update: my coworker keeps hijacking team meetings

Remember the letter-writer whose coworker kept disrupting her meetings? Here’s the update.

I took a few different approaches to reigning in the boorish and disruptive behavior that was plaguing our team meetings. At our next meeting I took your advice and (in a very upbeat way, I think) reviewed meeting expectations for everyone. These meetings were new to all of us, so I took a pause to get some feedback on how people felt they were going and reframe the goals of having every team member present (mainly we want to get get a chance to hear from everyone and not just the managers). Presentations went on without incident, for at least that day.

I made it a habit of framing every portion of the meeting. For example, “Now we are going to do the Hokey Pokey. We’ll go around the room one at a time and everyone has 15 seconds to put their right foot in, starting with Fergus.” Even though this is something we do every week, I found it helpful to set those expectations each time. It seems to keep everyone focused and it only takes a moment! As the weeks went on I did have to interrupt our Squeaky Wheel a few times when he was talking out of turn or taking up more Hokey Pokey time than allotted to him. I was always very matter-of-fact about it “sorry Squeaky Wheel, I have to stop you there, thank you for sharing but we are running behind schedule and I want to make sure we get everything covered.” Every time it happened he would bristle a little and look around the room as if to say “is she serious!?” but he did quiet down, even though he did not seem to be taking the hint.

Everything was going pretty smoothly until a brainstorming meeting where everyone was tossing out ideas for a new project. Squeaky Wheel clearly had no idea what was going on. He was late and unprepared (again) and basically stopped the meeting to ask me to re-explain everything that we were doing. I told him that we were brainstorming ideas for Project X and that we could catch up after the meeting to go into more details because we had already started and I wanted to be sensitive of everyone’s time. He started grumbling a bit and another team member piped up and said “maybe if you were ever on time to a meeting you would know what was going on for once!” It was awkward (even though he was saying what everyone was thinking!). I felt a bit like a middle school teacher trying to get everyone back on track. Unfortunately after that incident I think Squeaky Wheel may have felt that he was being picked on because he rarely comes to meetings anymore. The meetings are “mandatory” but we are pretty lenient about enforcing that because 1) we haven’t had any issues with absenteeism and 2) a lot of our people spend time in other offices and we don’t always expect people to plan their travel around a weekly meeting, so it is normal to miss a few here and there. He comes to the meetings about once a month. He is always late but at least he enters the room quietly and doesn’t interrupt people anymore.

I don’t really feel that the issue was resolved because I don’t think that Squeaky Wheel understands that he was behaving inappropriately. I really think that a one on one conversation would be the only way to get that point across but that ship has sailed for the time being (until his behavior rears its ugly head again!). Your advice did help me more confidently lead the meetings and keep everything on-track and moving along – which I am very thankful for!

{ 71 comments… read them below or add one }

  1. AdAgencyChick

    Actually, I think this is pretty good resolution, OP! With a self-absorbed person, it’s often too much to hope for that they will realize what they’re doing wrong and change for the better — so if they just quit bothering you without having a change in mindset, that’s the best you can hope for.

    I think your team members appreciate what you did — clearly you weren’t the only one who felt he was being a boor, if someone else just busted that out in front of everyone.

    Reply
    1. fposte

      Yup. It’s a workplace, so personal awareness isn’t the goal–effective work is. Meetings have become more useful, so that’s a good resolution.

      Reply
      1. NW Mossy

        I’ll bet that the person who made the comment about his chronic lateness got some surreptitious high-fives from those grateful not to rework the same topics.

        Reply
      2. Annonymouse

        OP I think you have achieved the right outcome – you just aren’t focusing on the right goal.

        Your goal shouldn’t be “Squeaky realised his behaviour isn’t correct, had an epiphany and is now a better person with higher levels of respect and professionalism”

        Your goal is to run an effective work meeting where everyone gets a chance to contribute, be heard and reach the outcome they need. And you are succeeding.

        I don’t mean to be harsh – I want to come from a place of kindness. You aren’t squeaky, his mentor, boss or life coach. The responsibility of getting squeaky there isn’t yours and you have nothing to feel guilty or bad about.

        Reply
    2. Observer

      I’m with the others. It’s a workable resolution. If the issue of his attendance is a problem, that’s for his manager to deal with. But, you got what you need – meetings that run smoothly without his boorishness and, I suspect, the respect of your colleagues.

