Online chairing: some observations from our data

• Online meetings may result in a more direct approach from the chair when managing contributions from other speakers. This is due to functional aspects of online platforms (e.g. microphones are often off, leading to false starts and people talking over one another as they try and make a contribution).
• Online contexts can make it more difficult to read body language and know when someone wishes to speak; this may result in participants relying on the chair to invite people to speak.
• The power held by the chair impacts not only who gets to participate but crucially how they can speak (e.g. length of time) and from what position (e.g. they might be asked to speak as representatives of a particular department, or discipline)
• In many online meetings, the only microphone that is continuously on is the chair’s. This means that the chair is the person who speaks the most, giving the impression that the chair dominates.
• The fact that the chair’s microphone is on for most of the time means that the majority of  supportive and encouraging noises (e.g. hmmm hmmm) and comments (e.g. ‘yes, good point’) come from the chair. While this is no bad thing, it does centralise power within the chair. More distributed validation might benefit group dynamics.
• Our data indicates that online meetings in Iceland tend to be chaired in a more participative way than those in the other three European countries (Germany, Spain and the United Kingdom), which were more directive in approach.
• Importantly, a more directive chairing approach is not necessarily perceived negatively, with some people expressing an appreciation of meetings that are efficient and to the point.

Despite some (but by no means all ) people appreciating a more directive chairing approach, research indicates that participative practices at work, and within meetings, ensure maximum participation of all employees. This approach leads to the expression of a range of diverse points of view and thinking, which in turn leads to new insights and ultimately, helps organisations make better decisions. This corresponds with a more participative style of leadership.

Despite most organisations encouraging inclusive practices at work, research indicates participation in meetings can still be problematic for certain groups. For example:

• Men speak for longer periods of time than women in meetings (Wang et al., 2020)
• Women experience numerous and negative interruptions (Krivkovich et al., 2024).
• In some professional contexts, women are more likely to be introduced by their first name than by their professional titles compared with their male counterparts. This reinforces gender hierarchy and may impact negatively on performance (Dhawan et al., 2021)
• Gender and ethnicity intersect to reduce participation in hybrid conferences (Howe et al., 2023).
• Disabled people within the workplace experience barriers to participation due to inaccessible technologies  – eg technologies not compatible with assistive technologies such as screen readers (Alharbi et al., 2023)
• The responsibility of sorting out accessibility falls on disabled people rather than organisations (Alharbi et al.,2023). 

These studies all point to the importance of skilled and sensitive chairing which encourages maximum participation from meeting attendees.

Read our next post on Promoting Participation to discover observations from our research data