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

The Courage to Confront: How Real Leaders Balance Candor and Care
By Rich Hagberg December 16, 2025
(Part 2 of The Best Leaders Playbook — Building Trust Systems Series)
Integrity as an Innovation Strategy: Why Moral Clarity Drives Creativity, Not Just Compliance
By Rich Hagberg December 9, 2025
(Part 1 of The Best Leaders Playbook — Building Trust Systems Series)
Greatness Lies in the Contradictions: How the Best Leaders Integrate Opposites Instead of Choosing S
By Rich Hagberg December 2, 2025
The Leadership Tightrope If you lead long enough, you start to realize something uncomfortable: everything that makes you effective also threatens to undo you. Your drive becomes impatience. Your confidence becomes stubbornness. Your empathy turns into guilt. The longer you lead, the more you realize that the job isn’t about choosing one trait over another — it’s about learning to carry both. That’s what maturity looks like in leadership. It’s not balance. It’s tension well managed. The False Comfort of Either/Or Most leaders crave clarity. We want rules. Playbooks. Certainty. Should I be tough or kind? Decisive or collaborative? Visionary or practical? The insecure part of the brain hates contradiction. It wants the “right answer.” But leadership lives in the messy middle — the place where both truths exist, and neither feels comfortable. The best leaders aren’t either/or thinkers. They’re both/and navigators. A Story from the Field I once coached a CEO who told me, “I’m torn between holding people accountable and being empathetic.” I said, “Why do you think those are opposites?” He paused, then laughed. “Because it’s easier that way.” Exactly. It’s easier to pick a lane than to learn how to drive in two at once. He eventually realized the real question wasn’t which side to choose, but when and how to lean into each. He became known as “the fairest tough boss in the building.” That’s the magic of integration — toughness with tenderness, vision with realism, clarity with compassion. Why Paradox Feels So Hard Contradictions feel like hypocrisy when you haven’t made peace with your own complexity. If you believe you have to be one consistent version of yourself — confident, decisive, inspiring — then every moment of doubt feels like fraud. But the truth is, great leaders are contradictory because humans are contradictory. You can be grounded and ambitious, humble and proud, certain and still learning. The work is not to eliminate the tension — it’s to get comfortable feeling it. The Psychology Behind It Our brains love binaries because they make the world simple. But complexity — holding opposites — is the mark of advanced thinking. Psychologists call this integrative complexity — the ability to see multiple perspectives and blend them into a coherent approach. It’s not compromise; it’s synthesis. It’s saying, “Both are true, and I can move between them without losing my integrity.” That’s where wisdom lives — in the movement, not the answer. Funny But True A client once told me, “I feel like half monk, half gladiator.” I said, “Congratulations. That means you’re leading.” Because that’s what the job demands: peace and fight, compassion and steel. If you can’t hold both, you end up overusing one until it breaks you. The Cost of One-Dimensional Leadership We’ve all worked for the “results-only” leader — brilliant, efficient, and emotionally tone-deaf. And the “people-first” leader — kind, loyal, and allergic to accountability. Both are exhausting. Both create lopsided cultures. When leaders pick a single identity — visionary, disciplinarian, nurturer, driver — they lose range. They become caricatures of their strengths. True greatness comes from emotional range, not purity. The Paradox Mindset Here’s how integrative leaders think differently: They value principles over preferences. They can be decisive without being defensive. They know empathy isn’t weakness and toughness isn’t cruelty. They trade perfection for adaptability. They’re the ones who can zoom in and out — from the numbers to the people, from the details to the meaning — without losing coherence. They’re not consistent in behavior. They’re consistent in values. That’s the difference. How to Practice Both/And Thinking Spot your overused strength. The strength that’s hurting you most is the one you lean on too much. If you’re decisive, try listening longer. If you’re compassionate, try being direct faster. Ask, “What’s the opposite quality trying to teach me?” Impatience teaches urgency; patience teaches perspective. You need both. Invite your opposite. Bring someone onto your team who balances your extremes — not a mirror, a counterweight. Hold paradox out loud. Tell your team, “This decision has tension in it — and that’s okay.” Modeling that normalizes complexity for everyone else. A Moment of Self-Honesty I’ve spent decades watching leaders chase “clarity” like it’s peace. But peace doesn’t come from eliminating tension. It comes from trusting yourself inside it. Once you accept that leadership will always feel contradictory, you stop fighting it — and start flowing with it. You don’t need to be the calmest, toughest, or most visionary person in the room. You just need to be the one who can stay whole while the world pulls you in opposite directions. Your Challenge This Week When you catch yourself thinking, “Should I be X or Y?” — stop. Ask instead, “How can I be both?” Then practice it in one small moment. Be kind and firm. Bold and humble. Fast and thoughtful. That’s where growth hides — in the discomfort between two truths. Final Word The best leaders aren’t balanced. They’re integrated. They’ve stopped trying to erase their contradictions and started using them as fuel. They’ve learned that leadership isn’t about certainty. It’s about capacity — the capacity to hold complexity without losing your center. That’s not chaos. That’s mastery.
ALL ARTICLES