Our brains notice what’s easiest to see. Psychologists call this availability bias, when visible signals feel more important than quiet ones. In groups, the people who jump in fast (what we’re calling ‘the splashers’) seem the most engaged, even if others are thinking just as deeply¹.

The Brain Mechanism 🧠

Brains don't all react the same way to stimulation.

For some, group energy triggers dopamine—the brain's “go” signal—so they respond quickly².

For others, the same buzz triggers overload. The amygdala (stress alarm) fires, and the prefrontal cortex (reasoning and planning) slows³.

The second group of people aren’t checked out.

They’re just processing differently and often contribute best after a pause or in smaller settings⁴.

The Design Mistake 🧑‍🎨

Many team-building days, offsites, and conferences rely on familiar formats. They’re easy to run and feel participatory but research shows these approaches often amplify the loudest voices while sidelining thoughtful contributors⁵.

Icebreakers – As one Redditor put it re: playing 'two truths & a lie’:

“Ice breakers suck at the one thing they are intended to do… Knowing two truths about people… isn’t going to help you make a connection.”¹⁰

Large-Group Brainstorming Without Context – Another Redditor put it this way:

“Hours are spent just discussing a topic off the cuff. … Discussion without preparation does nothing for me and feels like a waste of time.”¹¹

Open-Floor Discussions / Q&As

Intended as inclusive, these often let a few confident voices dominate the mic, leaving others unheard. (Common observation)

Why Fixing It Matters 🏚️

💸 Payroll Efficiency

If you fly 20 people for a 3-day conference costing ~$60K, and about one-third of them can’t fully contribute because the format favors splashers, that’s $18K–$24K of wasted investment.

And that one-third isn’t arbitrary.

• Personality and processing style studies show that about 1/3rd to 2/5ths of people prefer reflective processing, slower entry, or feel less comfortable in high-stimulation group formats¹².

• Workplace surveys consistently find that ~30–50% of employees identify with more “introverted” or reflective tendencies¹³.

In other words, if the agenda only rewards splashers, you’re losing the value of a third of the people you paid to bring into the room.

💡Decision Quality

Groups with more balanced participation make smarter decisions. Research shows that equal participation predicts collective intelligence more reliably than average IQ⁶.

• McKinsey found that managers spend about 35% of their time on decision-making, and over half of that time is used ineffectively, wasted hours that translate directly into lost payroll and slower progress¹⁴.

• Bain & Company estimates poor decision-making erodes up to 20% of potential value in large organizations¹⁵.

If team-building days, offsites, company conferences, and workshops lean only on splashers, teams risk setting priorities that miss blind spots. Those poor calls cost time, money, and competitive advantage.

🚄 Execution Speed

When reflective voices aren’t heard, blind spots surface later. That often leads to rework, delays, and higher costs⁷.

Data backs this up:

• The Project Management Institute (PMI) reports that 9.9% of every dollar spent on projects is wasted due to poor project performance¹⁶.

• Multiple industry studies (Construction Industry Institute, Software Engineering Institute) show 5–15% of project costs are lost to rework¹⁷.

That means a $1M initiative could lose $50K–$150K simply to redo work that might have been avoided if diverse perspectives had been included upfront.

How to Fix It 🏠

1. Start with Silent Idea Generation
Writing ideas down first leads to more unique contributions than verbal-only brainstorming⁵. It prevents dominant voices from overshadowing others.

2. Balance the Conversation
Research shows more even contribution leads to smarter outcomes. It’s up to the facilitator to notice when splashers are taking over and adjust the flow by inviting quieter participants in, shifting to smaller groups, or gently recalibrating the discussion⁶.

Supporting Practices (Context-Dependent):

Small groups (3–5 people): Provide psychological safety and encourage more balanced input⁸.

Multiple input channels (verbal + written): Promote a wider range of perspectives, especially in hybrid or sensitive settings⁹.