Expanding upon other peoples' thoughts in discussions
Lately, I've noticed that during small group discussions in professional settings, especially in virtual meetings, I have a tendency to contribute additional thoughts after someone else shares something. My colleagues are often quiet which leads to awkward silences between topics, and I feel that for the discussion to flow smoothly, there needs to be some form of response or reciprocity to what was said. So, I often take on the role of expanding upon others' points, even if what I say doesn't add much. I should note that, I myself am an introvert through and through, but these awkward silences still make me uncomfortable and it's kind of annoying to see a mute icon pop up when it's supposed to be an active conversation. I suppose this is a habit that carried over from my days of hosting Bible studies many years ago, where active participation was hard to come by. People don't often share, but when they do, it helps to have someone acknowledge it - in my opinion, at least. I similarly engage like this in D&D where, in roleplaying scenarios, I'd use my character to fill in the empty spaces of conversation between other players and the DM, even if it's just a simple response that wasn't explicitly necessary.
My question is: do people, including yourself, appreciate it when someone responds or adds to their point in this manner? I struggle to discern whether I'm actually facilitating the conversation or hogging it in an annoying way. I'm open to feedback or hearing from your experiences.
I hate fluff.
When I am in a meeting and someone makes their point(s) clearly and concisely, there is nothing worse than someone just trying to fill the silence by reiterating their point(s) while everyone else is trying to finish processing what was said.
If you are adding to the conversation (by asking clarifying questions, or expanding on some aspect of what was said) then there is no issue with me. If you are adding words for the sake of adding words because the mute icon makes you uncomfortable, I think you should try to reconsider.
Thank you for your response. This is very helpful.
For some people it's helpful to have another voice re-contextualize or reiterate on a couple points while listeners are finishing their ruminations. They might have something to add, but need time to work through it, and a bit of "fluff" gives them that opportunity to finish a thought or find the words without themselves ending up in that uncomfortable situation of "should I break the awkward silence?"
Some people are willing to do it and others aren't, even if that topic is sometimes objectively worthy of being brought up. In some cases, people will take a few minutes after a meeting concludes and let any stragglers have a chance to voice something they hadn't fleshed out earlier or that they weren't sure about bringing up in front of the entire group. That's another good way of making sure that everyone's voice is heard and they leave the meeting feeling like it was worth their time.
There may be some other benefits for some people, like helping to keep them more focused on the [Zoom] meeting instead of Minesweeper. Or giving the next speaker a moment to finish gathering their notes without their brain going into "this is so embarrassing that I wasn't quite as ready as I thought I was oh shit" which only further derails the meeting's flow.
Anyhow, filling the void is one of those things where some people will like it and others won't. Best thing to do is always keep the flow going and try to keep everything moving as best as possible. But that doesn't mean there can't be natural ebbs and eddies of deviation from the primary topic. While keeping things professional a little aside or some "fluff" can actually helps people gauge whether they can break in now and say something before the group has moved away from the topic or not. It's one of several ways to make meetings more personable and less intense and also to give some signposting as the topic changes.
Thank you. This aligns with my thought process, especially your final paragraph. My primary motivation is to keep the conversation flowing and assure the other participants that - at the very least - I'm listening to what they're saying with my responses. I also want to keep things lighthearted and less intense, as you put it, since these are generally open-ended discussions. However, I do veer too often into fluff just for the sake of it, and discussing this here has helped me recognize that.
Some of this probably depends on the kind of work you’re doing and the purpose of the meeting, but generally speaking I’d rather the silence be broken by a question than a fluff statement. Instead of echoing what someone else said, try to find something to ask about it. This could be in the form of…
This approach signals curiosity, not just engagement, and it can help strengthen whatever it is the team is planning together. I’m mainly thinking of work scenarios where you’re architecting stuff, as my background is in software development. It might not go over as well in D&D, which is more akin to improv and benefits from a “yes, and” mindset. Asking too many questions there is likely to annoy the DM and other players.
As an aside…
I’d posit that modern Zoom etiquette calls for everyone to be muted whenever they are not actively speaking. This reduces the likelihood of unexpected background sounds breaking in through someone’s hot mic, disrupting the meeting. It also removes any general ambient noise, producing a more focused aural space. In my experience, when everyone but the speaker remains muted, just the act of seeing that icon disappear from someone’s tile can signal that they have something to say, approximating a nonverbal cue we have in face-to-face conversations but not online. This can help minimize crosstalk if people are paying attention to it.
Thank you! I like this approach a lot and will make note of it for the future.
Regarding the mute icon, I do agree about the etiquette and that's my preference as well, but we're expected to be continuously off mute for these small groups to encourage that active conversation. Doesn't really work out though and that's just the nature of virtual meetings.
I won't expand on what others here have already said regarding expanding on other's thoughts as that seems well covered.
I'm interested in how you're getting to situations where you've got dead time in meetings like that.
