One thing that always bothers me about this is that interrupters are often seen as bad, while non-interrupters are seen as good. You hear this a lot in the context of engineering meetings - there's Tommy the interrupter who always shouts his thoughts, while Grace the quiet one has lots of intelligent things to say but never gets a chance because people are talking over her.
It's always portrayed as the interrupter's problem - they should stop and let other people speak. And hey, I don't disagree with that. You've probably guessed that I'm an interrupter, but I make an extremely concerted effort to shut my damn gob. But if it's reasonable for me to change my behavior, why can't we expect the non-interrupters to do their part a bit and... interrupt? I'm sure it's uncomfortable for them to do that, but it's uncomfortable for me to keep my mouth shut when you're explaining something that I already grasp, and if I just cut in right now I can save us both a few minutes of conversation that's totally unnecessary.
People then complain that non-interrupters don't get the same praise/promotions/other good things because they're not heard, but at some point isn't that on them? Part of what you're getting paid for is to contribute your thoughts during meetings. If you're not doing that solely because it's uncomfortable, isn't that a weakness for you as an employee?
I'll just reiterate here that I'm not anti-non-interrupter, and I go out of my way to make sure smart people who tend to be quieter get involved in the conversation. That said, I do think this is one of those things where neither side is inherently more right or wrong than the other, but one side gets treated as the bad guy.
It's always portrayed as the interrupter's problem - they should stop and let other people speak. And hey, I don't disagree with that. You've probably guessed that I'm an interrupter, but I make an extremely concerted effort to shut my damn gob. But if it's reasonable for me to change my behavior, why can't we expect the non-interrupters to do their part a bit and... interrupt? I'm sure it's uncomfortable for them to do that, but it's uncomfortable for me to keep my mouth shut when you're explaining something that I already grasp, and if I just cut in right now I can save us both a few minutes of conversation that's totally unnecessary.
People then complain that non-interrupters don't get the same praise/promotions/other good things because they're not heard, but at some point isn't that on them? Part of what you're getting paid for is to contribute your thoughts during meetings. If you're not doing that solely because it's uncomfortable, isn't that a weakness for you as an employee?
I'll just reiterate here that I'm not anti-non-interrupter, and I go out of my way to make sure smart people who tend to be quieter get involved in the conversation. That said, I do think this is one of those things where neither side is inherently more right or wrong than the other, but one side gets treated as the bad guy.