Article

How do I stop dysfunctional behavior in team meetings?

August 28, 2020

Getting the Team to Decide How It Wants to Work Together

A group of people are sitting at a long table with laptops.


It would be great if you could put together a group of individuals, call it a “team,” and have it function in a cohesive and productive manner. This actually happens occasionally, but much more often, the different backgrounds, work styles, and variations in social competence lead to less happy results. 


Almost always, team members have different histories and different types of business backgrounds ranging from long experience at one company, to no experience at all. Often, they’ve come from several different companies, which gives them diverse models of what is the best way to do things. These result in differing expectations and can lead to friction and conflict. If you don’t consciously and intentionally establish norms of behavior, what evolves will unfold unconsciously, and team behavior may turn into an out-of-control weed rather than a beautiful bonsai tree! 


 Establish rules of the road.  

Often what’s lacking is a set of rules of engagement – a clear agreement among team members about what is acceptable behavior. These are agreements about how they want to communicate with each other and work together to boost efficiency and team effectiveness.


 Rules of engagement may include: how to conduct meetings (setting agendas, arriving on time etc.), who should attend, how the team makes decisions, being fully present and attentive, coordinating hand-offs, reviewing work products, resolving conflicts, sharing information, honoring confidential conversations, having open and honest dialogue, following up on commitments and so on. Without clear parameters to serve as a framework, what generally happens is that meetings may or may not start on time and end on time, and are undisciplined, with some people dominating, lots of interrupting, unproductive arguments and some members withdrawing and not participating. If participants don’t take meeting protocol and meeting times seriously, do they also have a loose attitude about deadlines and launch dates? This is why it is important for the leader to strive to develop a culture of discipline.   


 Let the team decide

To accomplish this, it’s very useful to have the team discuss and clarify how they want to work together and reach agreement on the behaviors that will guide how they interact and how they will make decisions. Defining a team’s norms, rules of engagement and core values should not be the sole product of the entrepreneur or a few co-founders, which is then mandated to the team, but rather it should be a team process. 

Here are some suggestions to kickstart that discussion. 


The following guidelines refer to communication in general, but apply particularly to meetings:


 

  • Create a specific agenda for the meeting and distribute it to everyone involved. 
  • Reduce the potential for distractions – agree to shut off cell phones, etc. 
  • Work collaboratively to solve problems. Actively support and cooperate with all team members. Share what you know. Be available for teammates when they need help, and if you see someone needs help, offer support without being asked. When you need support, a listening ear to run ideas by, or help with a problem you’re struggling with, ask for it. 
  • Seek to understand before being understood.
  • Don’t dominate meetings just because you can. Actively seek out the views and ideas of all team members.
  • Provide timely feedback and accept all feedback as valid for consideration.
  • Try to be aware of the needs, motivations, feelings and skills of other team members. 
  • Your team members have a wealth of experience, expertise, and insight. That’s why you recruited them. Listen carefully and be open to their ideas.. Avoid interrupting. Let one person speak at a time. Share the airtime equably. Discourage side conversations.
  • Encourage team members to speak up when the conversation gets off-track or goes in circles; otherwise the leader should bring the discussion back to the topic at hand. 
  • Separate issues from people and focus on problems and solutions rather than personalities.
  • Speak honestly and openly. 
  • Give your teammates positive reinforcement. Express appreciation for what people have accomplished. Celebrate achievements and milestones. 
  • Make critical decisions by following a disciplined and systematic process to reduce bias and reactivity. Make the environment safe enough that hidden assumptions can be surfaced and challenged, and biases uncovered. 
  • Everyone has permission to call out violations of these rules.

 

Team members have a responsibility to hold each other accountable. For example, establish deadlines and timeframes for actions or deliverables – and stick to them. Visionary Evangelists like to talk about ideas; Relationship Builders want us to be nice to each other and share our feelings. Managers of Execution excel at allocating tasks and responsibilities. They will push for closure on deadlines and deliverables. 


The “Ideal Team” Exercise


This is a helpful and enjoyable exercise. It not only helps teams operate more effectively, but it also helps team members get to know each other better, and thus builds bonds and strengthens group coherence. 