For us, meetings that end up with dead time and have low engagement suffer from some mix of the following problems:
The structure is an easy fix, share a Google doc with some bullet points and run through an agenda or what to talk about point by point. Ensure there's an outcome or action for each point and make sure there's some activity (postit notes, lean coffee, mind map, etc) to keep the input going.
Facilitation is closely tied, it's someone's job (does not need to be the host) to keep the discussion going. Preferably they don't have input. They should make sure chat doesn't stop and if it does either move on or pick a tool or method to get to an outcome.
Lastly, probably the most difficult, is choosing the audience. If you've just got the whole team invited to something that 2 people can work out, then do it with two people and share the results. If people aren't interested in giving input or their input isn't valuable then don't invite them.
That's my thoughts, your milage may vary.
Maybe brief agreement would be enough to keep things going?
Short answer:
Love when people build/expand on ideas, have no issue if people re-phrase to make sure they have the same understanding, and I agree that affirming others' contributions can be helpful. Where it can get annoying is when it feels like the speaker is trying to re-package the exact same point as their own with no real contribution.
Longer answer:
I'll admit, I'm probably being narrow-minded to my own experience, but I'm having a hard time picturing a meeting, especially virtual, with overly long silences.
Meetings should serve a purpose: Are there long silences because people are thinking through an idea/problem (perfectly valid), or have broken off to do solo work before reconvening the conversation (depending on the type of meeting)? Or, because people are sitting around without an organizer to keep on-focus and achieve the purpose of the meeting? Or, too shy to speak up? Or, because someone asked a question and literally no-one has an opinion (happens to me all the time, and I just motor along..)?
Especially in virtual meetings (especially-especially in an office that doesn't demand cameras-on), I find it helpful to re-create some of the non-verbal cues that help keep in-person discussions moving: saying "I agree" or "good point", verbalizing I'm thinking through the options, giving a thumbs-up emoji, etc.
Generally, I'd expect the meeting leader/organizer to keep things moving (or, lacking one, someone to step up into a leader role during the meeting): re-iterate the meeting's purpose, ask if there are other ideas, confirm resolutions/takeaways/next steps, end the meeting/reconvene later, whatever makes sense in-context.
Is there something in the work culture preventing people from speaking? I've found giving newer colleagues positive feedback, and explicitly asking about their opinion in their area of expertise, has helped them out of their shell (this worked on me when I was new!). Keeping things friendly and being supportive can help, too.
Not sure if the longer answer was really helpful to what you're asking about, but figured I'd add it to give a few broader ideas :)
Thank you for your response! For context on my specific scenario, we often hold virtual meetings with breakout groups to discuss questions, feedback, initiatives, etc. There's around 3-5 people per group with no designated leader, just open-ended discussion that may or may not require cameras. So, it takes some breaking the ice to get things going, and that's where a lot of the awkwardness is found. But, I suppose I am also looking for a broader approach to these types of conversation.
Ahh, gotcha. It really depends on the group of people, but for quieter groups, I've found it can certainly help for someone to step up and become the defacto leader if others are more reluctant to get started. I'm happy to do it (as needed) to keep things flowing, but I'm also perfectly happy to sit back and let someone else take on that role.
This might mean piping up to kick off the group-discussion with introductions (if needed) or re-iterating the purpose. If the breakout session can be approached from multiple angles/approaches, you could ask how people want to start (or be ready to offer a suggestion). If a discussion has petered out, taking it back to the purpose and asking if there's a new angle. If people have nothing left to add and you've achieved (enough of) the goal and are waiting to re-join the main meeting, maybe simply give a sense of finality: "ok, it seems like we've got our ideas, shall we take back x minutes while we wait to rejoin the main meeting?" Essentially, helping to facilitate focus and flow throughout the session.
I don't want to pretend I'm great at any of this. I'm just good-enough and comfortable putting myself out there when no one else is to get the job done. I work with some people who are genuinely fantastic at driving discussions; in the meetings they host, I observe their approaches to try and take notes for myself to improve.
I think repeating what someone has just said can be helpful to avoid misunderstanding.
I feel concepts like Appreciative Inquiry could help the discussion - something like "so what are the strongest benefits of this approach?", "which method are you most comfortable with, and could you say why that is? These are highly context dependent and may not be at all suitable for your meetings. Sometimes people do just need the details and then get out of the meeting. I feel for breakout groups this can reassure people - "this person isn't calling me an idiot, they're not telling me I'm wrong, they're engaged with what I'm saying, they see me as an expert and they're asking me for more information".
Don't forget that sometimes some people need the uncomfortable silence. If you just let it sit someone will fill it. I feel that your approach is inclusive, and is supporting people join the discussion, and that's a powerful positive. I've been to a few meetings where the quiet people just don't get to join in and that's sub-optimal.
For breakout groups especially some people don't do well "off the cuff", and if they haven't had time to prepare it'd be nice to have some kind of method for them to submit ideas later.
(And if anyone wants to make a small amount of money here the English NHS, and local authorities in England, would want something like JamBoard but self-hosted where the information stays local to the organisation.)