Processing ≠ Agreement: A Neurodivergent Perspective on Meetings

Packet said:

Has anyone else noticed how in neurotypical meetings, silence is often interpreted as agreement?

This is an old social convention.

Think about weddings - a very old social convention with people present where the official conducting the ceremony uses the question if anyone knows a good reason why the wedding should go ahead  to "Speak now or forever hold your peace"

This works in any group situation as to wait for people to consider if they want to raise a point is too time consuming.

If it does not work for you then you really need to consider either asking "can I have some time to consider this" or - if there is a reasonable chance to predict it will be asked - have a response prepared and raise your hand to ask there and then.

I fear it is so engrained in society that there is little chance they will stop doing it, so it is down to us to adapt or leave.

Packet said:

A rebuttal that’s seen as obstinate rather than constructive.

I think this will very much come down to how you prepare the response. This is a subtle skill set where you often need to placate the ego of the person in charge to stop them feeling attacked, so it helps to use phrases such as "you make a compelling arguement but I think it would be even better if we add ..." - positive strokes to ease the pain of the change you want to make.

If you can get a coach to help you with these skills then it can be a tremendous help - it was what made the biggest difference to me when I started being a manager.

Packet said:

It feels like there's a mismatch in communication styles

I fully agree. However we are only around 5% of the population while the others are 95% so is it really reasonable to expect everyone else to change to accommodate us?When you consider only 20% of autists are in work that means the ratio is closer to 99% NTs to 1% NDs in work.

It would be nice but as for fair and reasonable, the impact on time taken and 99% changing their ways of working for us is not going to realistically happen, so it is down to us if we want to do that role.

It may seem defeatist but I prefer to think of it as pragmatic.

TheCatWoman said:

I think there's also a gender thing going on too, men are far more willing to take silence as agreement and also they will silence others who disagree.

I don't think it is a gender thing - it is more an impatient person in power thing (I used to get this all the time with female managers too).

They are often impatient for whatever reason and just want to get on and get the thing "sorted" so you are given a chance to respond and if you can't do it in the small time window then that is considered your problem by them.

Packet said:

my input can be met with resistance or even seen as disruptive.

I used to get that all the time. If I kept my mouth shut, I felt I wan't doing my job properly. If I opened it, I got in trouble for being argumentative. I couldn't win. I decided to stick with option 2, as at least I preserved my self respect and sense of professionalism.

If the agenda was not sent in advance or did not have enough detail to allow preparation, then you register dissent but ask for some time to reply in detail after the meeting.

If you are too scared to speak up, I have been there when younger, it is hard to overcome that. You can approach people individually afterwards.

It is also possible to go round the table and find ways to be more inclusive. Depends on how good the meeting convener or chair is and how formal the setting.

For documents related to quality, your normally needs explicit agreement.

When dealing with foreign companies, e.g. in Asia where English is not the first language, often people will say yes to indicate they heard the question and understood it, you then have to give them time to think and answer. I learnt this a long time ago. Communicating with lots of people helps you see what works and what doesn't.

Thinking people have agreed when they haven't doesn't eally help.

I've noticed the same, I think there's also a gender thing going on too, men are far more willing to take silence as agreement and also they will silence others who disagree. Most of the metings I've been to was from when I was part of a co-operative so there was no hierarchy, often one or two people objected to an idea so the item was put back on the agenda for next months meeting. One thing I did become aware of, is that some people really struggle to say what they think and feel and it's not just a problem for ND's, when asked why they disagree they often become hostile and defencive.