 

  • Ask each team member to bring to mind the best team they’ve ever been on and make a list of the characteristics that made that team special. 
  • Then have each person report to the group their #1 point – for example that the people on the team genuinely cared about each other, listened to what everyone had to say, or trusted each other and describe what it meant to them personally, telling a brief anecdote illustrating how that showed up.
  • When everyone has had a chance to present their top point, continue sharing the other characteristics of their ideal team. Soon you will begin to see repeats, and this will be an indication that it’s time to finalize the list.
  • At this point, you can compile a master list of positive characteristics that would comprise an ideal team. (Most teams generate between 12 and 20 characteristics.) 
  • Then ask them to rate their current team on those characteristics. The gap between the ideal and the actual immediately makes it clear where the team is not functioning well, and what needs to be changed. That leads naturally to a discussion about how the team members want to behave together. 
  • This can help your team waste less time, have better meetings, and be more effective. 
  • We worked through this process many years ago at Hagberg Consulting Group, drew up a list of principles, and created a large chart that we posted on the wall of our conference room. Members of the team were empowered to call out – live, during meetings – anyone who was not living up to one of the guidelines. 

 

By going through this process of defining the ideal team characteristics and using this discussion to develop a list of rules of engagement, the team can police itself and members will feel empowered to point out when ineffective or sub-optimal behaviors are getting in the way of their performance, communication, problem solving, or decision making. 


In other words, an effective team must monitor both its rational process and its interpersonal process in order to work most effectively together. The rational process involves, in a systematic and disciplined manner, defining problems, setting objectives, surfacing relevant facts, generating alternatives, and selecting the most viable actions. However, the interpersonal process, when team members don’t listen, interrupt each other, don’t support each other, get distracted by outside interruptions, etc., can offset the benefits of a clear rational process and have a damaging effect on team and meeting effectiveness. Establishing rules of engagement is simply a way of reducing the negative impact of some of the pitfalls and involving the entire team in working to improve its own performance. Discovering and defining the team’s norms can have a lasting positive impact on team culture and ultimately on results. 