      Reply
      1. Not So NewReader

        It needed to be said. While I don’t condone random shout outs, sometimes a one liner like this is absolutely necessary. I see no need for worry about this one moment of “awkwardness” when Squeaky has caused dozens if not over a hundred such moments. OP, it’s not your awkwardness to wear, it’s Squeaky’s problem.

        I am curious though, how many meetings can he miss before his work is impacted by lack of attendance?

        Reply
    3. Emac

      Yeah, this has been one of the hardest things for me to learn. There’s never any guarantee that you’ll change a person’s mind or opinion, all you can hope to do is manage their behavior.

      Reply
  2. Lady Phoenix

    If you want Squeaky to participate more, I would give him a one-on-one meeting to discuss his problems with meetings so that they can be fixed.

    Otherwise, this is probably a blessing. Dude would distract and interrupt everyone at the turn of the hat, and not having him do that anymore seems to be raising morale.

    Reply
    1. Amber T

      I know the Hokey Pokey was used as an example for a non-incriminating agenda item, but I’m picturing my very serious partners in their very serious meetings starting off with 15 seconds of the Hokey Pokey and it’s wonderful.

      Reply
      1. Liane

        I can think of a lot of Latest Management/Morale Fads that are far more ridiculous and don’t do nearly as much for morale or efficiency as in-meeting Hokey Pokey would.

        Reply
      2. Jen S. 2.0

        This reminds me of how, a few years back, some college football team upset a highly ranked major rival on the road (or something like that), and they did the Hokey Pokey in the locker room to celebrate. I loved the visual of big, strapping, too-cool, 20-year old college boys in dirty football uniforms all gleefully putting their right foot in and shaking it all about.

        Reply
        1. SaraV

          So sports nut me had to look this up. This was something the University of Iowa would do after big wins under Coach Hayden Fry, who coached from 1979 – ’98. A few years ago, a group of U of Iowa fans broke the world record of number of people doing the Hokey Pokey at around 7,000+.

          Of course, I found video.

          https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WEiNIT18Wsw

          Reply
        2. Jen S. 2.0

          Ha, I went to Michigan, which would explain why I remembered this!

          That video is exactly as I envisioned it! So awesome and hilarious that I can’t even be (very) mad that it’s of them celebrating after beating my own team.

          Reply
  3. animaniactoo

    fwiw, this is actually the time to have the one-on-one conversation. While things are relatively calm. If you wait until ugly behavior rears it’s ugly head again, you’ll have waited too long and you’ll likely be dealing with a nuclear size explosion instead of a wet thud.

    You’ve got a great opening here in the fact that he hasn’t been coming to the meetings as much as he should be, so reaching out to check in with him would be a natural segue for that kind of discussion. “Fergus, I notice you’ve missed a number of these meetings, is there a reason for that?” If he doesn’t bring it up, you can at that point “I was concerned because it seemed that you were frustrated with the way the meetings are working and I wanted to talk to you about expectations around that, and why they need to operate the way they do.” and then you can talk about the idea that people all have jobs and work and responsibilities and ideas they want to talk about and important points to make and how it’s necessary to be respectful of all of that by not taking up too much time ourselves, leaving it available for them to use, etc.

    Reply
    1. NW Mossy

      If the OP managed Squeaky, a conversation like that makes sense. In this peer-to-peer situation, though, I think the OP’s strategy of calm and unwavering adherence to the desired norms (starting on time, sticking to the agenda, etc.) is spot-on. It doesn’t sound like Squeaky’s absences are holding the group back from completing the meeting objectives, so it seems reasonable to me to let it lie.

      Reply
    2. Trout 'Waver

      I would be hesitant to bring this up with a peer. It’s unlikely that, given so many hints, Squeeky would react positively. Far more likely, at least in my experience, is that Squeeky gets defensive and has a much worse attitude towards the OP. And that could be costly.

      The end goal isn’t Squeeky’s professional or personal development. The end goal is well-run meetings that further the business’s core functions. And that appears to have been achieved.

      Reply
      1. EddieSherbert

        I agree here – she’s not his manager (not in charge of) and the meetings (is in charge of) are going well. I think I’d leave it as is (unless something else comes up with Squeaky, of course!).

        Reply
      2. Princess Consuela Banana Hammock

        Totally agree on this. I had a peer who was totally out of control in meetings, and when I would reinforce norms he became one of the most hateful people I’ve ever met. We had a one-on-one, at his request, in which he said so many sexist and disparaging things that he permanently burned a bridge (although according to him, I’m the tyrant in the story). It didn’t stop me from facilitating the meeting fairly and reemphasizing our expectations/norms at every meeting, but I’m not convinced the one-on-one was a good thing.

