Cluster without Fluster
Overcoming problems at meetings

By Roy Zazeraj

" Dear boy, it isn't that your manners are bad - its simply that you have no manners at all" Margot Asquith

We have already explored the requirements for a successful Annual General Meeting (AGM) of the Body Corporate. These of course apply to any formal meeting, but notwithstanding our best-laid plans, things can (and often do) go awry. Good old Murphy pops up in the most unlikely places - rivalling the famous Kilroy in creative appearances. All sorts of unwelcome problems can beset a meeting, some easy to deal with and some just plain intractable. Clearly, poor meeting management can add significantly to problems arising in the first place, and this is always a good starting point for corrective action when things are going off the rails (see last issue). It is worth repeating that all participating members have a responsibility to ensure successful meetings.

The next most common problems include argumentative people, long-winded people, people taking extreme and unyielding positions, inability to reach a decision, defensiveness, point-scoring, something or someone distracting the meeting, emotionally overheated discussions, the discussion going off track, and even dishonest or devious people. Recognise any of these? (And hey, recognise yourself in any of these?). It's either the DIPs (Difficult Irritating People) or the process. The reasons for the problems occurring can be many and varied, and they range from mild to extreme in terms of potential consequences. The most difficult ones to deal with are those that are accompanied by high emotion - either where self-esteem or egos are at stake, or vested interests (financial or rights).

We can't deal with all of these problems here (thank goodness! you cry) so lets focus on dealing with disruptive individuals in a meeting, which could include various permutations of the problems and causes above. Meetings can be ruined by people seeking to dominate proceedings at the expense of others, making speeches, emotionalising issues, attacking, threatening, sidetracking, being dismissive of others and generally throwing a pall of gloom over proceedings. A meeting should be a constructive communications exercise, focussed on sharing information, exploring viewpoints and reaching good decisions. Anything getting in the way of this should not be tolerated by the chairperson, the trustees or the Body Corporate as a whole.

Much can be done before a meeting to limit the negative influence of disruptive people or potentially disruptive items on the agenda. Raise the issues with the person(s) before the meeting and attempt agreement on how best to deal with them in the meeting. Appeal to them directly to not be disruptive. Give them a special task in the meeting (such as recording alternative viewpoints). Caucus with others for support in dealing with any disruptions. Put agreement on meeting procedure and progress checks early in the agenda, and stick to this throughout. In confronting the disruptive individual, before or during the meeting, it is essential to remain calm and in control, so as not to give away power.

In the meeting various other techniques can be used. However, bear in mind that the disruptive person may in fact have good points to make, despite their objectionable manner - so don't dismiss them out of hand. You can get the person to confront the problem they are creating by their behaviour (ignore the content of their argument at this point) and ask them what the meeting can do to move past this. Or break the meeting up into smaller groups to discuss contentious issues and to report back consensus views - this limits the number of people the disruptive people can influence. The chairperson can also get this person to summarise the discussion to date, ask them how others might argue against their viewpoint and even offer to vacate the chair temporarily in favour of the disruptive person. There are strategies to force the individual to focus on content rather than being difficult, such as turning their attacks and emotional, disparaging comments into statements that they have to take responsibility for. An extreme form of this would be a direct attack (through questioning) on their argument, reducing their position to an indefensible absurdity. When all else fails, and it is clear the meeting's objectives are not being achieved, the chairperson can explain this, adjourn the meeting and seek to address the problems before reconvening at another time. In this case the remedial action has to include the disruptive person, or the problems will simply recur.

These strategies should be able to deal with most disruptive people. If you sense them being applied to you, you'll now know why!