Allocating Airtime: II

We began our exploration of allocating speaking time by examining the inner experience of those who dominate meetings, calling them the Outspoken. We turn now to those who get (or take) few opportunities to speak. I call them the Unspoken. How do they experience this situation?

Explanations for their relative silence vary from person to person and time to time. Simple explanations — "He's shy" or "She has nothing to say" — are at least inadequate and probably wrong. Here are some alternatives.

Cautiously intrigued

Some of the Unspoken find the conversation intriguing, even fascinating, but they're also concerned. They see both sides of questions where others see only one; issues where others see none; complexity where others see simplicity; or mystery where others see clarity. They seem less excited than the Outspoken, even if they are just as excited. They seek airtime less energetically than the Outspoken, even if they're just as passionate.

Avoiding looking foolish

The Unspoken Allocating airtime fairly must
begin with a grasp of the
complexity of the probleminterpret the energy of the Outspoken as confidence and certainty. If the Unspoken feel some ambivalence, they can be concerned that they're missing something, and that they might unknowingly say something foolish.

Overwhelmed and unprepared

When the Unspoken experience rapid-fire contributions from the Outspoken, they can feel overwhelmed. Some might feel unprepared. In some extreme cases, they might feel unable to follow the conversational flow.

Contemplating

Having heard comments from others, the Unspoken want to process them. Even if the meeting chair distributed information in advance, the advantage it provided can disappear after only a few contributions from others. The preference for contemplation before speaking leaves the Unspoken unwilling to seize the floor with the alacrity of the Outspoken.

Unwilling to be rude

The Outspoken might be so dominant that the Unspoken feel compelled to choose between silence and being rude enough to gain the right to speak. Choosing to maintain decorum prevents the Unspoken from speaking. They interpret the behavior of the Outspoken as being rude or careless of the rights of others, and prefer not to join them.

Strategically silent

Some of the Unspoken might be withholding contributions that they know would be unwelcome. They might reasonably believe that merely expressing those views could be politically dangerous. But they also want to be truthful. They don't want to say anything they don't believe. They keep silent, or nearly so.

Politically threatened

When the Unspoken have little political power relative to others, some consider the Unspoken to be intimidated or unable to contribute anything of value. Possibly they are. Also possible: the atmosphere in the meeting is so toxic that for the less politically powerful, silence or toadying are the only safe stances to adopt. The Unspoken prefer silence.

Unable to hear or understand

It's always possible that the Unspoken simply cannot hear what's being said. Ambient noise, poor telephone connections, hearing maladies, or any number of issues can make problems. Exclude these causes only if you have hard evidence.

Language challenges

The Unspoken might not be fluent in the meeting's language. Another possibility: the Unspoken are fluent in the meeting's language, but might be unable to understand the speakers if the speakers don't speak the meeting's language well enough. Another cause to exclude only with hard evidence.

Understanding the full range of reasons why the Spoken and Unspoken speak or don't speak can help us find ways to allocate airtime more equitably. First in this series   Top    Next Issue

Do you spend your days scurrying from meeting to meeting? Do you ever wonder if all these meetings are really necessary? (They aren't) Or whether there isn't some better way to get this work done? (There is) Read 101 Tips for Effective Meetings to learn how to make meetings much more productive and less stressful — and a lot more rare. Order Now!

Your comments are welcome

About Point Lookout

Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.

This article in its entirety was written by a human being. No machine intelligence was involved in any way.

Point Lookout is a free weekly email newsletter. Browse the archive of past issues. Subscribe for free.

Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.

Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.

Related articles

More articles on Effective Meetings:

Games for Meetings: II

We spend a lot of time and emotional energy in meetings, much of it engaged in any of dozens of ritualized games. Here's Part II of a little catalog of some of our favorites, and what we could do about them.

Take Any Seat: II

In meetings, where you sit in the room influences your effectiveness, both in the formal part of the meeting and in the milling-abouts that occur around breaks. You can take any seat, but if you make your choice strategically, you can better maintain your autonomy and power.

An Agenda for Agendas

Most of us believe that the foundation of a well-run meeting is a well-formed agenda. What makes a "well-formed" agenda? How can we write and manage agendas to make meetings successful?

Towards More Gracious Disagreement

We spend a sizable chunk of time correcting each other. Some believe that we win points by being right, or lose points by being wrong, but nobody seems to know who keeps the official score. Here are some thoughts to help you kick the habit.

Why Sidebars Happen

Sidebar conversations between meeting participants, conducted while someone else has the floor, are a distracting form of disorder that can waste time and reduce meeting effectiveness. Why do sidebars happen?

See also Effective Meetings and Workplace Politics for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming December 13: Contrary Indicators of Psychological Safety: I

To take the risks that learning and practicing new ways require, we all need a sense that trial-and-error approaches are safe. Organizations seeking to improve processes would do well to begin by assessing their level of psychological safety. Available here and by RSS on December 13.

And on December 20: Contrary Indicators of Psychological Safety: II

When we begin using new tools or processes, we make mistakes. Practice is the cure, but practice can be scary if the grace period for early mistakes is too short. For teams adopting new methods, psychological safety is a fundamental component of success. Available here and by RSS on December 20.

Coaching services

I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenogMhuqCxAnbfLvzbner@ChacigAthhhYwzZDgxshoCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.

Get the ebook!

Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:

• Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, )
• Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, )
• Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, )
• Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, )
• Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, )
• Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, )

Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500-1000 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info