        Reply
        1. Not So NewReader

          Some people need to hear the message from a boss not a peer. I do agree that this guy would probably give our OP a hard time in a one-on-one, based on his behavior so far. This could be an Alison-like conversation where the boss says, “Squeaky, you need to do X, Y and Z. Will you commit to do these things?”

          Reply
      3. AdAgencyChick

        Agree, I wouldn’t bother unless his absence negatively affects the work product. I bet it doesn’t, because he is a blowhard who didn’t say anything worthwhile when he did come to meetings.

        Reply
    3. Joseph

      +1
      In fact, OP’s own words reveal a completely legitimate reason to have a one-on-one conversation:
      “The meetings are “mandatory” but we are pretty lenient about enforcing that because […] a lot of our people spend time in other offices and we don’t always expect people to plan their travel around a weekly meeting, so it is normal to miss a few here and there.”
      “He comes to the meetings about once a month.”

      These are not the same thing. Missing every now and then for a legitimate business purpose is *completely different* from showing up once a month and routinely showing up late. There’s clearly an ongoing issue here that needs to be addressed – and in the course of addressing his lacking attendance and punctuality, you can explain why meetings are now handled a bit differently than he’s used to.

      Reply
      1. Joseph

        Or, if you can’t do it yourself because of the peer relationship or group dynamics, it is worth at least bringing up to your (shared?) manager, presuming you have a good relationship.

        Reply
        1. orchidsandtea

          Although, question…if he’s not getting anything out of the meetings, and he’s not contributing anything meaningful to the meetings, and nothing is getting dropped now that he’s missing the meetings, is there a good reason for these to be mandatory? Maybe Squeakers’ presence isn’t necessary after all.

          Reply
          1. Zombii

            Agreed. Is he slacking on his regular work tasks and therefore doesn’t have anything to contribute? Or is his role so different from the others that he legitimately doesn’t need to be at meetings?

            (Are these meetings a way to make people feel more connected to other workers/departments but the same communication could happen over email/IM/etc and the meetings aren’t really necessary?)

            Reply
        2. animaniactoo

          I agree that keying in his manager is more likely to be the route to take here. I was going more off OP’s thought process of “waiting until” to address it themself, which is usually a setup for failure.

          Reply
          1. Artemesia

            I’d be inclined to talk to the manager if only to make sure she gets there first and frames the situation rather than having the manager say something and get the frame that the OP is unfair and won’t let anyone speak yadda yadda.

            ‘I wanted to give you a heads up about Squeaky’s performance on the team. He has a long history of being late to meetings, demanding a replay that sucks up time, and then hogging the mike so others don’t get to contribute. I have been running a tighter ship making sure the meetings are agenda focused and that everyone participates and as a result Squeaky seems to feel aggrieved and is now not showing up more than once a month and late when he does attend. This solves the problem of him interrupting and hijacking meetings but of course we would like his input. I don’t know if you want to insist he attend regularly, but I wanted you to know where we are on this.’

            Reply
  4. Teclatrans

    I was coming here to say something similar. OP, this is a fabulous outcome. I understand wanting to win him over to a new view of the process, but I am not sure that was a realistic goal, at least as his peer. What you did accomplish was famous, up to and including the team member who felt empowered to call him on being late all the time. (If there is one thing I would wish you had handled differently, it’s the embarrassment and dismay at this call-out). That empowerment was a demonstration that you had indeed made it clear that timeliness was a trait of this grouping.

    I would even say the absence of the blowhard is a success — he pushed back against the boundaries, found no weaknesses, and chose to remove himself when he couldn’t get the group to bend. The meeting group is all the better for it.

    Reply
    1. JuniperGreen

      Whenever I’ve been in a meeting that someone is derailing, I feel nothing but respect (and sometimes googly heart eyes) for the person who sets us back on track to the agenda with a firm: “Out of respect for everyone’s time…”

      Reply
  5. Aunt Margie at Work

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHEk564KTUs
    Where professional instruction ends, blunt speak takes over.
    You were never going to change Squeaky. He wasn’t the one writing with a question. He thinks he’s fine. All you were going to do was change the meeting procedures to make a pleasant, functioning system for everyone. You did that. They are grateful, which is why the person blurted about him being late. He is supporting the new structure. And they respect you, which is why, after speaking up, they did listen to you and get back on track. Well done.

