Working with Difficult Behaviors

By Rachel Freed

A group of fifteen people has gathered in a conference room. It’s an early meeting of their newly formed task force, and they’re sitting quietly as a facilitator presents a proposal of how the process might go. Almost immediately, from the back corner of the room, a member of the group interrupts to say, “I don’t think this is how we should go about things. That approach is never going to work.” Thus begins a pattern of disruptive behavior that will continue for meetings on end.

Disruptive people (well, disruptive behaviors) are, of course, difficult. But the truth is that they might not represent a problem for a group. In some cases, a difficult person might even be crucial for finding the best solution. And what’s disruptive or difficult in some eyes may seem truth-telling and passionate to others. The role of difficult people in processes is complex, in other words, and sometimes the challenges they raise can serve a group’s work.

Disruptive behavior can help advocate for a perspective that would otherwise not be heard.

Others might complain about disruptions and a lack of etiquette, but underneath the inartful delivery, in many cases the person is making substantive points, which can be incorporated meaningfully into the group’s decision-making. And if a group member disagrees with the challenging comment, it can be an opportunity for a group discussion about the substance that person is raising.  

The disruptive comment might focus on an issue or perspective that no one else has considered, such as the interests of a group of quiet stakeholders, the needs of a neglected population, a regulatory or policy issue that they have expertise with, or some other angle into the problem at hand. Often, however, groups react primarily to the person's behavior, overlooking the substance, and they may need help seeing past the disruption itself. 

In other cases, a group might be activated by a challenging person, emboldened to speak up and respond to or manage disruptions. 

In this way, disruptions can—often inadvertently—energize discussion and move things forward. Some might be prompted to take on the important role of facilitative leadership. Or let’s say others in the group represented quiet stakeholders, or a typically ignored angle into some regulatory or policy issue. Without a prompting event (such as a disruption from another participant, in this case), these perspectives might not have surfaced. But some who otherwise stay quiet can feel compelled to speak up in response to disruption. 

Disruptive behavior can also prompt a group’s facilitator to respond in a way that helps the group.

A facilitator can—by coaching on the side—help a person to communicate in a more constructive way without alienating others; the facilitator can also use this as a prompt for checking in with other group members, or for reminding everyone of the ground rules. This might be an opportunity for calling out behavior that is abusive or harmful, which can reinforce clear boundaries and norms and show others the facilitator is watching out for everyone.

The facilitator can also actively reframe and translate what’s been communicated in a disruptive way, especially if there’s valuable substance beneath the disruption ("John, I think what I'm hearing you say is that you are concerned about potential PFAS contamination on the site? Is that correct?"). The facilitator might also validate the difficult person's concerns or fears. This can include inviting group members to respond in the moment ("Does what John is saying resonate with you? Marta, you look like you might want to say something?")

There are innumerable considerations for a facilitator to consider when trying to decide how to intervene. First, before intervening, the facilitator needs to understand whether the disruptive behavior is unintentional or is a deliberate effort to undermine a process (the second option typically calls for the facilitator to respond more directly). If the speaker’s goal is well-meaning, a heavy-handed response by the facilitator might make the situation worse: the facilitator could inadvertently seem like the courtesy police, and accidentally shut down a legitimate concern. But if the disruption is part of a larger pattern of uncourteous or entitled behavior, a facilitator might earn the trust of many in the group by stopping the disruptions. With that trust established, the group might work together better than if there had been no disruptions.

Whenever multiple perspectives are brought together, things can get uncomfortable. People might disagree, and not always politely. People have different levels of skill managing themselves in situations of conflict, and different levels of comfort when difficult behaviors arise. It can be tempting to avoid conflict, to turn away from difficult people. But doing so can mean turning away from challenging, important subjects, or from the possibility of a more energized group, and it’s important to recognize when a disruption can contribute meaningfully to the larger process.