Alex Menhams

We're using mute all wrong

Would you ask participants in a face-to-face meeting to put duct tape over their mouths when they are not speaking?


Of course not. So why have we made 'default mute' the norm in online meetings?

When I facilitate virtual sessions I ask people to only use mute if there's a distracting noise in the background.


The possibilities for connecting with each other are massively improved when we can hear each other's laughter, exclamations, murmurs of agreement and all other noises we make when we interact in normal, everyday life.


Yes, having mics open can result in the odd interruption from a dog, a child or a bit of good old fashioned road drilling - but that’s life in all its glorious technicolour.


Sure, if there are lots of people on the call then mute may be a good idea - but I think by and large we can put the duct tape away so we don't have to speak into the void.


If we trust people to use their mouths wisely in person, we can trust them to do the same online. And there are tons of ways to make a conversation flow and ensure people take short turns and build on each other's points.


On top of that there are a bunch of ways to spotlight people or use different views to ensure that the right people stay on camera.


In improvisation classes most coaches I know ask people to show the love by keeping their mics on. It's not just about hearing laughter and encouragement - it's also about letting silence be real silence. 


Silence is powerful. It tells us a lot - about what things mean, about how we feel, about what matters to the audience - but the artificial silence of 'default mute' robs us, and has a deadening, dehumanising effect.


Of course you may want to go on mute to cover the sound of tapping on a keyboard while you do your emails. Maybe you could just leave the meeting instead.


So let’s stay unmuted, support each other and let silence speak for itself.


Here's a class mime act: 'The boy with tape on his face'

by Alex Menhams 08 Apr, 2021
‘Whose line is it anyway?’ was one of my favourite shows as a teenager. I would tune in every week on the small telly in my bedroom, captivated by the wit and dexterity of Paul Merton, Mike McShane and Josie Lawrence and others. But at school the next day with my friends we just talked about a few of the funny bits. We never tried any of the games. Isn’t that weird? As a kid I copied the things I loved and acted them out with friends. Like Monty Python’s Life of Brian which was virtually my second language. I could probably teach LOBSL. And I wish I had discovered improvisation 20 or more years ago! Fast forward 20 or so years... As someone who teaches improvisation now I get frustrated by the legacy of Whose Line. Not the actors or the show. Let me explain... When people ask what I do (and I reply truthfully) they usually say “Oh, I could never do that!” because they believe that to improvise you have to be fast, funny and clever. And that stuff just gets in the way. So why do people have this disempowering view of improvisation when it can be such an empowering human experience? Now I’m not laying all this at the door of a TV show from the late 80s. It's just that the show name is a killer meme. It's in the culture. Whose Line Is It Anyway? The focus on the lines freaks people out, and the answer becomes “Whose line? Not mine.” Placing the emphasis on whose line it is (and it had better be a good one, right?) inverts our natural pattern of communication which is roughly 55% body language, 38% vocal tone and 7% words. No wonder it sends people running for the hills. So here’s the good news. Improvisation follow the natural pattern and words and ideas are only 7% of the content. Sure a great line will get a laugh, but what our tender-loving mammal brains really love is making sense of relationships and all their absurdities, feelings, frustrations and joys. Perhaps the show should have been called ‘Whose feeling is it anyway?’. OK, that’s a terrible idea and the show would never have been made. But feelings are at the root of all this - we like watching human beings being human. So here’s a practical way of proving this for yourself with a co-conspirator. There’s an improvisational game you can play where the lines are replaced with numbers one to twenty one. No need for sophisticated dialogue - you just say one number when it’s your turn to speak. It goes like this: Player A - ‘One’ (frowning and jabbing a finger) Player B - ‘Two’ (shrugs it off) Player A - ‘Three’ (looks infuriated) The exchange of body language and vocal tone is full of meaning, and there will be a surprising amount of honesty and directness about it. The lines simply don’t matter. This kind of interaction is compelling to watch because we ‘read’ the body language so well. We understand all the subtle shifts of status and emotion that rise and fall with body position, eye contact and vocal tone. It is genuinely captivating and often hilarious. That’s what I love about improvisation. We can all do it. But we believe the lie that only special people can entertain us. That only special people are worth listening to. That our lines aren't good enough.
bringabrick
by Alex Menhams 07 Apr, 2021
An experience I had in an improvisation class that taught me something about true cooperation, and what life is like when the inner editor takes a day off.
More posts
Share by: