Chapter Chatter Part 2: Intention, Prevention, and Intervention
Christine Faltz Grassman,
President, Potomac Chapter
10% of conflicts is due to difference in opinion and 90% is due to wrong tone of voice.
— Susan Wiertzema
I think it is safe to say that when individuals or groups gather with positive purpose and common interests, there is a collective intention to collaborate and recognize the interdependence that is necessary for efforts to bear fruit. As people who are blind, we have more than a passing acquaintance with how even the best intentions can lead to unhappy results.
Previously, I discussed the importance and necessity of speaking up. Now I want to address handling situations where speaking up in particular ways and at particular times may not be ideal, and some respectful techniques for de-escalating what could become an awkward and/or upsetting incident.
Virtual and hybrid meetings have become the norm for many of us over the past couple of years, and they offer undeniable advantages. Their disadvantages, however, introduce a level of significant complexity when it becomes necessary to tam down conflict.
There is often good-natured joking about the power of the “Mute All” and “Remove” options on conferencing platforms. All jesting aside, however, we have likely all witnessed the benefit of these tools. Genuinely destructive and hurtful attacks have occurred on meeting platforms, and the “Mute” and “Remove” options act as virtual security guards and bouncers. However, it is not the unsavory and unscrupulous alone who can derail a discussion, demoralize a meeting, or start something that could yield repercussions for weeks, months, or longer.
We all have bad days and we all make mistakes. A sincere apology after a significant outburst goes a long way toward righting an ill-timed statement. Perhaps it might take some time to recognize that an apology is needed until after some reflection or after someone has diplomatically pointed out the issue, perceived or otherwise. Waiting too long, however, or tossing out an apology simply because one is hounded to do so will likely be considered insincere, and a delay gives time for the incident to imbed itself into memories, the grapevine, and potential exaggeration or attachment to other incidents people are suddenly recalling, particularly by those who were most hurt or offended.
What should you do if a discussion at a meeting takes a turn that is not conducive to a productive and welcoming environment? The individual running the meeting can set guidelines, and should follow through with those guidelines. Do not show favoritism by allowing more latitude to board members, the newbie, your best friend, your spouse, or or the most senior member. Everyone must behave respectfully and everyone should receive respect. This does not mean that the more wordy among the crowd cannot be asked to move on, wait their turn, or give someone else a chance to speak. Chapter meetings are not places for monologues, and the person who is constantly dominating the discussion, being contrary, or putting down someone may require a time limit and perhaps a private discussion about etiquette in the meeting.
Never return rudeness with rudeness, or name-calling with name-calling. If someone uses words like “ridiculous,” or “idiotic” do not get upset if those adjectives were used for a proposed idea or activity. Sure, it could have been worded differently, but try to avoid feeling and acting as if the adjectives were used to insult the person proposing the item in question.
There might come a time when things become heated between two or more individuals. It might be helpful to designate someone to quietly go over to (or if virtual, text or email), the individuals in question while the meeting moves on. To the greatest extent possible, efforts should focus on keeping the meeting on track, with the least disruption. Even if someone needs to step outside with a person or two, the meeting should proceed, and anyone not directly involved should act as if nothing of note is occurring.
After such incidents, it is difficult for people to refrain from passionate discussion, finger-pointing, or rehashing past incidents involving the same person or persons. Please try to avoid doing this. Unless there is a persistent pattern of disruption from a particular individual or group, dwelling on something unpleasant gives it more power and significance, and what should remain at the center are the goals of the chapter as defined by its agenda and subsequent decision-making.
It might be necessary to talk with one or more people several times between meetings if a personality conflict or repeated flouting of meeting discussion guidelines occurs.
What guidelines might be put into place? Generally, the standard fare will do: no interrupting unless someone is dominating the conversation and meeting time. (Perhaps there should be a set time limit if others are continually unable to get a word in, and that time limit must apply to everyone if a question is being asked or a comment is being made. Obviously, speakers, activities, and necessary discussion of chapter business would not have such limites applied.)
Be especially cognizant of the fact that the leaders and most active members set the tone. If harassment, belittling, or gossip is tolerated (or worse, encouraged), de-escalation tactics will not be effective. If all do not walk the walk, talking the talk will be considered window dressing, lip service, and rank hypocrisy.
It is absolutely fine to stop pejorative or derogatory statements or disruptive behavior in its tracks without attempting to address it quietly. All attendees should witness that bullying, ridiculing, or other words or behavior that are meant to marginalize, put down, or threaten are categorically forbidden. Chapter and division meetings, activities, and events should be welcoming, comfortable environments that all look forward to attending. At no time should anyone ever feel it emotionally necessary to avoid one, or ever leave one feeling badly, unheard, or ignored.
Leaders should be receptive to constructive criticism and consider solutions to any friction. Work hard to be approachable by anyone who attends meetings who might feel that the chapter or division is not as warm and inviting as you might wish it to be or perceive it to be. We can all improve, individually and as a group.
In an upcoming article, I will discuss mediating conflict. If anyone wants to provide an example of a local conflict (no names, please), write to me at
and I will use it as an example. Obviously, all strategies and techniques must be tailored to your group’s dynamics, whether you are dealing with an isolated incident or a pattern, and other variables, but the guidelines provided should give an effective foundation for conflict resolution.