What're the best techniques for groups to avoid talking over each other

May 23, 2019 11:01 AM

I work with a creative group that's highly functional but our process is, let's say, chaotic. In talking to the team one of the things that recurs is that people talk over each other frequently which creates an anxiety around both being heard and trying to jump in and get your share of voice. What're the best techniques for managing group conversations and helping the flow of conversation that don't feel condescending?
posted by GilloD to Society & Culture (11 answers total)

Could you work off an agenda where each person has a chance to report and share? When an agenda is present it makes things a bit more formal, and people are on better behavior when it's someone's turn to speak. At the end of the agenda you could do a freeforall.
posted by loveandhappiness at 11:10 AM on May 23, 2019 [2 favorites]

I'm trying to get over my tendencies to talk over/interrupt in workplace meetings. I've found that if I just point my finger on the table (like pushing an imaginary button with my pointy finger) I can get in line behind the person talking. It's a visual cue to others that I have something to say, and it's an active gesture that scratches the internal itch of making myself known. Agreed it would feel condescending to have the conversation "let's all put our finger on the table, it's like raising our hands but for grownups" but as a personal technique it's working ok so far (and I bet my coworkers are relieved)
posted by aimedwander at 11:14 AM on May 23, 2019

If it's in a meeting setting, I've had success with a "raise your hand and get added next to the list" approach, where we literally keep a list (generally on a whiteboard) for people to give ideas and be up "at bat" to speak after the next speaker. Often, the action of writing down a name will prompt the speaker to give the floor over, especially after it's established that nobody is going to dominate or lose their ability to say their bit.
posted by xingcat at 11:23 AM on May 23, 2019

One thing having strict “one person talks at a time” rules accomplishes is prompting the interrupters to realize that they are the interrupters and gets them to sit and deal with the feeling of having to wait their turn. You’d think it would be obvious that they’re jumping over someone else, but often these people don’t get what they’re even doing. Realizing that they can’t indulge a burning desire to talk at any time they want is a good learning experience. There are various ways to accomplish this but they all feel vaguely patronizing—like using an object and saying only the person with the object can talk, or keeping a tally list that notes how many times each person has interrupted, or picking one person as a moderator who can enforce the no interrupting rule, etc. But if the problem is bad enough then it might be ok to pick a patronizing/infantilizing method just so that everyone on the team (especially the interruptors) gets a clear-eyed view of what role they play in the dynamic. You can do it for only one meeting or only a month or something as a group exercise and see if the dynamic improves.
posted by sallybrown at 11:23 AM on May 23, 2019 [3 favorites]

I probably read this on Metafilter years ago -- something to do with conversation requiring no real rules of order as long as there are no more than four people involved. But as soon as you add a fifth, things are either going to fragment (people are going to start feeling alienated) or you're going to need some level of organization.
posted by philip-random at 11:36 AM on May 23, 2019

I like the "talking stick" solution.

I'd also think about redesigning your format to create more bandwidth.

1. If the group is generally six or more, you could break into two groups of three, work through some part of the issue, and then report out the top questions, or most promising solutions, etc.

2. If some of the talking over amounts to "me, too!", other ways to indicate that might preserve the more precious audio bandwidth. E.g. "when a point is made that you agree with or a question is raised you too would like to see answered, raise your hand."

3. Contributions via pencil and paper, say post-it notes, then posting on a board for review.
posted by alittleknowledge at 11:38 AM on May 23, 2019

I prefer when someone is a facilitator; their specific job is to keep track of who's trying to talk, make room for quiet people, slow down the oversharers, etc. That person might have to be half a step back from the content, because a) they'll have the power to insert themselves when they feel passionate, and b) keeping track of the meeting takes up bandwidth that they won't be spending on the topic. But a good facilitator can resolve this, especially if the whole group is on board with the idea of improving the dynamic.
posted by gideonfrog at 12:03 PM on May 23, 2019 [4 favorites]

I like Robert's Rules of Order. You don't actually have to use the rules; they're complex and often highly arcane. But being familiar with concepts like "who has the floor?" and "being recognized by the chair" is quite helpful to understand how discussions work. It provides a framework that, once you've seen it, will always be with you.
posted by kevinbelt at 12:08 PM on May 23, 2019 [1 favorite]

I have found that giving everyone time to blab their thing at the front of the meeting, in an orderly way (by seating, alphabetically, etc.), can help get stuff out that people are burning to share and feel compelled to interrupt with. You can use a flip chart to "park" these comments in the "lot" for later use (or not). Then move to the meeting proper. This method makes meetings longer on paper but can sometimes generate a reassurance that everyone will get to be heard and speed the meeting dynamic up over time.
posted by cocoagirl at 1:37 PM on May 23, 2019

Set meeting norms, together, so that everyone understands what the expectations are and what the group finds appropriate in terms of communication. It has the added bonus of being helpful for the neurodivergent and serving as touchy-feely bonding for those creatives those who like that sort of thing.

Put the norms in writing, make a Google doc so everyone can find them later and newbies can be pointed to them before their first meeting, and make sure everyone votes on the norms once in a while so they’re kept relevant. The cherry on top is that it all this works.
posted by librarylis at 5:57 PM on May 23, 2019

If you're working on something where people are giving and receiving critiques, consider Milford style workshopping.

I've found this works well if you go around the circle, one-by-one, with no rebuttals or interruptions, then the person being critiqued gets to respond (again without interruption), then if there's more to develop on you can have a more open conversation after that. Once people get into the swing of it, it can work really well.
posted by Happy Dave at 9:53 AM on May 24, 2019