The situation
A DSD supervisor notices that the same three people speak in meetings while newer staff and staff from other backgrounds stay quiet. One person told the supervisor privately that speaking up once got them nowhere.
Fictional worked example
Connect ways to contribute with visible influence
This fictional meeting sequence changes the process around contribution. It does not explain why any particular colleague is quiet.
Before the meeting
Share the decision and material in advance. Offer a written route so ideas need not compete for a fast speaking turn.
Can people understand what their input can change?
During the discussion
Bring written and spoken contributions into the same discussion. The supervisor leaves room before adding their own view.
Which evidence or option was added because someone contributed?
After the decision
Explain what changed, what did not and why. Credit contributions appropriately and say what remains open.
Will colleagues be able to see how their input was considered?
Bring it into your work: Choose one observable meeting practice and one way to check whether it helped. Speaking frequency alone does not measure belonging, agreement or influence.
What to notice first
- Quiet is being read as agreement.
- Input that changed nothing teaches people to stop offering it.
- Positional power and meeting format are shaping who speaks.
Questions to ask before acting
- What changed in the last quarter because someone spoke up, and did the team hear about it?
- How could people contribute without speaking fast in a live meeting?
- Who opens, who summarizes, and who speaks last?
Practical next moves
Who to involve
This is practice work the supervisor owns. If a complaint about a named person surfaces, use the confidential channel. DSD staff can request a consultation to prepare a team conversation.