Inclusive meetings: Bringing more voices to the table

Do you go to meetings?

Then you’ve probably come across two of the most common ways to hold them: the ‘popcorn model’ and the ‘round table model’. In the first model, the chair asks a question, and the participants chip in with their comments as they wish – just like popcorn randomly popping out of a pot. In the second model, the participants take turns to speak, so that everyone gets a chance to contribute.

But these two models are not always the best options. According to Camilla Strand, a management development consultant at AU HR, we can all benefit from reflecting on the way we hold meetings, so that we unlock the potential of diversity and hear from everyone:

“The ‘popcorn model’ favours extroverts and will often result in dominant voices receiving more speaking time. But the ‘round table model’ often leads people to endorse what the previous speaker has said, because we’re social beings who want to fit in and find consensus. We have a lot to gain from thinking about how we can hold meetings to bring more points of view into play. It’s motivating for individual participants to realise that they can contribute and that, by doing so, the discussion becomes better and more nuanced,” says Camilla Strand.

The empty chair
So how can you help to make meetings more inclusive? Firstly, you need to take care of the basics: The meeting must have a clear purpose, and participants must understand why their contribution is important – and they must feel safe. Once these things are in place, there are various techniques you can use:

You can try asking people to discuss things in pairs before you open up to a plenary discussion. This helps the people who find it easier to warm up before they say something. We know that, if participants are able to speak within the first ten minutes of a meeting, there’s a much greater chance they’ll participate actively during the rest of the session. As a meeting chair, it’s best not to start the meeting with a long monologue if the purpose of the meeting is to create dialogue,” says Camilla Strand.

Another pitfall is reaching a consensus too quickly. While it’s often good for the process and atmosphere if people agree in a meeting, reaching a consensus too early on can also be a red flag for the chair and the participants that important perspectives may not have been raised.

“In this situation, you can actually put an empty chair around the table that represents the opposite point of view. What speaks against the position that we all agree on right now? You can also imagine that the empty chair represents an important stakeholder, say a student or an international employee – and then always remember to ask the ‘chair’,” explains Camilla Strand.

Do some lobbying
As the chairperson of the meeting, it’s vital to know who’s in the room. If there is a large imbalance in who usually speaks when everyone gets together, Camilla Strand encourages managers to do a little lobbying before the meeting. For example, let a specific employee know that it would be good to hear their perspective on a given topic during the meeting.

“We often think that people will just say something if they want to. But we forget that there are many obstacles – maybe you don’t feel safe, maybe you’ve had bad experiences in the past, maybe you need to prepare, or maybe you come from another cultural background,” she says. 

At the same time, as a meeting chair, you must be able to restrict the speaking time of those who tend to dominate:

“It’s not productive if some participants are given unlimited speaking time and that, as a result, only a few people get to have their say.  As a meeting chair, you have an obligation to say that we also need to hear other voices – even though doing so can feel uncomfortable, perhaps especially in academic environments. You have to find the right balance,” she says, highlighting another challenge.

It’s good to be constructively critical, but sometimes a few employees can dominate a meeting by being overly sceptical, and this can create a dynamic that excludes other perspectives. According to Camilla Strand, this is also something a chairperson needs to be aware of.

Don’t get stuck in a rut
It can be a good idea to rethink the meeting format if you want to make regular, recurring meetings more inclusive.

“If you have a meeting that is always held in the same way, it’s a good idea to shake things up a bit. Unless you think the format is working really well. Don’t be afraid to ask the meeting participants what they think. If we always do the same thing, we might not get the best out of the diversity that’s in the room,” she says.

Perhaps the meeting could be held at a different time of the day, with other participants, or in a different location.  And then you and your employees can evaluate what works best.

Danish or English?
There are many members of international staff working at Aarhus University – from up to 90 different countries. This poses a key question for meetings: Shall we speak English or Danish? According to Camilla Strand, English is generally the most inclusive language to use, but if you work in a department that consists exclusively of Danish speakers, it may not make sense to hold your meetings in English. Though it’s still a good idea to think about the signal you are sending to others:

“We should consider whether international employees can see themselves in certain roles. Take committee work as an example. If there are no international members of staff on the occupational health and safety committee, could this be because they don’t feel included from a language point of view?” asks Camilla Strand, who also points out that we have a joint responsibility to create a safe space when meetings are held in English – a generous space in which we help each other to find the right words and express ourselves.