This reading is about speaking time in a hybrid meeting. Treat it as a workplace article. The first lines describe a habit. The claim comes later: the room is not a neutral place, and a result that only checks the clock misses who was heard. When you answer, match the whole passage. An option that repeats an early phrase can still be the idea the writer rejects.
Read it in English first. The other language is a gloss, not the task.
1
Organizations that adopted hybrid meetings often assumed the format was a neutral compromise: some people in a room, some on a screen, the same agenda for both. Research on workplace interaction suggests the compromise is not neutral. People who share a physical room take more turns, finish one another's sentences, and treat silence as a cue to jump in. People on the call treat silence as a cue to wait. The result is a gap in what meeting researchers call airtime — the share of speaking time a person actually receives — even when every name is on the same invitation.
2
The gap is not only a matter of personality. Observational studies in multinational firms found that remote attendees spoke less even when they were senior to several people in the room. Seniority, which usually buys speaking time in a fully in-person meeting, bought less of it once half the group was remote. The mechanism was mundane. Side comments in the room never reached the microphone. Laughter arrived late on the laptop. When a remote participant began a sentence at the same moment as someone in the room, the room voice won, because the room did not hear the overlap.
3
Firms have tried three responses. The first is a rule: no one joins from a laptop if a room is available, so the meeting is either fully together or fully remote. The second is a role: a facilitator whose only job is to call on remote participants before a decision is recorded. The third is a tool: a shared document where comments typed during the meeting count as turns, so speaking is not the only way to be present. None of the three removes the gap by itself. Each changes who is allowed to treat silence as an invitation.
4
What the studies do not show is that hybrid meetings are a mistake. Output measures — decisions reached, projects shipped — were often similar across formats. What changed was whose judgment entered the decision. Teams that measured only whether a meeting ended on time could not see that loss. Teams that counted turns, or that required a written objection before a decision was locked, could. The claim, then, is not that remote workers are less capable. The claim is that a room distributes speaking time according to who can hear an overlap, and that a record which ignores that distribution looks fairer than the meeting was.