One of my favorite phrases is "Suffering is Optional." I refer to suffering that occurs in meetings, where participants may speak off topic, engage in personal attacks, dominate discussions, ramble and repeat themselves, or act as "negaholics" (always pointing to flaws in ideas, without ever proposing affirmative alternatives).

When suffering occurs, people often hope that the person chairing the meeting will address the issue. Indeed, the Chair may intervene effectively, in which case the issue would hopefully be resolved. However, the Chair may also intervene ineffectively, in which case the efforts to solve one problem may create undesirable side effects. Finally, the Chair may be too afraid to intervene and just hope (like everyone else) that the problem will correct itself. In the latter case, it is indeed possible that the problem will be resolved, but it may also persist, or even get worse.

So what can you, as a meeting participant, do if the Chair does not intervene or if s/he intervenes ineffectively? Of course, you can suffer quietly and hope that the agony will somehow vanish. If it doesn't, you can vent your frustrations about the ineffectiveness of your Chair and the annoying habits of your colleagues in a lively parking lot conversation after the meeting. After all, this is a safe and risk-free alternative. Or is it?

Acquiescence and quiet suffering are problematic. Yes, there are occasions when being quiet may be the only practical thing to do. An example may be when the person with the annoying habits is your boss, and challenging his or her behaviour may become a career limiting move. However, in most cases, there may well be something you can do, and arguing that you can do nothing may become a self fulfilling prophecy.

In a healthy meeting environment, you and everyone else should be viewed as partners in decision-making, and the motto should be "There is no such thing as a stupid comment or question, except, perhaps, the one you don't ask." With this in mind, there should be a shift away from suffering, possibly to complaining, but preferably to proposing.

The first transition is from suffering to complaining. Taking this route, you may complain and accuse. You may do this informally, by saying something like: "You comments are clearly off topic," or "This statement is hurtful, offensive and unfair," or "You are being repetitive, and you take far too much time to make your point," or "You always attack everyone's ideas and have nothing positive to offer. I can't tell you how frustrating this is to me and to everyone else around the table." You may also complain formally and with an air of authority by raising "points of order."

Complaining can be uncomfortable, and many people prefer to be silent than to use harsh or accusatory language. Even if your complaint is 100% well founded, the negative focus ("You're doing something wrong, so you'd better stop it...") may prevent you from achieving the desired outcome, or it may possibly achieve this outcome, while also making the meeting environment unsafe and/or inflicting some damage on relationships among participants.

So how can you intervene effectively and without incurring undesirable side effects? Consider the second transition, from complaining to proposing. Instead of focusing on what the group or any individuals are doing wrong (negative approach), focus your intervention on the desired behaviour that will make things right (affirmative approach).

Let's see how the shift from being a harsh complainer to a supportive proponent would sound like.

Instead of "Your comments are clearly off topic," try "Can we please get back on topic? Our time is short and we need to keep the meeting moving."

Instead of "This statement is hurtful, offensive and unfair," try: "Can I make a suggestion here? I realize the issues are difficult, but it would help a lot if we lowered the tone of the conversation. We need to keep a safe environment."

Instead of: "You are being repetitive and you take far too much time to make your point," try: "How are we doing for time? Are we ready to move on?"

Instead of: "You always attack everyone's ideas and never have anything positive to offer. I can't tell you how frustrating this is to me and to everyone else around the table" try "Jack. I understand why you think this may not work. Can you propose alternatives that will be workable?"

Here are a few tips:

1. If at all possible, shift your focus from the individual to the group as a whole (Instead of saying "You should ___", try "We need to ___").
2. Soften your intervention by making it consultative, possibly ending it with a question mark, instead of an angry, emphatic and threatening exclamation mark.
3. Make your intervention brief and concise, and avoid sounding as though you're lecturing.
4. Do not spend a lot of time apologizing for the intervention, such as: "I really apologize and feel very badly about interrupting you, but there is a very very important principle that we need to consider as we run our meetings..." (Exhausting, isn't it?)

Remember, the goal of your intervention (whether as a Chair or as a meeting Participant) is to achieve the desired outcome (staying on topic, being focused and efficient, enabling equal participation, building a safe and respectful meeting environment), while avoiding undesirable side effects.

Good luck.