While getting ready to chair a contentious meeting, it became apparent to me that a certain group was organizing itself to “oppose everything and fight against the establishment.” My client suggested that I remain “tough” and not worry about this group. Somehow his confidence did not reassure me, and I asked him to arrange a meeting with the dissenting group. I wanted to learn about their issues and build trust in my role as an impartial Chair.

The client reacted to my request dismissively. He worried that a separate meeting with the group would legitimize their “extreme minority views,” and that it would prove that “one gets what one wants by making a lot of noise.” At my insistence, he reluctantly arranged the meeting.

Entering the meeting with the dissenting group felt like walking into “the lion’s den.” People seemed tense and suspicious. I opened by briefly explaining my role as an impartial chair. I stressed that my role was primarily procedural and that I had no vested interest in the substantive outcomes of the meeting. I then asked if they had any questions or concerns.

As expected, they did. They wanted to know more about my credentials and qualifications. They then expressed doubts that they would be treated fairly. I promised that they would, and suggested that they let me know during the meeting if I came across as unfair or biased against them. I also used this opportunity to advise them of the participation guidelines for the meeting. I indicated that I would take a vote on these guidelines at the start of the meeting, and that I would then intervene if anyone – including one of them – needed reminding of the adopted guidelines. They said the guidelines were fair and agreed to follow them.

Then they made a request: They wanted to make a 15-minute presentation of their issues. Since the general proposed guideline was 3 minutes per person, I advised them that I would let the full group decide whether a more generous time limit would be given to them.

The result of this discussion was that the dissenting group came to the full meeting ready to work collaboratively with the larger group, rather than to fight and undermine the process. The individuals developed respect and trust towards the process and acted as constructive partners in consensus building.