Zoom Breakout Room Dynamics

How to Deal with a Dominant Player in Your Breakout Room

The Impositions of a Dominant Player

This past year I’ve engaged in an increasing number of Zoom sessions. How about you? Recently, a variety of jobs, courses, community groups, and other gatherings have taken advantage of the Zoom format and similar platforms. While it’s gratifying to use such technology, the new mode of connecting doesn’t come without snafus.

The biggest hindrance for me is when a Zoom session feels infiltrated by a dominant player. This kind of participant lacks understanding about how to share the space with others. This imposition is especially noticeable when a Zoom session has breakout rooms. You know, when the facilitator creates smaller rooms to give a subset of participants the opportunity to elaborate more intimately on a given topic. Sounds nifty, right?! Well, it can be if everyone’s on the same page about how to share the “air space.”

Here’s the issue: Even when etiquette guidelines are stated, you can run into unequal sharing dynamics when there’s a dominant player. I’ve had multiple experiences in breakout rooms when someone in the group overlooked the etiquette guidelines. The reality is some participants fall into the behavior of being a dominant player regardless of the scenario. Like the person who has to have the biggest piece of the the pie. In a small group of 3 to 5 people, a dominant player doesn’t allow for equal participation of those present, speaking more than some of the other participants combined.

So what’s to be done when this occurs? Do the other participants simply endure the “luck of the draw” for the remainder of the breakout session? Do other participants choose a passive approach at the mercy of the dominant player? I certainly don’t believe the other individuals should have to concede to a dominant player. It seems there are few who truly understand the dynamics of these occurrences. It’s helpful to flesh out these dynamics. Part of the solution is to have a clearly stated assessment of the problem.

Check Your Ego

I get it. Some people know a lot. Some people like to talk a lot. Sometimes I can be one of those people. I can easily fall into the category of dominant player if I participated without restraint and overlooked consideration of the setting. Could part of the issue be about lack of clarity about the setting? Or is it a matter of dueling personalities? Whatever it is, having harmonious participation must include participants to check their egos.

When you’re in a Zoom breakout group, it’s a new setting. A setting where all parts are meant to be equal. Simple math here: if there are 4 people in the breakout group, then it means you shouldn’t be speaking more than 25% of the given breakout time (unless the breakout directive calls for a different breakdown). So yeah, if you can’t calculate what that proportion is, then you’re not as smart as you think you are, ha.

When in doubt, speak less. A breakout room is not the place for anyone to take the stage to “drop knowledge” for an audience. A dominant player can create their own Zoom meeting for that goal. Usually breakout rooms are constructed randomly, therefore no one’s entering the room to hear/see a designated speaker. Participants are there to have a discussion with others on a common topic. It’s an opportunity to sort out their thoughts and expand upon the themes presented.

For genuine dialogue to take place, participants have to check their egos before entering the session. Put ego aside, and call in the part of oneself that can genuinely listen to what others have to say. It’s not a matter of having to forfeit your knowledge altogether. Nor is it a matter of quashing your prowess or passion. It’s a matter of honing these attributes in a way that contributes to the discussion amongst the participants in the room. It’s a matter of engaging in a conversational collaboration.

Givers and Takers

As in life, there are givers and there are takers. These broader personality types transfer to the Zoom breakout setting. A taker shows up in the form of a dominant participant. You may ask, “what are they taking?” They’re taking several things. They’re taking your time and attention. They’re taking your opportunity to extrapolate on thoughts that this specific scenario may allow. They’re taking control rather than allowing for a free flowing discussion to transpire.

I recently had an experience with a dominant participant in a breakout room. I shared about what happened with a colleague. My colleague asked if he could give me some pushback about it, to which I was I open to hearing. This allow me to explore if I may have any possible blindspot as to why this occurrence bothered me. He asked: “Are you jealous of their ability to command the stage?”

While I appreciated his question and the attempt for push back, I found flaws with what he constructed. Firstly, it’s not an issue of jealousy for me. I believe I can command a stage when needed. As I’ve alluded to, I could talk a lot about a topic if I’m unrestrained. More prescient is my colleague’s use of a phrase like “command the stage” in reference to this kind of social interaction. A breakout room is not a stage; it’s a setting. I was surprised that my colleague was unclear about the appropriate context.

If everyone goes into a breakout room with the understanding that there is no stage, then perhaps a dominant player won’t seek that which to command. It’s not their lecture or TED talk - no matter how knowledgable they are on the topic. It’s a discussion. It’s an opportunity for self-inquiry and extrapolation to be shared in a small group setting. Discussions of this nature transcend the “give and take” dynamic. Selfish behavior must be identified. When dominant participants go on for more minutes than allotted, they may think they’re ‘giving’ knowledge. They are mistaken. Let it be clear, they’re ‘taking’ time and attention from the other participants.

Covert vs Overt

With regard to personality dynamics, overt and covert tendencies can also surface within breakout rooms. Sure, it might be easier to note when a dominant participant is overt, but there are covert behaviors that can occur with these participants. The covert tendencies may be harder for the other participants to pinpoint. These covert tendencies must be addressed.

I’ve experienced some facilitators encourage that a breakout room have “popcorn style” discussions, a format where people just pop up to speak when called to do so. The intention with this style is to let the conversation flow, like free association. This can be lovely and fruitful, but only when all the participants have an understanding to referain from being a dominant participant. There may be a lead participant or someone organically having a more prominent role in the discussion, but they’re mindful of others getting their chance to participate.

