In my work as a professional parliamentarian and impartial meeting chair, I encounter a significant share of conflict and controversy. Usually the anger and hostility are directed at those who hire me or at the proposals that they bring forward. However, there are times when the hostility is directed at me.

One such event occurred just before a contentious annual meeting. A vocal member was apparently offended by the procedural guidelines that were distributed before the meeting. His first step was to confront the president. When the president indicated that I was the source of the advice, the man approached me. He angrily criticized my advice and suggested I knew very little about Robert’s Rules of Order.

As I was listening to him, I had two difficulties: First, there were only a few minutes left until the scheduled start of the meeting, and opening a contentious meeting late could have added to the already high levels of anxiety. Second, I had a sense that whatever explanations I gave this man were likely to fall on deaf ears.

In a temporary “stroke of genius,” I said: “Sir, I think I understand your question. But I need to know this: Are you really interested in hearing my answer?”

My question must have surprised him. He suddenly stopped the verbal assault and took a few seconds to consider his response. He then said clearly and calmly: “No, not really” and walked away from me.

I too walked away from him, and the meeting was started on time. His procedural concerns must have been addressed in some way, because he did not speak up or disrupt the meeting.

The lesson? Before attempting to answer a question or offer any information, it’s important to check whether the other party is genuinely interested in hearing what you have to say. If the individual is too deeply in “advocacy” or “assault” mode, the likelihood of being able to make a difference with your wisdom and knowledge may be minimal or non-existent.