There is a moment in almost every meeting when the direction shifts. Not dramatically. Not visibly. But tangibly. The moment when one participant takes the stage, sets the direction, and the rest follow. Not because everyone agrees. But because it is easier to go along than to break the silence.
Marianne recognizes this. She is sitting in her MT meeting. Geert picks up on an idea and immediately makes the link with structure and planning. Angelique joins in. The energy flows. But halfway through, she notices something: two colleagues haven’t said anything yet. They watch, listen, nod occasionally. Afterwards, over coffee, one of them says, “I wanted to contribute something, but it went so fast.” That sentence sticks. Because it’s not the first time.
The pattern that no one mentions
In many teams, it is always the same people who speak up. The fast talkers, the loud thinkers. People who form their thoughts as they speak. They are valuable, they bring pace, structure, direction, but they also take up space. Not out of malice, but unnoticed. On the other hand, there are the quiet forces. People who think first and then speak. Who see nuances that others overlook. Who know from practical experience how something really works, but wait for an opening or question that never comes. The result? The conversation feels rushed and superficial. Decisions sound logical, but are not widely supported. We think we are working together, but in reality only part of our collective wisdom is coming to the surface. This is not a Marianne problem. This is a group dynamics problem. It is much bigger than we as managers think.
Marianne
What research tells us - five insights that matter
1. Loud thinkers take up 70% of the conversation time
Research into group dynamics consistently shows that in an average meeting, two to three out of eight people take up the lion’s share of the speaking time. The rest add to the conversation, confirm, or remain silent. This is not a conscious choice; it is a group norm that forms naturally. Kurt Lewin, founder of group dynamics, described as early as 1945 how groups develop norms that determine who speaks and who listens. These norms are persistent. They do not change on their own.
What this means for your MT: if, after a meeting, you feel that “we discussed it together,” that is probably not true. You have heard what the quickest thinkers thought. That is something else.
2. Quiet team members produce better ideas, but don't share them
This sounds contradictory, but several studies confirm it. Introverted thinkers consistently score higher on the quality of ideas in brainstorming sessions, provided they are given the space to think individually before the group starts. The problem: in a traditional meeting, they don’t get that space. The outspoken thinker is already busy while the quiet colleague is still formulating their thoughts.
Harvard Business Review described this as the “deaf to the quiet” phenomenon: 60% of managers interpret dominance as leadership and silence as a lack of input. While it can be exactly the opposite. The quiet colleague often has the sharpest insight, but no one asks for it.
3. Groupthink is the invisible saboteur
Irving Janis (1972) introduced the concept of groupthink after analyzing historical blunders. His conclusion: groups that reach consensus too quickly miss crucial signals. Dominant voices create an apparent unanimity. Dissenting opinions are not suppressed, they are simply not expressed.
Solomon Asch demonstrated in his famous experiments (1951) that 75% of people conform to a group opinion, even if it is demonstrably incorrect. Not out of conviction, but out of social pressure. In an MT, this means that if Geert and Angelique agree, there is a good chance that the rest will follow. Not because they agree, but because deviating feels uncomfortable.
For managers like Marianne, this is a warning: rapid consensus is not a sign of good cooperation. It can be a sign of suppressed diversity.
4. Inclusive teams perform 35% better
McKinsey’s research on diversity and inclusion (Diversity Wins, 2020) shows that teams in which all voices are heard perform 35% better than teams with dominant patterns. This is not about political correctness. This is about better decisions. More perspectives mean more information. More information means fewer blind spots. Fewer blind spots mean better results.
A meta-analysis in the Journal of Applied Psychology adds that voice inequality in teams reduces performance by 25%. Inclusion increases performance by 21%. The figures are clear, but putting them into practice proves difficult.
5. The leader sets the standard, consiously or unconsiously
Hackman’s research on team effectiveness shows that the leader sets the tone for who speaks next. If the leader speaks first, the group follows their pattern. If the leader makes room for silence, the dynamic changes. Bion (1961) described how groups develop ‘dependency’: members rely on the dominant figure for direction. The leader does not have to be the loudest to steer the conversation. Presence, body language, the first question—these determine everything.
This pattern is so persistent because dominant voices feel productive. The conversation moves quickly, things are said, there seems to be direction. That gives a feeling of control, exactly what a management team under pressure is looking for. But it is false control, because the input is limited. The perspectives are one-sided. The people who are closest to the practice, the employees who speak to customers, who see processes faltering, who know where the real problems lie. However, they are either not at the table or they remain silent.
This ties in with what we described earlier about consultation pressure: adding more people for “overview” does not make it better. It makes it more cumbersome. The solution is not to have more voices at the table. It is to have the right voices, which are given the right space.
For Marianne, this means that her role is not to lead the conversation. Her role is to facilitate the conversation. That sounds subtle, but the difference is enormous.ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Ut elit tellus, luctus nec ullamcorper mattis, pulvinar dapibus leo.
Where do you start?
The temptation is to “solve” this with a workshop, a team day, or a new meeting format. However, patterns cannot be changed with a single intervention. They change through small, repeated shifts.
Try this in your next MT meeting:
Start with two minutes of silence. Ask a question and let everyone think for themselves and write down an answer first. Only then does the discussion follow. This breaks the pattern of the fastest speaker. It gives the quiet thinkers equal opportunities. It noticeably changes the quality of the discussion, right from the start.
Use a round-robin when it matters. Not for every agenda item, but for the big questions, the strategic choices, the difficult decisions. Give everyone 60 seconds to contribute their ideas. No reactions, no discussion! First, get all perspectives on the table, then start the conversation.
Explicitly ask for the silent voices. Not as a trick, but as a habit. “We’ve heard three perspectives. Are there more?” Sometimes that one question is enough to invite another voice that changes everything.
The link with fewer meetings
This theme is not unrelated to our earlier exploration of meeting pressure and continuous improvement. In fact, it reinforces it.
Lencioni’s tactical meeting works better when all voices are heard in the lightning round. Obeya boards make input visible, even from people who don’t speak out loud. A3 problem solving, by definition, requires multiple perspectives in the root cause analysis. And retrospectives only work if everyone feels safe enough to be honest.
The tools are there. The structures are there. However, they only work if the group dynamics allow it. And those dynamics start with you as a leader.
What does this evoke in you?
At your next meeting, consciously observe the pattern. Who speaks first? Who speaks the longest? Who remains silent? And what would happen if you broke that pattern?
You may discover that the best ideas are already in the room. They are just waiting for space.
A technique you could try with your team
Finde heraus, was uns bei unserer Arbeit motiviert und wie sich dies bei verschiedenen Teammitgliedern und in unterschiedlichen Situationen unterscheidet.
Diese Technik verwendet Motivationskarten, um unsere Motivatoren zu untersuchen. Was ist am wichtigsten, um uns zu motivieren, bekommen wir genug davon und wie können wir uns verbessern?
- Stärkung des gegenseitigen Vertrauens
- Verbesserte Fähigkeit, unsere Motivation aufrechtzuerhalten
- Mehr Spaß bei der Arbeit
EN 
NL 
DE 
FR 