“I don’t talk in meetings”
Worthwhile language advice
Have a question about language at work? You can send it to admin@worthwhileconsulting.com. All questions are anonymized.
“…I’m having a hard time in project meetings, it feels like it’s never my turn to speak. Everyone else is so loud and jumps in so fast and they talk so fast. And I’m like organizing my thoughts and figuring out how to respond and suddenly it’s a new topic and then the meeting is done? With me saying maybe like five words.
I’ve been here a few months and otherwise things are good. Good feedback on my [project contributions], they work really great when implemented, I’m proud of that, and my coworkers seem nice so far.
But I’m frustrated, because we never talk about my stuff in meetings so I can get group feedback and also I’m worried people think I’m not as smart or quick as them?
Help?”
The main issue here is that your communication style clashes with your new company’s meeting culture. And I’d bet a giant pile of cash that your coworkers who feel comfortable in this meeting culture don’t even realize that there might be a culture clash happening.
I’ll start by diagnosing why you’re having issues and offer up some remedies.
Culture
Let’s start with a look at culture, because culture is at the heart of your problem.
A lot of people think culture means something like what a group of people eat and what music they produce and how they dress and what holidays they observe.
And sure, that’s all true. But anthropologists have a much broader way of defining culture. For us, culture is
A system that lets us interpret each other’s behavior. For example, culture lets us interpret someone’s words and actions as showing respect or showing disrespect.
A shared understanding of what’s “appropriate” and “normal.” For example, does a conversation that is going well have a short silence between each turn? Or is there no silence and people start speaking by jumping onto the very end of someone else’s turn?
Common beliefs about what has value/is good and what does not have value/is bad. For example, what words are “bad words” and should be avoided or only used in licensed ways?
Linguistic anthropologists look for cultural patterns that show up in language. We analyze conversations and emails and speeches and videos and social media conversations. And we use science to determine how people are interpreting each other’s behavior, what is seen as appropriate and normal, and is believed to have value.
So let’s turn this analytical eye to company culture, specifically the culture of meetings.
Why meetings?
There’s a reason why the phrase “This meeting could have been an email” shows up on coffee mugs and t-shirts and in countless memes.
Why do we keep on having meetings, even when so many of them feel unproductive and irritating and exhausting?
There are a few reasons why meetings are one of the most common forms of workplace group communication.
When run well, they are an efficient way to share lots of information, have productive discussions, and get timely feedback
(Good) meetings can improve feelings of trust, safety, and team cohesion, especially when the meetings are in person.
Meetings are place of social performance. Through our words and actions, we perform competence (or maybe incompetence). We create and maintain alliances. We show respect and disrespect. And we reveal who has power — and even gain or lose power based on our performance.
Most people think the main role of communication is information exchange. But linguistic anthropologists know that communication is mostly social action.
On the one hand, the social performance aspect of meetings can make them “inefficient.”
On the other hand, even a meeting that feels like unproductive in terms of exchanging information, coming to agreements, and moving forward on projects is doing a lot of work on the social side of things. It’s demonstrating things like:
Where the power lies. For example, who has the power to call a meeting, control the agenda, and decide how things proceed
Who is seen as important enough to take up conversational floor time
Who it is acceptable to interrupt, talk over, and otherwise ignore
Who can safely disagree or point out problems.
Because meetings are communicating so much social information, we are not going to escape them any time soon.
And again, well run meetings can have all kinds of good outcomes.
Meeting style
Now it sounds like our question asker is in a company with pretty unstructured meetings and a meeting communication culture that is very common in the US:
people are expected to just jump in
being early to talk, and speaking loudly and confidently is valued (maybe even more than the content)
talking quickly and having a fast-paced meeting is equated with thinking quickly and making good progress.
Unfortunately, this communication style only really works for meetings if everyone comes from a similar communication culture and if everyone’s contributions are treated the same way. But this is the exception rather than the rule.
In my consulting work, I’ve encountered lots of workplaces losing all kinds of good ideas and even making expensive mistakes because they weren’t more intentional with their meeting style and structure.
Someone common problems I’ve seen:
without an agenda distributed ahead of time, people who need more time to think through their contributions aren’t ready to speak in the meeting
people from slower-paced communication cultures or who are speaking English as a second (or third or fourth) language and need a bit more processing time are devalued
because of their social position, some people with important things to say get interrupted or ignored
some people seen as “lower ranked” are penalized for pointing out problems or dissenting.
The result? Some colleagues end up frustrated, because they are blocked from making contributions, and end up not feeling valued. What’s more, organizations lose out on all kinds of good ideas, including calling attention to potentially serious problems in a timely way.
What can you do?
There are two options for our question asker when it comes to meetings:
Definitively change their neurological processing and the communication style they were socialized into so they can contribute better.
Ask that meeting structures and procedures get slightly tweaked so they (and others like them) can contribute better.
For me, the clear answer is 2.
With some small tweaks, companies can set up their meetings so they avoid the common problems I outlined above. I offer my clients a comprehensive set of improvements, but I’ll give you all a few here.
Distribute agendas in advance
Appoint a “Participation Supervisor,” a rotating role. A Participation Supervisor keeps an eye out for communication hiccups. For example, did someone get interrupted? The Participation Supervisor can say, “Hold on, let’s go back to what [interruptée] was saying.” Is someone inappropriately dominating the conversation? The Participation Supervisor (if the power dynamics work) can say, “Ok, now let’s hear from some other people.”
Before moving on to the next topic, pause and make time for people who haven’t spoken yet to contribute. Basically, “Who or what have we missed?” You don’t want to force people to speak (this can feel like a literal nightmare). You just want to make space for people like our question asker.
At the end of the meeting, ask if there is anything that didn’t get heard or discussed or was talked over.
So, question asker, you can ask to talk to your manager or the project manager and tell them what you’ve told me: “The way meetings are run makes it hard for me to contribute, and I really want to participate more.” You can then offer some or all of the improvements I’ve just laid out.
Will these tweaks solve the problem of a boss who just wants to drone on in front of a captive audience or the meeting that is just about logistics or announcements and could have been an email? Of course not.
But can these minor changes lead to significantly improved meetings, with more participation, less frustration, and better outcomes? Yes, they absolutely can make a real difference.
Copyright 2026 © Worthwhile Research & Consulting
Do you hear communicators, executives, managers, or HR staff asking, “Is it ok to say that?” Could your organization use some guidance when it comes to what language is or isn’t acceptable?
Worthwhile offers Language Guidance consulting packages. You can buy Dr. Wertheim’s expertise in bundles of 10 or 20 hours. Then, whenever you have a question on “Is it ok to say that?”, reach out and get a science-based answer and supporting explanation that lets you move forward with confidence.
Email admin@worthwhileconsulting.com to learn more.