Imagine this: At a meeting, an individual becomes emotional and resorts to abusive language, insulting others and questioning their honesty and integrity. What do you do? One option is to do nothing and hope that the problem will go away. The effect of a `non-response’ may be that the air remains `poisoned’ and people withdraw from the discussion. Another effect may be that the meeting turns into a shouting match, making the group completely dysfunctional.

An alternative course of action may be to interrupt the individual: “This language is not acceptable. Please stop it immediately or I’ll ask you to leave the meeting.” The group may cheer you on, but are you doing as well as you can? What if the individual carries on with the abusive language or even turns against you? Would you then deliver on your promise and expel them from the meeting? And if he or she refuses to leave, would you call the police?

If you respond with anger or resort to warnings and threats (as shown above), it is possible that your group will support you. Indeed, you may be 100% justified in responding angrily. But being right is not the most important issue here. The more significant questions are: How effective are you in achieving a better meeting? Are there any potential undesirable side effects to an angry or threatening response (such as having a stifling effect on the meeting)?

An individual once told me: “You get more bees with honey than you do with vinegar.” Demanding that an individual stop a counter-productive behaviour is a step better than ignoring it, with the hope that it will disappear. But you will likely be more effective by replacing the negative approach with an affirmative one. Instead of telling people what they must stop doing, try telling them what they should start doing. Invite them to `a clean place’ and remind them of the people they are supposed to be serving and whom they are accountable to.

In the above case, start by setting the right tone for the meeting: ”The issues coming before this meeting have been challenging and divisive for us. Still, I need to remind you that we owe a duty to the people that we serve to be civil and courteous with one another, and to focus our passion on the issues, and not on the people involved. Can I count on your help in supporting this principle at this meeting?” Such a statement would be your `preventative medicine.’

If, despite the above statement, members resort to personal attacks, stop them decisively and say: “Director Smith, We need to lower the tone of this discussion and maintain civility and objectivity” or “Members, we need to focus on issues, not people. Remember what we agreed to at the start of this meeting?” Such statements will invite individuals to a clean place, i.e.: a place of principle. It will remind them of the stakeholders that they serve, and the duty of their leaders to deliver quality meetings and effective decision-making.