    Reply
    1. Not So NewReader

      Agreed. Your group is supporting your stance, OP. Peer pressure is a wonderful device. Sometimes peer pressure can have inroads that leaders don’t have. It’s not much different than letting a group tell each other “shhh” because you are speaking. There are times we just should just let peer pressure do its thing.

      Honestly, what was said was pretty tame, given the situation. I am impressed that is all that was said.

      Reply
  6. Amber T

    Oh man… I agree that the teammate shouldn’t have called him out like that in the meeting, but I’m 100% sure everyone else in that meeting internally cheered. Heck, I cheered!

    Reply
    1. Zombii

      Disagree. I hate this idea that a blunt statement in reaction to a longstanding pattern isn’t professional. What’s not professional is whoever is in charge of this whole mess (read: Squeaky Wheel) not addressing any of his unprofessional workplace behaviors for so long that one of his coworkers got so frustrated, they called him out in a meeting.

      Yes, there are better ways for this to have been handled. Specifically, management needs to manage.

      Reply
  7. AthenaC

    Overall – sounds like mission accomplished! You’ve successfully managed Squeaky Wheel’s impact on productive meetings.

    Your last paragragh, though – I appreciate your concern for him, but that’s not really your responsibility. Unless somehow your meetings / group productivity is impaired by Squeaky Wheel not regularly contributing the way he should be (which is what I assume is the purpose of these meetings, correct?) If the group is suffering because you’re missing his contributions, then sure – follow up with him, and involve his manager, if necessary. If not – then I would say just let it be.

    That being said, I’m having a hard time picturing a scenario in which meetings are mandatory and productive but no one is impacted by someone failing to prepare and participate (the one exception I can think of would be the brainstorming session).

    Reply
    1. NW Mossy

      I see examples of these types of meetings at my org, where different leaders in the business present about what’s going on with a project/initiative of theirs. I find them very useful because I learn things I otherwise wouldn’t and can spot where those projects will affect my team, but I know other attendees grumble about them being boring or pointless. I suppose they fall under the heading of “you get out of them what you put into them” meetings.

      Reply
      1. Marillenbaum

        That’s such an important thing to remember, and something I try to bring to my coursework. I was in a study group this semester with two students who didn’t like our course, our professor, basically anything we were doing, but I tried to keep choosing to be engaged in the class, and I feel like I gained a lot more from it than they did.

        Reply
    2. Not So NewReader

      Does Squeaky actually do any work? Or is it late and/or error loaded? Not OP’s problem but it seems that Squeaky’s boss should be aware of what went on here so that Boss can factor that in with whatever else he sees.

      Reply
      1. AthenaC

        That’s pretty much what I’m wondering. I would hope that Squeaky’s manager would work that problem if it exists, but I’m thinking it’s possible that OP and everyone else are just so used to working around Squeaky that they may not be aware of how much it would improve their lives to work with someone more cooperative.

        But it could be I’m just thinking about my job – I’m sure the OP knows their situation better.

        Reply
  8. Collarbone High

    OP, whether or not they’ve said anything to you, I imagine everyone else in these meetings is so, SO grateful to you for getting them back on track (and for framing the meetings in a way that prevents not only Squeaky but everyone else from getting sidetracked). Anytime I’ve been in a hijacked meeting or presentation, I’ve felt overwhelming appreciation for the person who puts a stop to it.

    Reply
    1. SansaStark

      I was coming down here to say the same thing. This happened all the time at my old org and it was one of the reasons NOTHING ever got accomplished whenever Squeaky Wheel participated. It was just his 60-minute soliloquy, which was paaaainful for the rest of us. Good for you for keeping everyone on task!

      Reply
    2. Marillenbaum

      So true! My old job had a yearly retreat where we went over processes and goals and such, and it would easily go all over creation. My first year, one of my more senior colleagues (but not a more senior person in the room) would keep things on track by asking “So how does X tie in with [goal we were meant to be discussing]?” He had a knack for making it sound like a genuine question, not a ploy to cut off the derail, but it worked, and we actually got done early. I loved him so much for that.

      Reply
      1. SansaStark

        Good for your boss and that’s a great idea for the future…although the trick is saying it as a genuine question!

        Reply
  9. James

    I disagree that this is a good outcome.