share this

Related Articles

Related Articles

e
By Rich Hagberg August 9, 2025
Introduction: The Brutal Truth About Change If you’re leading a company, here’s one brutal truth you can’t dodge: resistance to change isn’t just inevitable—it’s a gift. Most leaders don’t see it that way. They treat it like an obstacle to bulldoze, something to out-argue, out-maneuver, or silence. But resistance, if you know how to read it, is a living, breathing diagnostic tool. Every objection, every sideways comment in a hallway, every moment of awkward silence in a meeting—it’s all data. It tells you where the trust gaps are, where the communication breakdowns have happened, and where your people’s unspoken fears live. If you ignore that data, you’re flying blind. The hard numbers back this up: more than 70% of organizational change initiatives fail, not because the strategy was flawed, but because leaders underestimated what it would take to guide people through the emotional turbulence of transformation. If you want your next big initiative to succeed, the shift starts here: stop seeing resistance as the enemy, and start listening to what it’s telling you. When you do, you’ll discover that resistance isn’t a wall to break down—it’s a map showing you exactly where to go next. 1. Rethink Resistance: It’s Data, Not Defiance Let’s flip the lens. When people resist, they’re rarely doing it for sport. They’re sending up flares. They’re telling you something’s unclear, untested, or untrusted. For example, I worked with a CEO rolling out a sweeping technology overhaul. His first instinct when his managers hesitated was frustration—until we sat down and dissected the resistance. It turned out the managers weren’t doubting the technology; they were worried about the gap between the training timeline and the rollout date. They didn’t fear change—they feared being set up to fail.  When you stop labeling resistance as “non-compliance” and start treating it like intelligence gathering, you find it points to the very levers you can pull to move the change forward.
How
By Rich Hagberg August 1, 2025
Most startup founders are brilliant at innovation, disruption, and blazing new trails. They're visionaries, incredibly driven, and fiercely independent. Unfortunately, those same powerful traits often sabotage their ability to foster genuine collaboration—a critical ingredient in startup success. I've spent decades coaching founders, and one of the biggest blind spots I've observed is the gap between what founders naturally do well and what's required to create truly collaborative cultures. Understanding these tendencies—and knowing how to counter them—can mean the difference between startup stagnation and breakout growth. High Independence, Low Collaboration Founders thrive on independence. They love breaking rules, ignoring boundaries, and pushing limits. But independence can quickly morph into isolation. The very idea of slowing down to seek consensus or accommodate team input feels restrictive, even suffocating. Implications: This independent streak inadvertently sidelines team members, suppresses input, and reduces engagement. Talented people quickly learn their ideas don't matter, and teams become passive or defensive. Actions to Counter: Practice deliberately inclusive decision-making. Clearly define which decisions you'll make alone and where you'll solicit team input. Regularly check in to see if team members feel heard and involved. Dominance Isn’t Always Dominant Many founders naturally take a commanding stance. Their assertiveness, directness, and forcefulness can spark initial progress but, over time, it creates resistance. When team members feel steamrolled or fearful of speaking up, creativity vanishes. Implications: A dominant style shuts down communication, makes feedback difficult, and kills the very collaboration needed for sustained innovation. Actions to Counter: Make intentional space for quieter team members to speak. Foster psychological safety by modeling vulnerability and humility Balance assertiveness with curiosity—actively seek feedback rather than waiting for it. The Curse of Poor Delegation Delegation isn't just handing off tasks—it's handing off trust. But founders notoriously struggle with this, often believing only they can execute properly. Every task not delegated reinforces the message that the team isn’t capable. Implications: Poor delegation creates bottlenecks, slows execution, and demoralizes talented employees who feel undervalued and micromanaged. Actions to Counter: Start small by delegating lower-risk tasks clearly and thoroughly. Regularly check your impulses to micromanage; remind yourself why you hired capable people. Invest in mentoring and coaching rather than controlling. Communication Breakdown Founders are famously impatient. They think fast, act fast, and often communicate quickly or incompletely. What seems obvious to them might be totally unclear to their team. Implications: Poor communication creates ambiguity, confusion, and frustration, grinding collaboration to a halt. Teams waste energy guessing expectations rather than innovating. Actions to Counter: Slow down to clearly articulate the "why" behind your decisions. Confirm understanding by asking team members to reflect back their interpretations. Regularly solicit feedback on your communication style and clarity. Arrogance: The Silent Collaboration Killer Confidence is crucial. But confidence unchecked can veer into arrogance, leading founders to dismiss feedback, overlook critical insights, and alienate key contributors. Implications: Arrogance destroys trust, stifles dialogue, and creates a toxic environment where collaboration is impossible. Actions to Counter: Intentionally invite critique and respond openly and constructively. Regularly acknowledge your mistakes publicly to model humility. Actively seek alternative viewpoints before finalizing decisions. Conflict Avoidance (or Aggression) Many founders fall into two extreme camps: conflict avoiders or conflict initiators. Both extremes are deadly to collaboration. Avoiding conflict leaves critical issues unresolved. Aggressive conflict handling creates resentment and fear. Implications: Poorly managed conflict erodes team cohesion, undermines trust, and can spiral into prolonged dysfunction. Actions to Counter: Establish clear, structured conflict resolution processes. Practice direct yet respectful conflict conversations. Use neutral facilitation for emotionally charged discussions. Systems Thinking vs. Reactive Planning Startups prize agility and adaptability. But too much short-term thinking neglects the processes and structures that sustain collaboration. Without clear systems, teams fall into chaos. Implications: Reactive planning leads to burnout, inefficiency, and frustration as team members constantly fight fires rather than building strategically. Actions to Counter: Balance short-term agility with consistent investment in systems and clear processes. Regularly revisit and improve structures as your company scales. Empower process-oriented thinkers in your organization to build effective systems. Workaholism and Burnout Culture Founders set the pace. But when founders turn workaholic, they unknowingly create an environment of exhaustion, anxiety, and diminished psychological safety. Exhausted teams are seldom collaborative. Implications: Productivity drops, innovation dries up, and talented employees start to leave. Actions to Counter: Actively model sustainable work-life balance. Publicly recognize and reward collaborative, balanced behaviors. Regularly monitor signs of burnout and intervene early. Ambiguity Isn’t Always Your Friend Founders typically tolerate ambiguity better than most. But your team needs clarity and direction. Too much ambiguity creates stress and undermines collaborative execution. Implications: Team paralysis, lack of initiative, and increased frustration. Actions to Counter: Clearly define roles, responsibilities, and expectations. Regularly ask your team what clarity they need to be effective. Balance your tolerance for ambiguity with your team’s genuine need for guidance. The Collaboration Paradox Founders face a paradox. The same traits that fuel their success—independence, assertiveness, rapid execution—also sabotage the collaborative environments crucial for scaling. Acknowledging this paradox is the first step. The second is intentionally adopting behaviors that might feel unnatural at first: fostering inclusive communication, delegating with trust, managing conflict constructively, investing in systems thinking, and balancing your independent streak with genuine empathy.  The good news? These skills are learnable. Great founders don’t have to become entirely different people; they simply need to expand their toolkit. Start today by picking just one area and committing to small, consistent improvements. Your team and your startup—will thank you.
The Recognition Paradox: 
Why Truly Outstanding Leaders Thrive by Indifference to Personal Glory
By Rich Hagberg July 31, 2025
The Recognition Paradox: Why Truly Outstanding Leaders Thrive by Indifference to Personal Glory
ALL ARTICLES