Vocal expressions of approval or disapproval have become common in large gatherings. In many instances, they are harmless. But in others, they can be very damaging and risky.

Suppose you invited a motivational speaker to address your group, and she manages to “push all the right buttons.” As a result, she receives rounds of applause for connecting with the audience and effectively aligning herself with its needs and expectations. A second example is when, at an annual meeting, the president reports impressive achievements, and his report is well received for its content and delivery. A third example is when a Mayor recognizes an outstanding citizen in front of the public and invites applause.

In the above examples, applause is natural and reinforces the positive aspects of the occasion. There is no apparent harm and hence nothing to worry about.

Imagine a different scenario. A contentious issue is being debated at a public meeting of a municipality or school board, or in a special general meeting of a society. Speakers are divided on the issues at hand. Comments are greeted by applause from those who agree with them, and by heckling from those who disapprove. These responses are apparently intended to send a message of strength, determination and conviction. So what is the problem?

When dealing with divisive issues, applause and heckling can have a stifling effect. If a speaker representing a certain view is applauded, those who hold opposing views may be intimidated, and may therefore hesitate to present new and potentially valid points. If a speaker is being heckled and booed, he or she may not feel free to speak. Even those who are not on either side may feel afraid and therefore safer being quiet than speaking in an atmosphere of “mob rule.”

The obvious losers in those settings are the people who are silenced. But more significantly, the community as a whole misses new and potentially important insights, as well as diverse opinions. A diversity of views is essential for quality decision-making, especially when issues are complex and controversial. If knowledge-based decisions are to be made, the group’s ability to achieve these goals may be substantially diminished by a hostile and toxic environment.

But the risks of applause and heckling in such settings don’t end here. If your municipal council or school board acquiesces to anarchy (as represented by disorderly behaviors, clapping and heckling), it can potentially become the target of adversarial action. Individuals may claim that the Board did not manage the environment and therefore it was unsafe for them to present their views. They can claim to have been subject to unfair treatment, bias, bullying and harassment. They can also cast doubt on the resulting decisions and even formally challenge their validity, on the grounds that the process was unfair.

With these risks in mind, the Chair of a contentious meeting must make it safe for people to speak and have zero tolerance for abuse, bullying and harassment. Consider the following opening statement: “The issues coming before this meeting are challenging and divisive. In order to make sure we benefit from the diverse views to be presented, we must make it safe for people to speak. With this in mind, I would ask everyone to refrain from clapping, heckling and any other vocal expressions of approval or disapproval.”

As the meeting progresses, the Chair should carefully monitor the climate. If the “no applause or heckling” rule is breached, the Chair must act decisively and restore order. If this proves to be impossible, the meeting may need to be recessed or adjourned.

Of course, any advice is not absolute and has qualifiers. If someone is heckled for using offensive language or launching a personal attack, the Chair may need to address the speaker (and not only the hecklers), and demand that decorum and civility be maintained.