    For one thing, Squeeky Wheel is openly defying you. If the meetings are mandatory, he’s refusing to do his job. “I don’t want to come to meetings” is in no way similar to “My job requires me to be absent during the time of the meeting” and should not be treated as such. Allowing him to skip meetings just because he feels like it will cause others–including those new to the team down the road–to believe that the meetings are optional. This can seep into other areas of your management.

    Secondly, Squeeky Wheel still has attitude and work-approach issues. This is obvious by his refusal to attend mandatory meetings. This is very much ugly behavior, and absolutely cause for a one-on-one conversation with him. If you don’t feel comfortable doing one-on-ones with just him, perhaps you could do monthly one-on-ones with all your staff–make it a policy thing, not a punishment thing. If you really want to make an exception for him regarding the meetings one-on-ones with the rest of your staff are a great way to convey that message without calling him out (if handled properly; it could also devolve into middleschool drama, though, so be careful).

    If you really believe that the meetings are better without Squeeky Wheel, I’d also recommend you take some time to seriously consider who needs to be at these meetings. I’m not saying you’re doing anything wrong, but it’s an indication that the meetings aren’t being run as well or as efficiently as they could be, and it’s always worth looking at ourselves to see if we’re part of the problem. The website Manager Tools has some great advice on that topic, in the form of one-hour podcasts.

    Reply
    1. PK

      That would make more sense if she was actually his manager but she’s not. He’s a peer. Therefore, she most certainly doesn’t have the pull to force either issue. That would be up to his manager.

      Reply
      1. James

        Yeah, I saw that after I posted–thanks for catching it!

        I still think the Letter Writer should look at how they are running the meeting–it’s good policy to re-evaluate how you do something when something goes wrong–and should set up a meeting with their manager to discuss these meetings and the extent of their authority in regards to these meetings. It wouldn’t be bad as a mentorship opportunity, and it would firmly establish what their authority is (because working with peers can make that a very tricky question). And I still think that Squeaky Wheel is undermining the writer’s and the manager’s authority in a pretty flagrant manner.

        Reply
        1. Zombii

          I was confused about that too, since the LW said she thought a one on one would be necessary to get her point across—I assumed that meant the LW was talking about having a one on one with Squeaky, which implies a management relationship. Now I’m kind of wondering about how much authority the company has give the LW within these meetings (and maybe also how much authority the LW thinks she has?).

          I agree that it sounds like these shouldn’t be mandatory meetings, or at least not mandatory for everyone who’s currently required to be there.

          Reply
    2. Sue Wilson

      Well, OP is not his manager, and I doubt she is setting the “mandatory” rule. This should be something the manager notices and fixes. So within OP’s authority, this is a good outcome.

      Reply
    3. LQ

      This all sounds like good words of wisdom for a supervisor, but as a peer it would come off as very strange to try to do all of this in my experience. If I suddenly started setting up routine 1 on 1s with my coworkers, even though I am sort of a defacto team lead they would not be happy. It is important to remember who is writing in and what position they hold.

      Reply
    4. Whats In A Name

      I agree with your overarching point that this is a bigger issue than just the meetings. However, I don’t think a one-on-one between OP & Squeaky Wheel addressing any larger issues is appropriate at all. She is not his manager and should not be addressing work-related issues unless his manager is involved.

      Introspection can be valuable…but in this case we have 24 people abiding by the set expectations/guidelines and 1 Squeaky Wheel. I think it’s safe to say OP doesn’t need to change how they are running this particular meeting.

      Reply
      1. James

        Well, part of my reason for including that was that our culture has an aversion to calling people out. If you include introspection and re-evaluation of how you run your meetings, you an avoid singling out any one person. It’s ploy to keep Squeaky Wheel from shutting down and being completely unreceptive to the discussion–absolutely critical if they’re peers.

        Plus, sometimes 24 people are wrong. It’s not often, but sometimes the rude person has a point. And I’d argue that this is such a case–this person could be removed from the meetings without any negative consequences, which makes me wonder who else is extraneous. It’s not proof, but sufficient evidence that I’d at least take five minutes after the next meeting to consider the question.

        Reply
        1. Not So NewReader

          OTH, it could be that Squeaky doesn’t carry his weight anyway so if he is not at the meeting his absence has zero impact on the project(s) anyway.

          But I do think that the point hold, OP should let Squeaky’s boss know what has happened here including the call out. (Because that indicates that others are disgusted also.)

