A theme in my practice is the leader whose team includes a very talkative (or very reserved) member, whose participation deviates substantially from the group norm. Very talkative people may speak at great length, weigh in on every topic, or interrupt frequently, leaving others feeling frustrated or stifled. Very reserved people may participate rarely or not at all, leaving others feeling hesitant or anxious.
It's absolutely not the case that members' participation should be equivalent, but groups generally have a limited capacity to tolerate divergence from normative behavior before experiencing distress. In part this is because the existence of agreed-upon norms help all members calibrate and regulate their own participation, and when the range of behavior in a group becomes too broad, it can no longer be said that a "norm" even exists. [1]
And in many groups the potential to make a valuable contribution is evenly distributed--this may be the rationale for each member's inclusion in the group--but uneven patterns of participation undermine the group's effectiveness. This can be exacerbated by factors related to group tenure or social identity--for example, a long-term member may be much more vocal than new members, or a member who's a demographic minority may be much less vocal than the majority, especially if they're an "only" in some way. [2]
If you're a leader with an unusually loud (or unusually quiet) team member, what can you do? First, assess your tolerance (and that of the other group members) for communication styles that differ from your own. Bear in mind that the goal is a more effective group, not simply one that's more comfortable for the majority. [3] Having done that that, what further steps can you take? You always have these tools at your disposal:
1:1 Dialogue
You can speak individually with the very talkative (or very reserved) person about their participation in the group. But note that this isn't just about "providing feedback." While you are in a position to help this person understand the impact of their participation on how they're perceived by others and on the group as a whole, it's essential to bear in mind that an individual's behavior in a group is in part a function of the group environment. The failure to recognize this is one of the most common dynamics in social psychology--it's so prevalent that it's called the "fundamental attribution error": Ascribing causality to an individual when causality actually lies with the situation. [4]
So it's essential to acknowledge the group environment and its potential impact on the individual's participation. (This can be a fruitful topic of discussion for the group as a whole--see below.) But a starting point can simply be learning more about what's going on with this person in other domains of work or life that might be affecting their participation in the group. This can lead into a discussion about what it's like for this person to be a member of the group, raising your awareness of their group experience.
While it's often safer to navigate such potentially fraught topics in a 1:1 setting, there are two pitfalls to be aware of here: First, if this person is prone to defensiveness, a discussion about the group dynamic can be a way to avoid acknowledging the impact of their personal behavior. Awareness of the fundamental attribution error should temper the assignment of causation or blame, but it doesn't absolve individuals of all responsibility.
Also, in your efforts to represent how others are perceiving this person's participation, you may (or may not) have direct input from other members of the group, and you may (or may not) have their permission to attribute their comments to them. Here you face some difficult choices: If you share input from other group members but preserve their anonymity, the person you're talking with may feel exposed and unsafe in the group. If you share input from other group members and reveal their identities, these other people may feel exposed and unsafe, or you may set off a round of follow-up conversations that they're not yet prepared to have. And if you don't share input from other group members, you may create the mistaken impression that you're the only one who's troubled by this person's participation.
The ultimate solution is build a group that's sufficiently robust to hold such conversations in real time with all members present--again, see below. But the reality is that some groups never achieve this ideal, and others reach it only in rare moments--an exceptionally meaningful exercise at an offsite, or a heartfelt conversation over dinner. So while you work your way toward that ideal, the interim solution is to offer feedback based primarily on your own observations, while being rigorous about the format and process to maximize the likelihood of a productive response. [5]
Structured Processes
This involves using various cues and procedures to ensure that every member of the group participates while no member predominates. It need not be complex or cumbersome--simply telling the group, "I want to hear from everyone on this issue" is a type of structured process. It can also be distinct from the group's ordinary discussion--for example, one of the reasons to conduct a "check-in" at the beginning of a group experience is to elicit equivalent participation from all members and thereby set a precedent for subsequent interactions. [6]
Structured processes can be used at any point in a group experience, although the initial cue alone may be insufficient, and you may have to take further steps to regulate participation levels as needed. Note that all such procedures come with a cost, which is why they should be employed judiciously:
- Using a timer to limit participation reins in people who tend to run long. A cost is that such people may feel unduly constrained. [7]
- Speaking in a predetermined order ensures that everyone participates. When meeting in-person, this can be as simple as "going around the table" (or the circle, as the case may be.) A cost is that people who are reluctant to participate may feel anxious as their turn approaches. An alternative can be participating "popcorn" style--you're free to speak up when you choose, but once you've spoken you have to wait until everyone has joined in before speaking again.
- Using an object (when in-person) or relying upon a facilitator to designate the speaker will minimize interruptions. A cost is that the discussion can feel stilted or excessively inhibited.
- Pausing and inviting everyone to take some written notes before resuming the discussion can help talkative members organize their thoughts while also spurring reserved members to speak up. Costs include the time consumed and the interruption to the previous flow of discussion.
The idea isn't to become dependent on structured processes, but, rather, to weave them into the group experience as needed. And despite their various costs, their benefits include not only more balanced participation, but also a sense of novelty. When such processes are well-facilitated (which takes practice), groups can welcome the change from their habitual patterns of interaction.
