Why the First Idea in a Meeting Usually Wins
Early in my career, my boss gave me feedback: "You should speak up more in meetings."
I struggled with that for years. I tried to contribute more, to jump in faster, to have something ready to say. It never felt natural. I wasn't silent because I was disengaged, I was listening. Processing. And honestly? I often noticed that the most vocal people were just repeating what had already been said. Sometimes in different words, sometimes louder, but rarely adding anything new.
Then I discovered the research. And I realised: I don't have to change. The meetings do.
I've always been allergic to dominant people in meetings. The ones who control the room, who jump in before others have finished thinking, who seem to equate talking with contributing. For years, I assumed this was just a personal preference. A quirk.
Turns out, there's real damage being done, and science explains why.
Psychologists Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky demonstrated one of the most robust findings in behavioural science: the anchoring effect. Our judgments are disproportionately influenced by the first piece of information we encounter, even when it's completely arbitrary.
In meetings, the first idea works the same way. It becomes the reference point. Everything after is judged in relation to it, slightly better, slightly worse, a variation on the theme. Genuinely different ideas struggle to get airtime because they don't fit the frame that's already been set.
Those dominant voices aren't just annoying. They're anchoring entire conversations. And the rest of the room, the listeners, the processors, the ones who need time to think, never get their ideas heard properly. Worse: they get told they should "speak up more," as if the problem is them.
It's not. The problem is how we've designed meetings.
How to use this insight:
If you're facilitating meetings: Start with silent writing. Before anyone speaks, give everyone two minutes to write their ideas independently. You'll get more diverse starting points and neutralise the anchoring effect. The processors and introverts will finally have equal footing.
If you're a leader: Rotate who speaks first. If the same person always opens, their thinking patterns dominate the team's output. Better yet, speak last yourself, your positional authority makes your anchor even stickier.
If you've ever been told to "speak up more": Know that the research is on your side. The problem isn't that you're too quiet. The problem is that most meetings are designed to reward speed over depth. Find environments that value your processing style, or create them.
If you're like me—allergic to dominant voices: Name what's happening. "I notice we're all building on the first suggestion. Let’s pause, what would a completely different approach look like?" You're not being difficult. You're protecting the room's collective intelligence.
If you recognise yourself as a dominant voice: This isn't about silencing yourself. It's about awareness. Your ideas aren't better because they came first—they just have an unfair advantage. Try holding back for the first five minutes. Let others set a frame for once. You might be surprised what emerges when you stop filling the space.
The best ideas often come from the quiet ones, later in the conversation, but only if the loud ones haven't already closed the door.
Most teams don't have an ideas problem. They have a design problem.
The anchoring effect is just one of the behavioural forces shaping how your team thinks, decides and collaborates. In our team trainings, we help organisations spot these patterns and redesign them, from meetings to strategy sessions to customer interactions.
Curious what behavioural design could do for your team? Let’s explore it together.
0.5 MINUTES: NOT TO BE MISSED
Why We Prefer the Middle Option
Given three choices, small, medium, large, most people pick the medium. Restaurants know this. So do software companies offering pricing tiers.
Behavioural economist Richard Thaler calls this "extremeness aversion." We avoid edges because they feel risky. The middle feels safe, reasonable, balanced.
Here's the trick: the middle option isn't neutral. It's designed. Whoever sets the range controls the centre.
Next time you're offered three choices, ask yourself: who decided what counts as "medium"? And if you're designing choices for others, remember that your middle option is where most people will land.
Here's to the stubborn optimists, who unlock the power of Behavioural Design for optimising work, life, and everything in between.
Until next week,
Astrid Groenewegen
Co-Founder of SUE | Behavioural Design Academy, Author of 'The Art of Designing Behaviour' / 'De Kunst van Gedrag Ontwerpen' and ‘De Gelukscode’.
Loved the newsletter this week? Forward it to a friend or colleague. Got this email from a friend? Subscribe to our free weekly newsletter 1.5 Minutes on Influence to get insights like these in your inbox every week.