          Reply
  10. ArtK

    I hope that you have an opportunity to provide feedback to Squeaky Wheel’s manager. This is a pretty serious discipline problem that you (a peer) shouldn’t have to deal with beyond what you’ve done. Showing up unprepared to meetings and hijacking them, and then boycotting in a childish snit are the markers of a bad employee.

    You’ve done what you can; it sounds like you’ve instituted some good meeting practices that will benefit everyone. The rest of his behavior is something that his manager needs to deal with, but won’t unless they know about it.

    Reply
  11. Sue Wilson

    OP, is Squeaky Wheel another department head? Because I get the feeling that he was behaving this way because he’s “in charge” and since I guessing another department head called him out, he’s feeling wounded because he got called out in front of his subordinates.

    Honestly, if he is a department head, and the only manager you all have is probably the owner or CEO, I don’t think his behavior is something you can go up about, since he’s probably got so much more control over his schedule and can “miss” to his discretion. I think you got the best outcome you could ask for, which means he’s well-behaved when he’s there.

    Reply
    1. Letter Writer

      Hi Sue,
      He is a department head, so while I wouldn’t say the meetings are optional for him – he definitely has different demands on his time which make it reasonable for him to miss meetings occasionally. Frankly I am happy that he shows up less frequently! My initial concern was that others would see his absenteeism and begin to think that they could skip meetings too – but that really hasn’t happened so I guess it really did work out for the best.

      Reply
  12. Jessesgirl72

    I agree that if Squeaky’s absence is causing problems, then address it with his manager. But since the OP says it’s not just team leaders in the meetings- it’s everyone- I imagine his department is well represented with the people doing the work, who probably show up prepared and on time. Everything about his behavior (especially the standing) wan an intimidation/control thing. He learned he’s not going to be able to control the OP’s meetings, so he took his toys and went home. The OP isn’t there to make Squeaky a better person or employee- her job is to run effective meetings. I say, mission accomplished.

    Reply
    1. James

      That actually makes it worse. As department head he represents his department, both internally and externally. If his department sees him acting this way without any consequence, that sets a very bad tone for his department that his workers will eventually follow. You may get some good folks how resist the temptation, but the worse ones (there are always a few) will see this as license to act poorly themselves. And the other departments will view his behavior as reflecting on the department, particularly if interactions between departments are limited.

      Authority isn’t an excuse to behave badly, and having others from the department present doesn’t remove Squeaky Wheel’s responsibility. Viewing a meet running smoothly at the costs this could entail as mission accomplished is very short-sighted. It won’t get you fired, or in trouble, but it also won’t move you forward in the company and (for the reasons I stated above) could actually hurt the company. Yeah, not the LW’s responsibility, it’s their manager’s–but I’ve little respect for someone who sees a major problem and doesn’t even speak up about it.

      Reply
  13. Jane Gloriana Villanueva

    I love the analogy, OP, and I am very glad your meetings are progressing more smoothly and accomplishing what you need them to. I have to wonder, though, how the actual work progresses… if Squeaky is now less and less involved in meetings, does he participate in moving things forward in his regular work, as a result? Is he informed of the decisions and does he abide by them?

    It sounds like this is just setting up a future issue where, even if he is put on a PIP from here on out, people can verify he attended and tried often to contribute, and when he was repeatedly shot down, he gave up. This might not be OP’s issue if s/he is not Squeaky’s manager, and I don’t think the progress of the many needs to be sacrificed for the morale of one, but better behavior doesn’t mean a better worker. I wish for all your sakes that Squeaky was more self-aware. He’s missed many opportunities to… turn himself around. (I couldn’t help myself.)

    Reply
    1. Observer

      It sounds like this is just setting up a future issue where, even if he is put on a PIP from here on out, people can verify he attended and tried often to contribute, and when he was repeatedly shot down, he gave up.

      Everyone at the meeting can verify that he was NOT trying to contribute and being shot down. They can also verify that he was rude, inattentive and wasted people’s time with irrelevant and inappropriate announcements and comments.

      Reply
      1. Not So NewReader

        Right on. It sounds like everyone will verify that Squeaky shot THEM down, filibustered the process, made marginal contributions if any, etc.

        Reply

Leave a Comment

Before you comment: Please be kind, stay on-topic, and follow the site's commenting rules.
You can report an ad, tech, or typo issue here.

Subscribe to all comments on this post by RSS