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 issue 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:

Let Me Finish, Please

We use meetings to exchange information and to explore complex issues. In open discussion, we tend to interrupt each other. Interruptions can be disruptive, distracting, funny, essential, and frustratingly common. What can we do to limit interruptions without depriving ourselves of their benefits?

Games for Meetings: IV

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 IV of a little catalog of some of our favorites, and what we could do about them.

Dispersed Teams and Latent Communications

When geography divides a team, conflicts can erupt along the borders. "Us" and "them" becomes a way of seeing the world, and feelings about people at other sites can become hostile. Why does this happen and what can we do about it?

Virtual Blowhards

Controlling meeting blowhards is difficult enough in face-to-face meetings, but virtual meetings present next-level problems, because techniques that work face-to-face are unavailable. Here are eight tactics for dealing with virtual blowhards.

Stone-Throwers at Meetings: II

A stone-thrower in a meeting is someone who is determined to halt forward progress. Motives vary, from embarrassing the chair to holding the meeting hostage in exchange for advancing an agenda. What can chairs do about stone-throwers?

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

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming January 22: Storming: Obstacle or Pathway?

The Storming stage of Tuckman's model of small group development is widely misunderstood. Fighting the storms, denying they exist, or bypassing them doesn't work. Letting them blow themselves out in a somewhat-controlled manner is the path to Norming and Performing. Available here and by RSS on January 22.

And on January 29: A Framework for Safe Storming

The Storming stage of Tuckman's development sequence for small groups is when the group explores its frustrations and degrees of disagreement about both structure and task. Only by understanding these misalignments is reaching alignment possible. Here is a framework for this exploration. Available here and by RSS on January 29.

Coaching services

I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenjTnUayrCbSnnEcYfner@ChacdcYpBKAaMJgMalFXoCanyon.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