Deeper Dialogues

What do you need to say?

Skip to main content
What to say

Work

Your team goes quiet when you ask for input

You ask "any thoughts?" and get the sound of people studying their laptops. One or two reliable voices fill the gap, and the people who've been thinking hardest never say a word. The room is losing its best thinking, and you can change that without a speech about participation.

What they need from you, and why

Quiet people usually aren't quiet because they have nothing to say. The Group Dynamics module describes three of them: Sophie, who thinks before she speaks and never gets the pause she needs to come in; Aisha, who grew up where you don't speak until invited and interrupting someone senior is disrespectful; and Liam, new and junior, who has done the risk calculation every newcomer does and decided silence is safer. Add social loafing, the effect Bibb Latané, Kipling Williams and Stephen Harkins named in 1979, where people ease off when their own effort can't be seen, and you have a room where the format is failing the people in it.

What they need is a pause, a specific invitation and a way in that isn't an audition. The module's inclusion tools are structural: written warm-ups, rounds, pairs, anonymous cards, and the long wait after a question. In classroom research in the 1970s, Mary Budd Rowe found teachers typically waited about one second for an answer; stretching it to three to five seconds brought longer answers, more ideas, and more answers from the students teachers had seen as slower. Underneath the tools sits safety: Amy Edmondson's 1999 study of 51 work teams found that teams with higher psychological safety asked questions, sought feedback and talked openly about mistakes, and what builds it is predictable: leaders admit mistakes first, questions are welcomed, dissent is explicitly invited.

The payoff is a smarter group, not just a politer one. Anita Woolley and colleagues found a group's collective intelligence was only modestly linked to members' IQ and higher where turns were shared more evenly, though later studies have debated how robust that is. Google's Project Aristotle, studying its own teams, put psychological safety first among the dynamics that mattered. The module's Mel changed nothing about the people in her Tuesday meeting; she changed the structure, and the structure did the rest.

Understand it properly

First

Change the format before you try to change the people: give everyone two minutes to write their main thought down, then go round the table, thirty seconds each.

You could say

  • Before we dive in, let's each take two minutes to write down our main thought on this. Then we'll go round and hear from everyone, thirty seconds each.

    The people who think before they speak get time to do it, nobody has to compete for airtime, and the over-talkers are contained without being shamed.

  • Aisha, you've worked with this kind of problem before. I'd love your perspective.

    A specific, warm invitation gives someone a reason to speak and an angle to speak from; "anyone else?" gets silence.

  • What are we not talking about?

    One question that cracks a flat conversation open; the module's example brought out "nobody trusts the timeline".

  • What else?

    Then count to five in your head, or seven if you can bear it; the considered answers tend to arrive just after the point where you'd normally jump in.

  • Before we move on, what perspectives haven't we heard yet?

    It checks who's been included without putting any one person on the spot.

  • I notice people seem hesitant to speak up here. What would make it easier?

    Naming the silence without blaming anyone for it, and asking rather than guessing what's behind it.

If it goes badly

Three ways this can turn. Read the one that happens; the others can wait.

You've said something like

Before we dive in, let's each take two minutes to write down our main thought on this. Then we'll go round and hear from everyone, thirty seconds each.

  • If they still say nothing after the long pause

    Let's try this a different way. Turn to the person next to you, two minutes, then we'll hear one thing from each pair.

    Think-pair-share: an idea that's been tried on one person is much easier to say to eight.

  • If they let the usual two voices fill the silence again

    Thanks, both. I want to hold the floor for the people we haven't heard from yet.

    The gentle redirect acknowledges the talkers and still moves the airtime; if it doesn't hold, a round will.

  • If they shoot down the first half-formed idea

    Hang on, I want to hear where that goes. Say more about that.

    How the first risk is received decides whether anyone takes a second; treating an unfinished idea as normal is what builds safety.

Share these words

Send them to yourself, or to someone helping you.

Try not to say

  • "Sarah, you're quiet. Don't you have anything to add?"

    It puts her on trial, implies she's done something wrong, and usually produces a stammered "no, I'm fine".

  • "Anyone else?" and moving on after one second

    One second is nowhere near enough for someone who thinks before speaking, is working in a second language, or is deciding whether their answer is good enough.

  • Answering your own question

    Don't rephrase it and don't fill the gap; the hardest part of a good question is resisting the urge to answer it yourself.

  • "We've already considered that."

    In the module, that's the sigh that taught a new hire his job was to attend meetings and say nothing; questions treated as incompetence kill safety fast.

  • Running the whole meeting as talk-only

    Spoken discussion favours extroverts, fast thinkers and native speakers; if it's the only way in, you're running an audition and most people fail it.

Afterwards

Spend three minutes after the meeting on the module's facilitation audit: who spoke most and least, and your ratio of questions to statements. Thank anyone who spoke up for the first time, specifically and soon; in the module, "great insights today, I had no idea you had such strong opinions on the roadmap" is what one person heard from her manager the week she started speaking up. Keep the format for several meetings rather than one, because people need to see that the pause and the round are permanent before they trust them. If one person still never speaks, ask them one to one what would make it easier to come in, and then do that.

Understand it properly

The words above come from these. A section is about ten minutes; the whole module is there when you have longer.

Where this comes from
  • Deeper Dialogues, Group Conversation Dynamics: why people go quiet (Sophie, Aisha, Liam), social loafing (Latané, Williams and Harkins, 1979), the good and bad invitation, wait time (Mary Budd Rowe), Mel's written warm-up and round, think-pair-share, anonymous input, "What are we not talking about?", the facilitation audit, psychological safety (Edmondson, 1999), collective intelligence (Woolley et al.)
  • Deeper Dialogues, Leadership & Influence: responding when someone seems hesitant to speak up, messenger protection, question-based leadership
  • Deeper Dialogues, Building Workplace Relationships: Project Aristotle and psychological safety

We gather and pass on what researchers and support organisations have found. This isn't a replacement for a doctor, counsellor or support service.