Over the years, I have lost count of the number of times I have received this feedback in performance reviews: “Speak up more in meetings. When you speak, you add lots of value. You should have more confidence.”

Now, don’t get me wrong… There have been times in my career when I have lacked confidence and held back, but there have also been plenty of times when I have felt completely confident and still communicated in exactly the same way!

I am introverted, and I also have a strong Reflector learning preference. I like to think before I speak, and if I am not given space to think, I am much less likely to contribute in the moment; not because I have nothing to say, but because I am still working out what I want to say and how I want to say it.

Meetings I’d been in were often jam-packed with agenda items, leaving little or no space to think. Yet, come performance review time, my communication style was treated as something I needed to fix, rather than a different way of contributing.

Confidence, competence and communication style are not the same thing.

We often confuse three very different things as the same: confidence, competence and communication.

They are connected, but they are not the same. Being the first to speak is a communication behaviour, not proof of confidence, just as taking time to respond may be somebody’s preferred way of thinking rather than a sign they are uncertain.

It really frustrates me when we decide how capable or knowledgeable somebody is based on how loudly or quickly they speak, because how somebody communicates does not determine the value of what they have to offer. We would never judge the quality of a written report by how quickly it arrived and how loudly somebody put it on the table, yet in meetings we regularly use volume, speed or visibility as evidence of value.

In reverse, being quiet does not automatically make somebody thoughtful either, that would simply replace one unfair assumption with another.

Different energy, same value.

We all bring different energy into a conversation, and we do not all do our best thinking in the same way. Extroverts often gain energy from interaction and may think best by talking ideas through with other people, while introverts often recharge through being given quiet time and may prefer time to process before responding. But these are preferences, not fixed rules, and many of us will recognise ourselves in both.

The challenge comes when we judge what we can see without becoming curious about what might be happening underneath it. Hesitation might mean somebody is thinking carefully. Certainty might be somebody exploring an idea out loud. Silence might mean they are waiting for the right moment to speak.

Introverts and extroverts can both be thoughtful, confident, reflective and spontaneous depending on the situation.

When we give people different ways to contribute, we hear more perspectives and make better decisions. People are also more likely to feel heard and included.

People are not fixed types.

Labels such as “introvert” and “extrovert” can help us understand ourselves and other people, but they can quickly become boxes that limit how we see somebody. People are rarely just one thing.

I’m sure most of us can probably think of a meeting where we spoke more than usual because we felt passionate about the topic, or stayed quiet because we did not feel completely comfortable speaking up. Culture, psychological safety and previous experiences can all affect how visible someone’s contribution becomes.

None of those moments define who we are, yet we often use a single interaction to form a lasting judgement of somebody else. Before we make assumptions we need to pause and ask: what might be influencing how they are communicating in this situation?

When assumptions shape decisions.

When we mistake visibility for value, we risk making poorer decisions:

• We may give greater recognition to the person who sounds most certain.
• We may overlook the person who needs time to formulate a question or challenge.
• We may dismiss an emerging idea because its first version is not polished.
• We may interpret silence as agreement.

This is not only an inclusion problem, it is also a thinking problem, because whenever we consistently hear from the same voices and value the same styles, we inevitably narrow the range of perspectives available to us. That requires more than inviting everyone to the meeting. It requires creating different ways for people to take part.

Better collaboration does not mean making everybody communicate in the same way. It means creating enough space and flexibility for different styles to work alongside each other.

What inclusive collaboration can look like.

If we genuinely want people to contribute at their best, we need to think carefully about the conditions we create around conversations, meetings and decision-making. Small changes can make a big difference, not just for introverts or extroverts, but for anyone who wants to feel heard and valued.

Creating inclusive collaboration is not about removing expectations or trying to please everybody, it is about making small adjustments and providing enough flexibility for different people to contribute, while keeping the purpose and expectations clear:

1. Before the conversation

• Share the purpose of the conversation and the questions you want people to consider.
• Be clear about any decisions that need to be made.
• Provide important information in a format people can review beforehand.
• Let people know what, if anything, they need to prepare.

Sharing information in advance gives more people the opportunity to arrive ready to contribute. This does not mean every meeting needs pages of pre-reading. Sometimes one clear question shared in advance is enough to help somebody arrive ready to contribute.

2. During the conversation

• Give people a moment to think before opening the discussion.
• Allow ideas to develop without expecting the first version to be perfect.
• Use a mixture of individual thinking, written input, paired discussion and whole-group conversation.
• Ask, “What have we not considered?” instead of assuming silence means agreement.
• Notice who is being heard, who is being interrupted and whose ideas are being built upon.
• Make it acceptable for somebody to say, “I would like a moment to think about that.”

The purpose is not to silence the people who are already contributing… That frustrates me too! Telling somebody to be quiet because they have contributed “too much” is not inclusion either. Their energy, ideas and willingness to get the conversation started can be incredibly valuable. We do not need to take that away, just create enough structure and space for other contributions to emerge alongside it.

3. After the conversation

• Provide a short window for further thoughts where appropriate.
• Record how a decision was reached, not only who spoke most.
• Give credit accurately when one person builds on another person’s thinking.
• Make it clear whether additional written input will still be considered.
• Follow up on questions that could not be properly explored in the room.

When a decision does not need to be immediate, allowing a little reflection can improve the quality of the outcome.

Start listening for the value.

The aim is to stop treating one preferred communication style as evidence of confidence, intelligence or value.

A good conversation has room for the person who develops an idea by talking, the person who needs time to examine it and everybody in between. It recognises that confidence, intelligence and value do not all sound the same.

We spend a lot of time talking about bringing our whole selves to work, yet communication is one of the first things we ask people to change. People will always think, process information and contribute differently. Instead of trying to change that, we could become more curious about what those differences bring.

So, before deciding what somebody’s behaviour tells you about them, pause and consider what else might be happening. A little curiosity can help somebody feel heard and understood. Then ask the question that could genuinely make a difference: What would help this person contribute at their best?

If you’d like to discuss this topic further or want some advice on how to help a team communicate more effectively, then feel free to email me or connect on LinkedIn.