When facilitating or leading a team, a key distinction will either draw out and amplify the creative power of the group or turn every meeting into a bland series of monologues. If you don’t create an environment that supports these two ways of engaging, valuable insights can slip away along with valuable team members.

Years ago I made a pilgrimage to a tiny coastal town in Oregon. There beside the ocean in a crude, airy building of thin wood slats Arnold “Arnie” Mindell, founder of process psychology, “world work,” and “deep democracy,” was doing a small group training for those in the know. As his work and presence tend to provoke, we found ourselves having a meta conversation: talking about how we were talking. Frustrated, an older Japanese man stepped forward to speak. “When I am in a conversation,” he said, “I pause and feel deep into my hara [belly]. Do I have something to say? If I find that there is something worth sharing, I make a small gesture to let the group leader or group know and wait to be asked to speak. But Americans… they just start talking… and they just keep talking and talking!”

There are at least two significant insights in this story. One is about how we “exchange the floor,” or decide who is speaking. The other is about how we process information and make decisions.

Who’s turn is it?

Asian cultures generally tend to use a, “wait your turn” approach. This process works very well when everyone, or at least the facilitator, is reading the room. (In Japaneses this “reading the room” is called kuuki o yomu: “reading the air.”)

In western countries, this tends to fail disastrously, as the floor is often exchanged through cooperative overlap. (You may also know cooperative overlap by its more common name: “interruption.”) Israeli culture is one of the clearest examples of this communication style that includes, “[a] fast rate of speech, the avoidance of inter-turn pauses and faster turn-taking among speakers,” according to linguist Deborah Tannen, author of “That’s Not What I Meant!: How Conversational Style Makes or Breaks Relationships.” Until one of my younger Asian clients, working in America, learned this distinction, he couldn’t understand why it seemed so hard to get a chance to speak in meetings. Worse, others were complaining that he, “didn’t contribute.”

If you want to make sure you are getting input from everyone, it is essential to find a way to hear all of the constructive opinions in the room – especially the ones that differ and may provide whole new angles on a problem that cascade into fresh ideas. And even then there’s a catch. We’ll get to that next.

First, consider the cultural bend in your current group. Notice who speaks, how often, and in what order. Who is speaking? Who is heard? Who is not? What perspectives are lost? We’ll talk about some specific techniques for making improvements later. Now let’s talk about the second half of this distinction.

Wait wait let me think

A client based in Europe talked about her challenge with the American style of discussion in a meeting. “I don’t understand it,” she said. “There are these people who call meetings and have these long conversations with themselves in front of everyone. The whole room nods along. When I ask the rest of the team about it later they think the meeting went really well!”

External processors come to new conclusions and generate fresh ideas by speaking out loud with a group of people. They love white boards and in-the-moment debate. They experience meetings as a place of vibrant creativity where insights emerge.

Coming back to the example of the Japanese man above: this would be the person who, “just starts talking.” By speaking their thoughts aloud they are making fast cognitive leaps and drawing a picture by painting a series of what at first look like random dots. Others who process in this way can already see a shape forming and leap in to contribute. But neither of them knows yet what the picture will be. It would be a mistake (often made) to draw any conclusions or take action based on what’s been said until the whole process is complete and the final picture can be seen and summarized.

Meahwhile, internal processors can find this process baffling or irritating. If the space is allowed to be dominated by this style, internal processors will likely nod along and walk away without making a contribution. Internal processors need to step away with information and let it percolate until insights emerge. Only then are they ready to share them, fully formed, with the group.

At this point it is important to note that the external processors in your group are not intending to silence anyone or dominate the space. They usually experience themselves as passionate and excited. They will sometimes feel frustrated when asked to slow down or make space for internal processors, but then find themselves inspired by the new ideas that emerge and how this further inspires their own insights.

Fortunately, there are ways to meet both needs. Because the dominant style of communication in the U.S. supports external processors, let’s start with a system from, again, Japan that supports internal processors.

Internal processors: A Japanese approach to gathering insights

There are some cultures that do a particularly good job of supporting thoughtful internal/offline processors. In Japan, when gathering to make a decision, it’s common that someone has already used a process known as, “nemawashi.” Roughly translated, nemawashi refers to “going around the roots” when preparing a tree for transplanting.

In practice, everyone is met privately one on one, informed of an upcoming decision, and given the opportunity to provide input. By the time the meeting and the public process of making a decision arrive, everyone has had time to consider and provide input. When the time comes to vote on a proposal there are no surprises. For offline thinkers, this is a lovely process and, more importantly, each is able to maximize their contribution.

While this process can support external processors as well, it can also be challenging if they feel there hasn’t been a chance to “think” about the problem yet.

The Synthesis

Ultimately the best solutions will come from creating processes that allow for both styles. Most importantly, this includes getting to know your own team and how they each contribute best. Just having a conversation about this distinction can go a long way. There are also many classic techniques that are useful to try as experiments as you develop the most effective way to work with your unique group. I’ll write more about those techniques in a future article.

For now I hope these two rough distinctions, about how the floor is passed and internal vs external processors, help give you more visibility into how you can build a more inclusive, dynamic and effective team.

Additional References

JWeekly. (2000, May 12). Jewish Communication Style. https://jweekly.com/2000/05/12/interrupters-linguist-says-it-s-jewish-way/

Turner, J. (2020, Jan 21). ‘Reading the Air’ in Japanese Culture. Japan Insider. https://japaninsider.com/reading-the-air/

Wikipedia. (n.d.). Nemawashi. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nemawashi