Think of the last three meetings you attended: on a scale of one to ten, how dysfunctional would you rate them (one being not at all dysfunctional, and ten being very dysfunctional)?

 

If you rated your last three meetings anywhere above 5 out of 10, you experienced toxic meetings. You know the ones: someone dominates the conversation, decisions get made without input from half the team, people check out mentally after the first ten minutes, or worse, the meeting ends with everyone feeling frustrated and nothing resolved.

 

Most people blame toxic meetings on logistics: too long, too many people, no clear agenda. But here’s what I’ve learned from helping teams transform their meeting culture: the real problem isn’t structural. Most meetings become a stage for unresolved power dynamics and unaddressed conflicts to play out.

 

When team members don’t feel safe, heard, or valued in a meeting, they either shut down or act out. Either response kills productivity and damages relationships. But once you understand what’s happening, you can turn even the most toxic meeting culture around.

 

What Makes Meetings Toxic

 

Here’s what I see most often:

 

The Power Grab – One person dominates the discussion and shuts down other perspectives. They interrupt, dismiss ideas without consideration, or make decisions unilaterally while pretending to seek input.

 

The Silent Treatment – Key team members check out completely. They stop contributing ideas, give minimal responses when asked direct questions, and you can see them mentally planning their grocery list during discussions.

 

The Blame Game – Instead of problem-solving, the meeting becomes about who’s at fault. People get defensive, point fingers, and spend more time protecting themselves than finding solutions.

 

The Hidden Agenda – Important decisions get made in side conversations before or after the meeting, leaving some team members feeling like they’re just there for show. The real meeting happens outside the meeting.

 

All of these patterns have one thing in common: they signal that people don’t feel psychologically safe in the room.

 

Why Good People Become Meeting Villains

 

Here’s something that might surprise you: most people who create toxic meeting dynamics aren’t trying to be difficult. They’re responding to feeling threatened, unheard, or undervalued.

What is happening to the person who dominates the conversation? They might be worried that their expertise isn’t recognized or that someone will blame them if things go wrong. So they overassert to maintain their position.

 

What is happening to the person who goes silent? They’ve likely been dismissed or interrupted enough times that they’ve given up trying to contribute. It’s a protective response.

What about the blame-focused person? They’re usually feeling overwhelmed or attacked and are trying to deflect responsibility to keep themselves safe.

 

Failing to recognize that good people can become villains is why typical meeting fixes don’t work. You can create the best agenda in the world, but if people don’t feel safe and valued, they’ll still default to these survival behaviours.

 

Go beyond the Surface

 

Over the years, I’ve developed an approach that addresses the root causes of meeting toxicity. It’s not about perfect facilitation techniques – it’s about creating conditions where people can do their best thinking together. It includes: (1) establishing psychological safety; (2) setting conditions for participation; and (3) addressing toxic behaviours in real time.

 

1) Establish Psychological Safety

Before you bring people together, spend some time creating conditions where people feel safe to contribute. Get to know the people you have around you, their strengths, their goals, their apprehensions, their concerns.

 

Start with one-on-one meetings to acknowledge what you’re asking of people: “We’re here to solve a complex problem. That means we need to create space for different perspectives, even when they challenge our assumptions.”

 

Set clear expectations: “I want to hear from you. Without your perspective, we’re missing important information.” Address the elephant in the room when needed: “I know we’ve had some heated discussions about this project. Today, let’s focus on growing the pool of knowledge rather than rehashing what others did or said. How can we work together to make this happen?”

 

2) Set Conditions for Participation

Most meetings favour certain personality types and communication styles. Extroverts who think out loud get more airtime than people who need to process before speaking. People who are comfortable with confrontation shut down those who prefer a nonconfrontational discussion.

 

Here are tips to level the playing field:

 

Round-robins for input: “Before we discuss, I want to hear one concern and one opportunity from each person.” Doing this ensures everyone contributes before the loudest voices take over.

 

Written comments: For complex topics, have people write their thoughts for two minutes before talking. Taking time for this helps processors contribute and prevents the first speaker from anchoring everyone else’s thinking.

 

Assign devil’s advocate roles: “Pat, I want you to poke holes in this idea. Jo, you argue why it could work.” Setting up this role legitimizes different perspectives and prevents disagreement from feeling personal.

 

Time boxes for responses: “I want to hear what you think we missed so far. Two minutes each.” Time constraints prevent any one person from monopolizing the conversation.

 

3) Address Toxic Behaviours in Real Time

 

When someone falls back into toxic patterns, address it immediately – but do it in a way that preserves their dignity while protecting the group dynamic.

 

For dominators: “Hold on, Pat. Before you continue, I want to make sure we’ve heard from the people closest to this issue.”

 

For the silent treatment: “Alex, I know you have strong opinions about this. What are we missing?”

 

For blame-focused responses: “I hear that you’re frustrated about what happened before. Right now, let’s focus on what we can control going forward.”

 

For side conversations: “It looks like there’s a conversation happening that the whole group should hear. Can you share what you’re discussing?”

 

The key is staying calm and curious rather than punitive. You’re redirecting behaviour, not shaming people.

 

When to Get Help

 

Often, meeting toxicity is a symptom of deeper team dysfunction. If you’ve tried these approaches and the toxic patterns persist, or if people’s behaviour outside of meetings is also problematic, you likely need more intensive team coaching or conflict resolution support.

 

Your Next Steps

Pick one toxic pattern you see most often in your meetings and try one of these interventions next week. Don’t try to fix everything at once. Choose the change that will have the most significant impact on psychological safety.

 

Remember: people don’t resist good meetings. They resist meetings where they feel unsafe, unheard, or unvalued. When you address those underlying issues, the logistics often take care of themselves.

 

If you’re dealing with persistent meeting dysfunction and need help diagnosing the underlying issues or developing a specific intervention strategy, book a discovery call or email me. Sometimes you need an outside perspective to see the patterns.

 

J Jones-Patulli, MA, HSDP