Overt Belligerence in Meetings

The dictionary definition of belligerence is "…a hostile or warlike attitude, nature, or inclination." Because that covers so much territory, I want to consider — for now — just a small part of it. Overt belligerence is belligerence that's unconcealed and on display for all to see. It might be accidentally revealed, as in a display of anger, or it might be quite intentionally used as a tool, for example, in an attempt to intimidate an individual or group, or an attempt to disrupt a meeting.

Let me make the topic narrower still. Those who are belligerent by nature become known to all rather quickly in today's team-oriented workplaces. Unless the belligerent-by-nature possess great organizational power, they don't last long. So — again, for now — let me focus on the kind of belligerence that's associated with a hostile or warlike attitude, or inclination, and let me set aside the kind of belligerence that arises from the nature of the belligerent.

One more refinement. Belligerent behavior between two individuals in private at work can be expensive. For example, they might need to work together effectively to accomplish an important organizational goal. If they cannot accomplish that goal, the costs can be unbearable. But belligerent behavior in group settings — usually we call them "meetings" — can be far more expensive, because so many more people are involved, and the clock is running. That's my focus for now: overt belligerence in meetings, when the belligerence arises from a hostile attitude or inclination.

In this article, Belligerent behavior in group
settings can be expensive, because
so many people are involved,
and the clock is runningI'll address a generic belligerence situation. There are specific situations for which specific responses might be more effective, but the generic situation is a good place to start to illustrate general principles. Send me mail if you have a specific case you'd like me to examine.

In what follows, I'll use the name Brad to indicate the person whose behavior is belligerent.

In dealing with any objector one must begin by determining whether the objector is a sincere objector or a belligerent. The difference between a sincere objector and a belligerent can be subtle, because the objections of both can be sincere. The distinguishing characteristic of the belligerent — Brad — is this: although the objection is sincere, the attack itself is what really motivates him. For the belligerent, the attack is the thing. An example might clarify the distinction.

Typically, belligerent behavior involves registering some kind of complaint, in the form of an attack. Brad might attack almost anything: an individual, a decision, the meeting chair, the scribe, the agenda, whatever. And when someone defends the person or thing Brad attacked, he won't give up, even when everyone else in the meeting considers the defense adequate.

For example, in an attack on the agenda, Brad might object to the order. He might insist that Agenda Item 4 be placed in the Agenda Item 1 position. When the chair explains that Item 4 requires the decision the team will make after discussing Item 1, Brad objects to that, asserting that Item 4 can be addressed independently. He keeps objecting, no matter what anyone says. At some point, he begins objecting to everyone defending the current agenda order, saying that people are ganging up on him and won't let him speak. And so on, escalating ever more intensely into antagonism.

Engaging with Brad on the level of the content of his complaints is futile, because for Brad, the attack is the thing. Still, we're obliged to try it, because we cannot know a priori whether his complaint is substantive. But after peeling away two or three layers of the onion of his attacks, only to find attacks underneath, further engagement at the level of content is probably misguided.

Once it has become clear that the attacks will continue — that content-based responses are unlikely to mollify the attacker — what is there for the chair to do? There are three options. Most chairs, in my experience, keep trying to deal with the content of Brad's objections. As I've said, that rarely works.

A second option is to declare a recess. During the recess, the chair can try to work with Brad in an effort to persuade him to cease his objections. Something like, "I'll resume the meeting if you will assure me that you will cease your objections. Then later, we can discuss them privately. If you don't agree, or if you register more objections after we resume, I'll end the meeting." Brad might accept this, because he sees it as an opportunity to raise more objections. In situations I've witnessed, it does sometimes work. When the meeting resumes, Brad does sometimes "behave."

A third option is declaring the meeting ended, without negotiating with Brad. Afterwards, you can engage with Brad, and possibly his supervisor, on the subject of his disruptive behavior. This option is especially attractive if Brad has exhibited a pattern of disruptive behavior over several meetings, or if you've already tried the second option and Brad has reneged on his commitment to "behave."

Unless you supervise Brad yourself, the ultimate responsibility for resolving this issue lies with his supervisor. For suggestions about such situations, see "Performance Issues for Nonsupervisors," Point Lookout for July 12, 2017. A resolution that brings an end to the belligerence might not lie within your reach.  Top    Next Issue

Is every other day a tense, anxious, angry misery as you watch people around you, who couldn't even think their way through a game of Jacks, win at workplace politics and steal the credit and glory for just about everyone's best work including yours? Read 303 Secrets of Workplace Politics, filled with tips and techniques for succeeding in workplace politics. More info

Your comments are welcome

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 Effective Communication at Work:

Selling Uphill: The Pitch

Whether you're a CEO or a project champion, you occasionally have to persuade decision makers who have some kind of power over you. What do they look for? What are the key elements of an effective pitch? What does it take to Persuade Power?

Interviewing the Willing: Strategy

At times, we need information from each other. For example, we want to learn about how someone approached a similar problem, or we must interview someone about system requirements. Yet, even when the source is willing, we sometimes fail to expose critical facts. How can we elicit information from the willing more effectively?

If Only I Had Known: II

Ever had one of those forehead-slapping moments when someone explained something, or you suddenly realized something? They usually involve some idea or insight that would have saved you much pain, trouble, and heartache, if only you had known.

When the Answer Isn't the Point: I

When we ask each other questions, the answers aren't always what we seek. Sometimes the behavior of the respondent is what matters. Here are some techniques questioners use when the answer to the question wasn't the point of asking.

They Don't Reply to My Email

Ever have the experience of sending an email message to someone, asking for information or approval or whatever, and then waiting for a response that comes only too late? Maybe your correspondent is an evil loser, but maybe not. Maybe the problem is in your message.

See also Effective Communication at Work and Effective Communication at Work for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming February 26: Devious Political Tactics: Bad Decisions

When workplace politics influences the exchanges that lead to important organizational decisions, we sometimes make decisions for reasons other than the best interests of the organization. Recognizing these tactics can limit the risk of bad decisions. Available here and by RSS on February 26.

And on March 5: On Begging the Question

Some of our most expensive wrong decisions have come about because we've tricked ourselves as we debated our options. The tricks sometimes arise from rhetorical fallacies that tangle our thinking. One of the trickiest is called Begging the Question. Available here and by RSS on March 5.

Coaching services

I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenjTnUayrCbSnnEcYfner@ChacdcYpBKAaMJgMalFXoCanyon.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