Those absolutely determined to dominate a conversation sometimes resort to overtalking, which is the tactic of intentionally beginning to speak, or continuing to speak, to prevent others from speaking or to make them stop if they're already speaking.
We sometimes characterize such people as overtalkers. This is most unhelpful, because it reduces the person's humanity to a single dimension — their overtalking. When we speak in terms that disregard the personhood of others we make it easier to employ abusive, disrespectful tactics in our attempts to deal with the overtalking behavior. So Step One in dealing with someone who overtalks is to realize that their overtalking isn't a full description of their humanity. If it were, attempts to persuade him or her to take a different approach would be futile.
People choose overtalking for a variety of reasons. Here are three examples:
- Overtalking is sometimes seen as necessary, though not necessarily effective, when dealing with overtalking. Tit-for-tat usually results in two people talking at each other, desperately trying to focus on what they themselves are saying, to avoid being confused by what the other person is saying. To accomplish this, they sometimes find it necessary to talk increasingly loudly.
- Life patterns
- Some people were reared in family environments or in cultures in which overtalking was a common pattern of conversation. They see overtalking as part of normal, human conversation. To some, reluctance to overtalk suggests weakness or lack of commitment to one's own beliefs.
- Overtalking can be a tool employed by those who want to bully others. People who use it in this way probably believe that overtalking is disrespectful. They engage in overtalking, in part, because they believe that their targets will feel disrespected.
Overtalking is expensive to the organization. Here are some examples of the costs it imposes.
- Reduced productivity of meetings
- Because overtalking Some people were reared in
family environments or in
cultures in which overtalking
was a common pattern
of conversationprevents people from clearly hearing what's being said, it impedes the free exchange of ideas, which reduces the productivity of meetings. But worse than that is the confusion that can result when someone misunderstands what was said during the overtalking, or fails to hear it at all.
- Increased risk of toxic conflict
- Frustration arising when someone talks over another person, coupled with a sense of being disrespected or even violated, can easily lead to hurt feelings and ruptured relationships. This makes fertile ground for toxic conflict.
- Intimidation effects
- When one person in a meeting repeatedly uses overtalking to prevent others from contributing, others are likely to adopt a lemme-outta-here stance. They decide that the experience of being overtalked is so repugnant that they try to limit their risk by speaking only minimally, or by not speaking at all. This deprives the meeting of their contributions, which can lead to distorted results.
places. Waiting is an often-overlooked strategic option.
Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout
- Coming October 17: Overt Belligerence in Meetings
- Some meetings lose their way in vain attempts to mollify a belligerent participant who simply will not be mollified. Here's one scenario that fits this pattern. Available here and by RSS on October 17.
- And on October 24: Conversation Irritants: I
- Conversations at work can be frustrating even when everyone tries to be polite, clear, and unambiguous. But some people actually try to be nasty, unclear, and ambiguous. Here's Part I of a small collection of their techniques. Available here and by RSS on October 24.