Direct Intervention
This involves taking action in the moment to reduce participation by a talkative member (and evoke participation from the rest of the group) or evoke participation by a reserved member (and reduce participation by the rest of the group). An advantage of this approach is that it focuses on the individual whose uneven participation is affecting the group, without requiring a structured process separate and distinct from the group's normal discussion. A potential disadvantage is that the individual may feel unfairly singled out and have a negative response to your intervention.
One solution is obtaining permission in advance from the individual under consideration, not only to avoid surprising them with your intervention, but also to ensure that they understand your motivation. It's essential that they feel supported by you as the leader rather than criticized, and an outcome of your 1:1 dialogue with them can be a shared strategy along these lines. A key is intervening subtly at first and escalating slowly to more direct measures.
With a very talkative member, you can...
- Ask the group for more input, hoping that others speak up.
- Ask explicitly to hear from other group members.
- Ask this individual to briefly pause to create space for others.
- Interrupt this individual, particularly if they've interrupted someone else or are talking over others.
With a very reserved member, you can:
- Ask the group for more input, hoping that this member speaks up.
- Ask explicitly to hear from this group member.
- Ask others to briefly pause to create space for this individual.
Such interventions are easy to describe in the abstract, but can be difficult to implement without creating a sense of awkwardness or embarrassment. And yet if you're never willing to accept the risk of stumbling, you'll never develop the skills necessary to intervene with grace and tact.
But even though as the leader you'll always have a special role to play in the development of the group environment, you need not bear this responsibility alone--nor will you succeed if you try. At some point it will be both desirable and necessary to invite all members to assess the group's culture and norms and offer suggestions for improvement.
Group Dialogue
We can think of this as a "meta-conversation": a group discussion about how the group holds discussions. This is far more difficult work than most people realize, which is one reason why so many exercises conducted with this goal in mind fall flat at best. There is a basic conceptual challenge--group dynamics are complex, and relatively few people get much useful training in understanding them.
But at a more fundamental level discussing a group's dynamics with the members of that group inevitably evokes a degree of self-consciousness and vulnerability, which often exacerbates the problematic behaviors that necessitated the discussion in the first place. It's a profoundly thorny dilemma--but one that's worth trying to untangle.
One of the greatest benefits of a group dialogue is its efficiency. While separate 1:1 conversations with group members are useful, as noted above, that process is not only time-consuming but also subject to various degrees of distortion because other group members aren't present to correct misunderstandings or inaccuracies regarding their behavior and intentions.
While specific topics to be addressed here include the optimal range of group participation, the impact on the group of non-normative behavior, and the impact of the group environment on non-normative individuals, it's useful to be aware of the general conditions necessary for any productive norm:
- A set of shared beliefs about how individuals should behave.
- Sufficient mutual esteem among members so that its withdrawal would be felt as a loss by any individual.
- A willingness by members to openly acknowledge a norm violation by a peer.
- A willingness by members to withhold esteem from a peer as a consequence of a norm violation. [8]
So note the value of taking the time to build meaningful relationships among the group members before jumping into a "norms discussion." As I've written before,
This is why relationship-building on a team is so important and why leaders who dismiss it as fluffy bullshit are missing a critical factor in the process of developing productive norms. It's not about "liking each other"--it's about the power of mutual esteem. [9]
Finally, be aware that no single discussion will permanently resolve such a complex set of issues. We call them group dynamics because we expect them to change, and the patterns of behavior that support (or inhibit) effective group performance today may do the opposite in the future. As David Bradford, one of my mentors, used to say, the most productive group norm is a commitment to regularly revisit the group's norms.
Footnotes
[1] For more on the definition and establishment of norms, see Rules Aren't Norms (On Better Meeting Hygiene).
[2] Research on the impact of group composition and diversity on performance is inconclusive--it's easy to find studies supporting almost any point you want to make on the subject. Two observations drawn from my experience are that 1) homogeneous teams experience less conflict but can be more prone to blind spots and "groupthink," and 2) heterogeneous teams can only make effective use of their diversity once they learn to manage conflict effectively (including, but not limited to, the topic under discussion here.)
[4] This is the definition I learned in 1998 from Roberto Fernandez, my brilliant Organizational Behavior professor at Stanford. The initial work on the fundamental attribution error was done by Stanford psychologist Lee Ross: The Intuitive Psychologist and His Shortcomings: Distortions in the Attribution Process (Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 1977).
[5] For more on effective feedback, see the following:
- How to Deliver Critical Feedback
- Feedback Is Not a Gift
- Make Feedback Normal. Not a Performance Review.
[6] Check in to LISTEN, Not Just to Speak
[7] When using a timer, it's preferable to avoid a harsh or abrupt tone--I've used the sound of this Tibetan bowl in many different settings over the years:
[8] Rules Aren't Norms (On Better Meeting Hygiene)
[9] Ibid.
For Further Reading
Group Dynamics: The Leader's Toolkit
Group Dynamics: Norms and Emotion
Freud on Startup (Conditions for Group Effectiveness)
Huddle Up! (Building Group Cohesion)
Photo by Chris Christian.
