Think of a time when you attended a meeting where tempers flared. That might be easy — it might have happened yesterday morning. For most of us, fortunately, it's a rare occurrence.
Despite their rarity, stressed-out, anger-infused meetings can be damaging. We must question whatever a team produces when it's angry or fearful or under stress. When we can feel the tension in a meeting, we can't do our best work, because we're focused on whatever is the source of tension, instead of the task. And the source of the tension is usually a duel between two people.
Solid planning can help reduce the chances that a meeting will erupt into a duel. But what can we do when a duel does erupt?
Some teams take "time out." Someone suggests a break and — usually without acknowledging the obvious conflict — the meeting breaks for a few minutes. While this approach does often defuse the immediate situation, the root causes remain in place. Although a relapse is likely, the break is a useful tool for groups that cannot confront the issue more directly.
Groups that deal openly with the problem have more choices.
Despite their rarity,stressed-out,
anger-infused
meetings can be
damaging
- Enlist a facilitator
- Let the facilitator track the queue of speakers. Find someone not otherwise involved in the meeting. If you must choose a participant, make clear that the facilitator cannot participate in meeting content.
- Pledge not to interrupt
- Everyone agrees to speak only when acknowledged by the facilitator. When we interrupt, we can convey the message that we don't value the ideas of the person interrupted, or perhaps that we don't value the person we interrupted. When a meeting boils over, such a message can be very damaging.
- Suppress sidebars
- Sidebar conversations are distractions in any meeting. But when the meeting is near the boiling point, and we have no idea what two people are whispering to each other, we tend to make up something really horrible.
- Declare a three-exchange dialog
- As the queue of speakers accumulates, the logical order of what they have to say might not match their order in the queue. When two people need to dialog, the facilitator can ask for the group's permission for a dialog with a limit of three exchanges. In a meeting near the boiling point, a three-exchange dialog can give the dueling dyad a way to have a structured, interruption-free, respectful conversation.
- Take a brief silent break
- If you must take a break, make it brief, and agree not to speak with each other. When tempers are high, some tend to interpret conversations that occur in breaks as conspiratorial. A silent break gives everyone a chance to breathe and to calm down without fear that anyone is hatching a plot.
As a last resort, consider inviting an observer. If you choose someone not otherwise associated with the group, you'll be rewarded with a fresh perspective, and a possible key to turning down the heat. Top Next Issue
Are you fed up with tense, explosive meetings? Are you or a colleague the target of a bully? Destructive conflict can ruin organizations. But if we believe that all conflict is destructive, and that we can somehow eliminate conflict, or that conflict is an enemy of productivity, then we're in conflict with Conflict itself. Read 101 Tips for Managing Conflict to learn how to make peace with conflict and make it an organizational asset. Order Now!
Your comments are welcome
Would you like to see your comments posted here? rbrendPtoGuFOkTSMQOzxner@ChacEgGqaylUnkmwIkkwoCanyon.comSend me your comments by email, or by Web form.About Point Lookout
Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.
This article in its entirety was written by a human being. No machine intelligence was involved in any way.
Point Lookout is a free weekly email newsletter. Browse the archive of past issues. Subscribe for free.
Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.
Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.
Related articles
More articles on Personal, Team, and Organizational Effectiveness:
- The Mind Reading Trap
- When we think, "Paul doesn't trust me," we could be fooling ourselves into believing that
we can read his mind. Unless he has directly expressed his distrust, we're just guessing, and we can
reach whatever conclusion we wish, unconstrained by reality. In project management, as anywhere else,
that's a recipe for trouble.
- Films Not About Project Teams: I
- Here's part one of a list of films and videos about project teams that weren't necessarily meant to
be about project teams. Most are available to borrow from the public library, and all are great fun.
- TINOs: Teams in Name Only
- Perhaps the most significant difference between face-to-face teams and virtual or distributed teams
is their potential to develop from workgroups into true teams — an area in which virtual or distributed
teams are at a decided disadvantage. Often, virtual and distributed teams are teams in name only.
- The Myth of Difficult People
- Many books and Web sites offer advice for dealing with difficult people. There are indeed some difficult
people, but are they as numerous as these books and Web sites would have us believe? I think not.
- Be Choosier About Job Offers: II
- An unfortunate outcome of job searches occurs when a job seeker feels forced to accept an offer that
isn't a good fit. Sometimes financial pressures are so severe that the seeker has little choice. But
financial pressures are partly perceptual. Here's how to manage feeling that pressure.
See also Personal, Team, and Organizational Effectiveness and Effective Meetings for more related articles.
Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout
- Coming April 3: Recapping Factioned Meetings
- A factioned meeting is one in which participants identify more closely with their factions, rather than with the meeting as a whole. Agreements reached in such meetings are at risk of instability as participants maneuver for advantage after the meeting. Available here and by RSS on April 3.
- And on April 10: Managing Dunning-Kruger Risk
- A cognitive bias called the Dunning-Kruger Effect can create risk for organizational missions that require expertise beyond the range of knowledge and experience of decision-makers. They might misjudge the organization's capacity to execute the mission successfully. They might even be unaware of the risk of so misjudging. Available here and by RSS on April 10.
Coaching services
I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrendPtoGuFOkTSMQOzxner@ChacEgGqaylUnkmwIkkwoCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.
Get the ebook!
Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:
- Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, )
- Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, )
- Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, )
- Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, )
- Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, )
- Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, )
Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500-1000 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info
Follow Rick
Recommend this issue to a friend
Send an email message to a friend
rbrendPtoGuFOkTSMQOzxner@ChacEgGqaylUnkmwIkkwoCanyon.comSend a message to Rick
A Tip A Day feed
Point Lookout weekly feed