Every team has one. The person who always has something to say. Who jumps into every discussion thread. Who extends meetings by fifteen minutes, not because they’re trying to be difficult—but because they have just one more point. They’re not malicious. They’re not clueless. They care. But they talk too much. And the silence that surrounds them isn’t just about patience wearing thin—it’s often a sign that other voices are starting to retreat.
This creates a quiet leadership dilemma. Especially in early-stage or fast-moving teams where energy and contribution are prized, over-talking doesn’t feel like a serious problem until it begins to distort the room. It’s easy to treat it like a personality quirk. “She’s just really passionate.” “He’s just wired that way.” But if you look closely, this isn’t just a behavioral issue. It’s a system problem. One that reflects a deeper lack of structure around role clarity, facilitation, and voice equity. And if left unchecked, it doesn’t just wear people down—it builds invisible divides between those who feel heard and those who don’t even try anymore.
The instinct for most managers is to fix the symptom. Give direct feedback. Coach the talkative person to pause more. Or, worse, drop subtle hints about being concise. But if you’ve ever tried that, you know what happens. The person either becomes self-conscious and shuts down—or ignores the feedback completely and doubles down on their default pattern. Either way, the outcome is discomfort without real change. That’s because you’re trying to treat something interpersonal when the real root is structural.
In teams where everyone has some decision-making power but no clear ownership map, people will try to signal relevance through airtime. Talking becomes a proxy for value. You see this often in early-stage startups or cross-functional project teams where boundaries are intentionally loose. Generalists thrive in ambiguity—but without facilitation anchors, that ambiguity breeds uneven participation. Those most comfortable with verbal expression or strategic debate fill the space. Others start holding back, even when they have something important to say.
What looks like “talking too much” is often an attempt to close a gap that leadership hasn’t named. A gap in who leads the discussion. A gap in what success looks like in that setting. A gap in how contributions are validated. And when those gaps aren’t filled structurally, people fill them behaviorally.
This is why the solution isn’t a feedback sandwich. It’s a system redesign. You need to create a workplace where airtime is not the primary currency of contribution. That requires rebuilding the way conversations happen, who holds the mic, and what clarity is embedded before anyone even speaks.
Start with the meeting architecture itself. Many teams assume that a recurring meeting with a standard agenda is “structured enough.” It’s not. Structure isn’t about having a Notion page. It’s about defining roles. Who is facilitating the meeting? Who is the decision owner? Who is here to give input versus who is here to execute? Without that scaffolding, the person who talks the most often gets mistaken for the person in charge. That’s a dangerous conflation. Not just because it shifts perceived authority, but because it alters how others engage—or disengage.
If someone consistently speaks more than others, it could mean they haven’t been given a clear functional boundary. Or they might be over-functioning to compensate for feeling underutilized elsewhere. Some employees over-talk because their core role has shrunk or stalled. So they reach into adjacent conversations to stay visible. That’s not vanity. That’s a cry for clarity. A well-scoped role has enough challenge and enough stake that people don’t need to sprawl into everything else.
The other dynamic at play is facilitation. In teams that value openness, managers often confuse being “inclusive” with being “hands-off.” But letting conversations run freely without timeboxes, prompts, or structured rounds does not foster inclusion. It rewards speed and confidence. It silences the slow processors, the deep thinkers, and the culturally deferential. When there’s no rule around who speaks when, airtime becomes a function of comfort—not insight.
This is particularly important in multicultural teams. In many Southeast Asian workplaces, employees are raised in systems where speaking up without being asked is seen as disrespectful. In those contexts, silence isn’t disengagement. It’s decorum. So when a Western-educated colleague dominates the floor, the cultural friction isn’t just conversational—it’s positional. People start to wonder if volume equals power. And if that belief settles into your culture, you won’t just lose balance in meetings. You’ll lose talent who feel crowded out before they even speak.
To prevent this, you need to normalize structures that re-anchor voice equity. One simple practice is “rounds”—structured turn-taking at the beginning of meetings where each person gets 60–90 seconds to share a thought, reaction, or idea without interruption. It may feel rigid at first, but it distributes space. It also subtly shows the over-talker that insight isn’t volume—it’s clarity. When everyone has the same block of time, the pressure to dominate recedes.
Another useful ritual is closing meetings with a fast group reflection. Not a big debrief—just one question: “What worked and what didn’t in today’s discussion?” This lets the team surface what felt inclusive or not. If someone repeatedly monopolizes time, it’ll come out. And when that feedback is group-generated, it feels less like a personal attack and more like a team calibration. Over time, this feedback loop builds self-awareness in the person who over-talks, without making them feel targeted.
Now let’s talk about the feedback moment itself—because at some point, you will need to talk to the person directly. But the framing matters. Don’t say: “You talk too much.” Say: “I’ve noticed our conversations often skew long or lopsided, and I want to make sure everyone’s voice is in the room—including yours, just with a bit more intention around space.” That framing invites partnership, not defensiveness. You’re not shaming their style. You’re inviting them to help shape a more usable team dynamic.
Even better, link the feedback to ownership. “When you’re contributing outside your lane, it sometimes muddies decision boundaries. Let’s align on where your voice is most powerful and where others need the floor.” That helps them see the behavior as connected to structure—not as a flaw in personality.
In some cases, the over-talker is not self-aware. But in many cases, they are. They feel themselves dominating but don’t know how to stop without seeming withdrawn. That’s where coaching helps. Offer practical cues: wait three seconds before jumping in, track how often you’ve spoken, or set a personal goal of three contributions per meeting max. Give them agency. Don’t just tell them to be less. Tell them how to redirect.
Of course, the solution isn’t just about the individual. It’s about the manager’s responsibility to design conversations better. Facilitation is not just a skill. It’s a leadership function. And like all functions, it needs tools. Use prompts that solicit specific input: “I’d like to hear one counterpoint from the tech side.” Or: “Let’s go around and get one customer insight before we ideate.” This directs airtime without excluding anyone. It’s not policing. It’s curating.
In remote or hybrid teams, the dynamics shift again. Over-talkers in Slack or Zoom can crowd text threads or dominate screenshare calls. Here, design the communication lane. Set clear norms: long-form threads for decisions, voice notes for context, live calls for synthesis. Then model brevity. If your own messages are essays, your team will match that tone. If you keep meetings under 30 minutes, they’ll learn to compress ideas. Culture isn’t what you declare. It’s what you repeat.
And finally, understand this: over-talking is rarely about ego. It’s about safety. People talk more when they don’t feel seen. Or when their work doesn’t feel legible. Or when ambiguity feels like a threat to relevance. So if someone keeps reaching for the floor, look at the rest of their plate. Have they been sidelined from big projects? Are they in the room but not on the list? Are they contributing a lot but never owning outcomes? These things matter. Because over-talking is sometimes the only form of leverage they feel they have left.
So don’t rush to fix the person. Fix the system. Anchor meetings in clear roles. Define who leads, who owns, and who inputs. Create rituals that normalize balance. Offer feedback with context and care. And build a culture where voice is not measured by length—but by clarity, timing, and contribution to shared outcomes.
Because in the end, it’s not about shutting anyone down. It’s about helping everyone show up—not just the ones who talk the most. When your team sees that structure holds space for them, not against them, they rise. Even the quiet ones. Especially the quiet ones. And that’s where your best work begins.
WhatsApp
Instagram
Threads