When there’s a dominant player who isn’t mindful, they take this loose arrangement as free rein to control the discussion. It’s an easy set-up for them to take more of the airtime. It’s similar to those who say “Lets just split the bill” when they know they’ll be eating more or ordering the most expensive stuff on the menu. I don’t think so. That is not a ‘split’ I’d concede to. When this style is suggested too quickly at the start of a session, others nonchalantly agree without clarifying the terms of this agreement.

Be wary of loose sharing structures or zero guidelines when using these platforms. If you’re going to suggest a looser sharing style, then also suggest a method of how to reel in a discussion when/if it starts to go off the rails. Otherwise, you’re going to be at the mercy of the dominant participant. You’ll feel remiss to interject when the imbalance of sharing occurs within the breakout room. Trust me on this, you’ll want to be clear that someone can interject in case this were to happen.

The Emperor Has No Clothes

Some ego-driven dominant participants can appear to be playing along harmoniously. Yet when you take a deeper look you can get a “wolf in sheep’s clothing” vibe from them. If you look closer and start to suspect that “the emperor has not clothes,” you may be right. In these instances, the “emperor” has just enough bells and whistles in his toolkit, that it appears like they’re being considerate. On the surface, they’re playing along with the discourse, but when you look through multiple lenses of behavior theory, it’s another story.

There’s a contingency of people who are learning new school holistic communication, with an old school egoic flare. For them, it’s just the ego dressed up. These participants can wax poetic about the latest theories they’ve watched on their favorite podcast. Yet someone has to re-iterate there’s no ‘sage on the stage” here. Sure, an individual can frame their portion of the discussion with some knowledge and theory, but they must be mindful of how it’s done. They either know better, and are doing it anyway, or they don’t know better and need to be on board with the etiquette.

There are some simple questions to ponder while determining a participants intent through their behavior. Is the participant showing genuine inquiry about their thoughts. Do they have genuine curiosity about what others have shared? Is there something salient that can emerge for both the speaker and the listeners?

There are things you can ask yourself when this person is sharing. Do you find yourself checking out of the discussion? Do you notice your mind switching to ‘listener mode’ as if you’re watching a video or podcast? No major harm in this, but the breakout room was designed for you to have an opportunity to be a more active player. Somehow you’ve relinquished your participation to make room for the dominant participant.

Is There Opportunity for a Teachable Moment?

As much as one would like it to be, it likely won’t be a teachable moment when the dominant player scenario is playing out Not to be pessimistic, it’s just that the remote aspect of the platform usually makes resolution in the moment more challenge. Is a teachable moment possible, perhaps. But if it wasn’t clearly stated at the beginning of the session about how to intervene in such instances, you’ll most likely have to ride it out. You can then bring it to the attention of the facilitator of the group.

A frustrating aspect of this scenario is that I understand how it’s an an aspect of my ego that must come up against the dominant participant’s ego. This is another reason to enter these situations checking one’s egos rather than ridding them completely. Big egos love when others take an approach of ego-lessness. It gives more space for their ego to take charge. So yeah, find the healthy range to have your ego present, and use it to maintain healthy parameters within the discussion.

Once you bring it to the attention of the facilitator, perhaps they can address the dominant participant after the fact. The facilitator may not want to take a direct approach and lay out each of these points to them. Ultimately, it’s the facilitator’s choice. In the facilitator chooses not to address the dominant participant explicitly, you can request that more specific guidelines for breakout room etiquette be clearly stated during future sessions.

Acknowledging the Unspoken

Having facilitated many groups, I can attest that some people don’t take it upon themselves to claim their “airtime” to speak and extrapolate. I’ve had multiple one-to-one interactions with individuals who’ve shared openly about their concern concerns of seizing these moments. These individuals also take a more passive approach in addressing these concerns. They’re either conflict-averse, or simply follow a stringent etiquette, rather than break the flow of someone else sharing.

In a recent interaction, when I interjected during a dominant participators sharing, I got some feedback from others in the breakout room. An individual who was interrupted by the dominant participant, thanked me during the breakout session. Another participant thanked me privately for intervening having witnessed the balance in the breakout room being restored.

I share these interactions not just to credit myself for intervening. I share them to highlight that it’s not only about the behavior of the dominant participant. It’s also about what we don’t see. What ends up happening when not having the breathing room for the others to share. Sometimes the other participants won’t even think much of these occurrences, unless they’re prompted to contemplate the dynamics. Upon reflection, they notice that the consequence of that participant’s dominance is that others don’t get their space.

I find great value in having all participants share in the nature of genuine inquiry and holding the space for what emerges. I think most would agree that this is preferred rather than someone reciting knowledge that they think others need to hear.

Make the Space Mutually Beneficial 

In conclusion, I’m sharing this so facilitators can up their game. Willful ignorance to basic psychology and group dynamics doesn’t fly simply because the platform and medium of communication is new. Interacting in a harmonious, mutually beneficial way should be a given for any platform that includes having people interact together with breakout discussions.

As a participant, when you come across occurrences similar to what I’ve shared here, speak up. Get in touch with the facilitator or another participant to discuss what you’re experiencing. You’re a key factor for improving the quality of these interactions.