Context + practice
Eufonía Diversity
09 / 16

01:40–03:00 · Case 2 · Across cultures with partners

The window is closing.

Fern and a partner want to influence an upcoming policy decision. The policy window is moving faster than expected.

01A smaller preparation callA young woman who is Fern's main contact at the partner questions the framing and suggests changes.
02The coalition call changes the roomHer manager joins with several organisations. Although she has led the working relationship, she speaks much less; senior and male participants take most early turns.
03Fern begins draftingNo one directly rejects the proposal. Fern understands that there is enough agreement to proceed.
04Concerns arrive laterThe partner requests substantial revisions, wider consultation and another conversation.
What changed: the proposal, the room, who held authority, or how safe disagreement felt?
The deadline, room composition, hierarchy and gender all shape what can be voiced08 Partner case
Eufonía Diversity
10 / 16

Case 2 · Round 1 + plenary

Diagnose in both directions.

Do not assume that silence means agreement, or that hierarchy and gender explain everything. Groups build competing intercultural hypotheses.

Interactive infographic packVisual reference cards cover Meyer, Hofstede, Hall, Walsh, Quijano, Lugones and Tuhiwai Smith. Groups draw on the relevant cards as themes arise.

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?

Meyer + HofstedeCultural patternsHow might communication, disagreement, trust, time, hierarchy and consultation differ?
Stuart HallMeaning is not transparentWhat meanings might each side give to silence, questions, urgency or later revision?
WalshConstructing collaborationCan the partners negotiate how they work, rather than one side simply accommodating?
QuijanoDefaults and authorityWhose timetable, policy expertise and institutional access become the norm?
LugonesGendered participationHow do gender and hierarchy interact with speaking, interruption and dissent?
Tuhiwai SmithKnowledge and representationWhose account of local context counts, and who frames or drafts the shared position?
ReciprocityInterpret both directionsWhat might Fern misread, and what might the partner misread?
PracticeMutual adaptationWhat can each side change without treating one cultural style as universal?
15 min group diagnosis + 15 min plenary comparison
Culture, hierarchy, gender, organisational mandate and personality may overlap09 Reciprocity
Eufonía Diversity
11 / 16

Case 2 · Rounds 2 + 3

How hierarchy and gender shape the room.

New information complicates the diagnosis: manager presence, coalition size, seniority, gender and organisational mandate.

PartnerConsultation shapes mandateA small team must consult internally before endorsing a public position.
Main contact + managerParticipation changesFern's main contact speaks less when her manager is present. Cultural deference, employment risk, age, gender, personal preference or several factors may matter.
Coalition settingAirtime is not neutralSenior and male voices take early turns. Examine interruptions, credit, who speaks for an organisation and who carries relational work.
FernAccess creates genuine urgencyFern can draft quickly and knows that delay may reduce influence over the policy discussion.

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.
15 minutes on organisational context · brief power and gender layer10 Critical interculturality
Eufonía Diversity
12 / 16

Case 2 · Final challenge · 20 minutes

What should the partnership do?

Groups make an actual decision. Mutual adaptation does not mean Fern becomes infinitely accommodating.

Gather positions before the coalition callStructure speaking turnsCheck agreement separatelyClarify who can endorseCreate a dissent channelHold a smaller follow-upSeparate drafting from endorsementAllow different participation
01What intercultural difference are you responding to?
02What hierarchy or gender dynamic must the meeting design address?
03What are you asking Fern to adapt?
04What are you asking the partner or coalition to adapt?
The output is a decision and a reasoned adaptation11 Mutual adaptation
Eufonía Diversity
13 / 16

03:00–03:50 · What does this mean for Fern?

Bring the patterns back to real work.

This is not another case. It gives the room time to connect both dilemmas to Fern’s actual practices.

01Where do cultural differences show up most strongly?Meetings · consensus · disagreement · feedback · relationships · deadlines · consultation
02Which cultural tendencies characterise Fern itself?Good participation · efficient meetings · consensus · challenge · relationship-building
03Where could Fern become more adaptive?Name a practice, not only a value.“Clarify how agreement will be expressed before important partnership decisions.”
Stay with intercultural intelligence while moving into organisational practice12 Application
Eufonía Diversity
14 / 16

03:50–04:00 · Close

One practical lens to take away.

Each participant identifies one interaction where they want to experiment with this approach.

  1. 01Notice the differenceWhat cultural expectations might be operating?
  2. 02Check the interpretationWhat am I assuming this behaviour means?
  3. 03Add the contextWhat else shapes how the difference appears?
  4. 04AdaptWhat can each side change to collaborate more effectively?
Leave with one live application, not a general intention13 Close
Eufonía Diversity
15 / 16

Decolonial theory and intercultural frameworks.

Decolonial theory does not “correct” intercultural frameworks. Each body of thought answers a different question.

01Meyer / HofstedeRecognise possible patterns of cultural difference.
02Stuart HallExamine how those differences are interpreted.
03Walsh / Quijano / Lugones / Tuhiwai SmithUnderstand cultural difference within historical and organisational contexts.
04PracticeGiven all of that, decide how to collaborate differently.
Power is one condition within an intercultural encounter; it does not replace cultural analysis.
Difference → interpretation → context → adaptation14 Architecture
Eufonía Diversity
16 / 16

The intended shift

From assuming a shared normal
to practising mutual adaptation.

01Notice difference
02Complicate with context
03Change the collaboration
Primary contactMahmoud Assymahmoud.assy@eufoniadiversity.com
Eufonía Diversity · proposal for FernThank you