Works with Claude, ChatGPT, Gemini, or your own local model: paste this prompt and your AI will co-facilitate this exercise with you.

Help me prepare and run the exercise below. First ask for my participant count, time, setting, access needs and intended result. Check these against the stated limits. Use the supplied rules and materials. Explain any proposed changes before using them, and label them as adaptations. Do not invent source claims or require personal disclosure. Give me one step at a time when I say start. I manage the people, physical activity and clock; do not claim to observe the room. Ask me what happened before choosing a next step.

Reference revision: d27726d94a444b8882ae8b962cf214d5e9ae6dcd7e79e1bbb1b9a9364fcbfe70

# Transcultural Emails

Participants draft an email addressing an unresponsive colleague, review a representative draft from another cultural group to test tone and impact, and rewrite the message to work across cultural boundaries.

**Time:** 45 minutes. Source specifies 30 to 60 minutes; UWT structures this run sheet to exactly 45 minutes.
**People:** 4 to 24. Individual drafting, then 2 to 4 subgroups of 2 to 6 participants, followed by whole-room discussion.

## Choose this exercise

**Purpose:** Evaluate how written feedback styles are interpreted across different cultural backgrounds and adapt written communication accordingly.
**Use it when:** Use during cross-border team launches or virtual collaboration sessions where colleagues struggle with email tone, missed deadlines, or feedback delivery.
**Skip it when:** Skip when participants share an identical workplace culture or when team interactions are entirely in person.

## Materials and tools

- 1 sheet of paper and 1 pen per participant (or shared digital document online)
- 1 printed scenario card per participant
- 1 timer for the facilitator

## Before participants arrive

1. Print scenario cards or prepare a slide displaying the prompt text.
2. Assess group demographics to plan subgroup clusters by background or communication preference.

## Say this to open

Today we explore how written feedback lands across different workplace cultures. You will draft a short email to an unresponsive peer on an important project, exchange it with colleagues from other backgrounds to test how it is received, and revise it. Please read the scenario on your card and begin drafting your note.

## How to run it

### 1. Draft Initial Email (8 minutes)

Distribute the scenario card. Read the opening script. Instruct everyone to work independently and write an email note to start the feedback process with an unresponsive peer. Set a timer for 8 minutes and ask participants to stop when it rings.

### 2. Review in Subgroups (12 minutes)

Organize participants into 2 to 4 subgroups of 2 to 6 people with similar cultural backgrounds or communication preferences. Have each group randomly select one representative anonymous draft from among its members. Hand each group's chosen draft to a different subgroup. Subgroups discuss whether the received draft would work, offend, or surprise in their culture, and name a spokesperson.

### 3. Share Cross-Cultural Reactions (10 minutes)

Reconvene the full room. Call on up to 4 subgroup spokespersons in turn. Give each spokesperson 2 minutes to summarize how their group reacted to the received draft, highlighting specific phrasing that felt constructive, harsh, or unclear.

### 4. Revise Drafts (8 minutes)

Instruct participants to work individually. Ask each person to rewrite their initial draft so it maintains accountability while respecting the cultural expectations and communication norms shared during the presentations.

### 5. Debrief Workplace Practices (7 minutes)

Lead a whole-room discussion on written feedback across cultures and when to switch channels. Invite comments from 3 or 4 volunteers to close the session.


## Debrief questions

- Which phrases felt constructive in one culture but sharp or evasive in another?
- When is email the wrong channel for addressing missed deadlines, and what should replace it?
- What specific change did you make in your second draft to prevent misunderstandings?

**Finished output:** Two completed drafts of a feedback email, with peer critique on perceived tone and cultural fit.

## Remote

Run in video conference software. Display the scenario on screen. Participants draft notes individually in private text editors. Form 2 to 4 breakout rooms clustered by cultural background or communication preference. One volunteer in each breakout room pastes an anonymous draft into a shared document space. The facilitator assigns draft 1 to room 2, draft 2 to room 3, and so on. Subgroups evaluate the assigned draft. Return to the main room for spokesperson reports, silent individual revision, and debrief.

## Hybrid

Group in-person participants with similar backgrounds together and place remote participants in dedicated online breakout rooms with similar backgrounds. Each cluster posts one representative anonymous draft into a shared digital document. The facilitator assigns draft 1 to cluster 2, draft 2 to cluster 3, and so on. Use main-room audio and screens so all cohorts hear the spokesperson share-outs and debrief.

## Access and participation choices

- Participants may dictate their email draft to a partner or use speech-to-text tools.
- Draft selection for group review is voluntary and submitted anonymously.
- Drafts may be written as bullet points or brief notes instead of formal email text.

## If the session gets stuck

**The room lacks enough cultural diversity to form separate monocultural clusters.**

Divide groups by feedback preferences instead, such as direct versus relationship-first communication.

**A participant takes group critique personally when their draft is reviewed.**

Remind the room that drafts are evaluated anonymously to study cultural filters, not individual ability.

**Group size creates uneven subgroups, such as 5 or 7 participants.**

Form subgroups of 2 or 3 people at the low end and up to 6 at the high end. Every subgroup reviews exactly one draft.


## Terms used here

- Transcultural: Extending across or comparing two or more distinct cultures.
- Direct communication style: A style where critique and expectations are stated plainly with little cushioning.
- Indirect communication style: A style where critique is softened or implied to maintain rapport and prevent loss of face.

## Participant material: Scenario Brief

Scenario:
- You are a member of a virtual team with diverse cultural backgrounds.
- English is the language of communication among team members, regardless of your first language.
- You are frustrated with the performance of a fellow team member because she is not doing her share of work or meeting deadlines.
- This team member has the same national and cultural background as you and is on the same hierarchical level. However, you have not met her in person.
- This person, and the entire project, are of strategic value to you.
- You want to write an email note in an attempt to change this person's irresponsible behavior pattern.
- In this initial email note, all you want to do is start the feedback process.

Task:
Write an initial email note (under 150 words) to this colleague based on the scenario above.

## Sources and adaptation

Observed in Play for Performance (February 2004), published by Workshops by Thiagi, Inc., featuring the simulation game Transcultural Emails by Samuel van den Bergh, with initial concept credited to Nigel Ewington.

Retains Samuel van den Bergh's simulation scenario, monocultural group review mechanic, and email revision flow. UWT adapted the schedule to a strict 45-minute block, clarified that each subgroup reviews one representative anonymous draft from another subgroup, supported groups down to size 4, and provided access and troubleshooting guidance.

[The Thiagi Group](https://thiagi.net/archive/www/pfp/IE4H/february2004.html)

[The Thiagi Group](http://thiagi.net/archive/www/pfp/IE4H/february2004.html)

Current run sheet: https://unitedwetransform.com/exercises/pfp-february-2004/