5 personalities that wreck a meeting

(MoneyWatch) If you work in a large corporation, chances are you spend a lot of time in meetings. And if you spend a lot of time in meetings, you soon see human nature displayed in its full glory as people jockey for attention, claim credit for anything they can and prey, Darwinian-style, on weaker members of the tribe. If you're running a session, here are five kinds of people that can make things go awry fast -- and how to deal with them:

1. The bully. Speaks loudly and speaks for softer-spoken team members, apparently deciding that they are unable to make their points for themselves. Actually says things like "that's a stupid idea" to someone whose ideas aren't stupid. Feel free to treat this person like the second grader whose behavior he's channeling. "Jeff, we're listening to Mary right now." If you let him get away with his infractions, they'll just get worse.

2. The non sequitur. This person needs to be heard and either doesn't understand or doesn't care that the ground rules of a discussion require at least some relation between discussion points. Interrupt swiftly with "That's an interesting point. Let's table that and move back to our current agenda item." Don't have a timed meeting agenda? Then you're inviting this behavior.

• The most important 5 hours you'll spend this week
• 4 signs a meeting is a waste of time
• Does social media really kill productivity?

3. The would-be visionary. This frustrated philosopher has a nasty habit of sending the discussion down a rabbit hole by proposing ideas that sound deep the first time you hear them, like "What if we doubled that?" but then leave you cringing by the time he's brought them up in his third meeting. Respond with humor if you can: "I'd love if our revenue doubled too, Steve. Now back to the question of why we lost the Smith account."

4. The constant questioner. This person assumes that asking questions about everything the speaker says makes her sound smart and attentive, not realizing (or caring) how distracting it is. Unless the person is your boss, deflect with "We'll be getting to that, and I promise I'll make time in 5 minutes for questions." This person usually turns out not to have any real questions once he or she realizes it won't be possible to turn the meeting into a Socratic dialogue.

5. The rambler. Occasionally makes good points, but buries each nugget in 10 minutes of fluff. Unless you want your 20-minute meeting to last an hour, get adept at asking nicely, "Jan, do you come out for it or against it?" or another such question that cuts to the chase.

How do you keep bad meeting personalities in check?

Photo courtesy flickr user shoothead

[WayneWebster]

Everyone has a personality and psychologists usually say there's not much you can do to change nature. I find setting a time, objective and a goal for the meeting gives everyone a focus. Allowing people to discuss in their own terms is important. Making certain you applaud the good comments and redirect the rest is critical to staying on point.

The real issue with meetings is for my clients, 50% of them are unnecessary. If you have the authority and are in a position to make a decision, then make it. If you're not sure what to do, seek out advice. Don't turn your work week into a collective group grope by either having regularly scheduled meetings or by asking everyone else to support your decisions. The power to eliminate unnecessary meetings is in your hands.

[gilbertvelasquez]

I have found that being polite only works a couple of times. Direct, cut to the chase sometimes has to come out. You won't make friends, but this is business - we're here to make money.

[jlgorman24]

When I'm facilitating an important decision making meeting, I like to "pre-interview" the key people on the scheduled topics of discussion. This helps to make sure ALL the key topics are addressed (people don't feel like their issue isn't on the agenda) and helps me anticipate and plan for the personalities - bringing out their good ideas untainted by their presentation skills!

For regular staff meetings a consistent agenda and expectation of topics and behavior can be established over time and eventually the "personalities" realize they aren't getting results.

Jamie Gorman
BeBetterAtBusiness.com

Of course, we recommend a professional facilitator to help with key decision meetings or to help establish productive staff meetings:-)

[DKlos]

The negative nanny, the person who doesn't understand the basic tenet of a brainstorming meeting is to create a positive and creative atmosphere that generates good ideas from everything said whether good or not.

[DebraFeldman-JobWhiz]

Should we add the narcissist to this list or is that individual represented within the other types of nuisances? You know, the person who has to say something even if it is irrelevant, useless or just plain taking up air time. These are the ones who can never let something pass without adding their two cents just so they go on the record and have their two seconds on stage. They don't consider how their participation or lack of cooperation will affect others because they are not able to think beyond their own agenda and what will benefit them directly. Sometimes these characters are readily disposable, but they can also fool the world with their cleverness and smarts. When their presence is annoying which it usually is,the cost/benefit ratio of tolerating them tips towards eliminating them. Debra Feldman, JobWhiz, Executive Talent Agent

[[e-mail]]

What about the person who desperately tries to keep to the agenda timing but doesn't actually understand the subleties of the discussion and dismisses any wandering "off piste" as diversion and delay.
Some of the best skiing (or discussion!) can be off-piste!

[StanKlaff]

There are more types but the one which irritates me the most is what I call "The Jockey". The Jockey tells you before the meeting, which you may be chairing, that the meeting must finish early and then at intervals during the meeting makes remarks like "Let's move on.." or "We don't need to discuss this now". The Jockey is always trying to move the meeting along EXCEPT when its his turn to speak...... My feeling is that this type should not attend and his/her presence is really aggravating.

[westpointer]

Instead of fighting more politely why not structure meetings for good results and a level playing field? The "methods" proposed in the article are also often used by folks for no patience for anything but sound-bytes and don't want details even if they are very relevant, often because they do not understand them or more recently only want answers that fit in 140 characters.
Another less judgemental and I propose more effective approach is to adopt standing group participation rules for standing committees. Often such rules establish the role of moderator (who is a non-proponent or opposer); require that all members are provided an agenda with topic times and presentator responsibilities prior to each meeting; following each topic members in sequence have one uninterupted opportunity to comment; after one round the question for the group is to continue, defer with assigned questions on facts; or assign a disagreement to a workgroup with a short fuse due date with a proposed resolution. We have successfully used this modified "dutch meeting" format in several projects I have managed and in several large organizations.

[NICOLE7100]

We had a personality type that doesn't quite fit the ones described here at a small medical practice in central Mass. She challenged anything that other members provided and wanted to keep the clock turned back to how things had always been done .. for instance she would say, "It worked before." Well, of course it did...but the "new" idea was speedier and less work for others; in fact, it cut five steps down to three. She was a sadist in that she reveled in everyone's discomfort.

Horrible person. Heard she took a job at an engineering company making much better money. Good luck to them. And she wasn't about to leave the medical center before me...due to vicious and petty reasons.

[1261943]

Excellent article. I suffer 4 & 5 and can't quiet decide which one is the royal pain. I get tired of saying 'that's a very good question Jim but...." the Rambler I'll just keep switching between several on my list of excuses ranging from "darn, that coffee just hit the spot and leave," or, "Ommm! is that hissing a water leak, better not be...." as I exit. It works most of the time.