Hello, and welcome to another episode of the Working Conversations podcast, where we talk all things leadership, business, communication, and trends in organizational life. I'm your host, Dr. Janel Anderson.

Picture this. You're in a conference room or on a Teams call with your colleagues. The leader is presenting a new initiative or policy, and while you're not thrilled about it, you nod along and keep your concerns to yourself. The meeting ends and within moments a handful of your coworkers cluster together in hushed tones or maybe in a separate group chat, griping about how awful the meeting was, how misguided the decision is, or how clueless the leader seems. Welcome to the Meeting after the Meeting, one of the most toxic morale sinking phenomenon in the workplace.

If you've ever been part of this, either actively or silently, it's time to confront the impact that this behavior has not just on others, but on you, you and your workplace culture. So what do I mean by the meeting after the meeting? Well, let's start with defining it. The meeting after the meeting occurs when a group of people who attended a meeting reconvene. They reconvene without the leader or the broader group present, and they do so to criticize what was said, complain about the outcome, or vent about how the meeting was conducted. This behavior is prevalent in workplaces of all types and sizes, yet it is rarely addressed head on. Why? Because it often masquerades as harmless venting. But here's the truth. It's not harmless.

It's passive aggressive, it's divisive, and it's counterproductive. The meeting after the meeting undermines trust, it erodes psychological safety, and it can destroy employee engagement. Worse, it can be a breeding ground for cliques and office politics and gossip, leaving some employees feeling excluded while others are drawn into toxic alliances.

Now, I was speaking at an event yesterday presenting on mastering difficult Conversations to a room full of human resources professionals who probably have more difficult conversations than the rest of us. Yes, those HR professionals. Anyway, one of the things that I share at the end of that particular talk I'm sharing my formula on how to hold a difficult conversation is the importance of being okay with whatever was decided at the end, even if you didn't get everything that you wanted in the final outcome. And I warn about the meeting after the meeting. So as I was closing the speech and had just given the warning about the meeting after the meeting, I asked the group to discuss with their neighbor something that was the most significant or the most meaningful for my presentation.

Now I work my way through the crowd eavesdropping on them so that I can hear the juiciest answers. I do ask the whole crowd to share out some of their top ideas with the whole group, but it's usually not those juicy answers that surface at that point. Well, in listening in on some of the individual conversations I heard, I always hear some of the best things. The things that, again, they wouldn't say out loud to the whole room, sometimes they really open up to me. And that's exactly what happened yesterday.

So yesterday, a person shared with me privately that she has often been part of the meeting after the meeting, and that this was the most significant part of the presentation that I had just given. She said that sometimes she is even the ringleader of the meeting after the meeting, and that until I explained it the way I just explained it to you, which was pretty much how I explained it to them, she hadn't realized how damaging it was. She just thought it was kind of fun.

She said it was a very profound moment for her to realize the damage that the meeting after the meeting is doing. And that is, in fact, what led me to record this episode. Okay, so let's get into it. Why is this behavior so damaging? Well, it erodes trust in leadership.

When dissent is expressed behind closed doors only rather than in the meeting itself. Leaders are denied the opportunity to address the concerns or to clarify any misunderstandings. And over time, this undermines trust in their ability to lead effectively. And the ripple effect here is disengagement.

Employees who perceive that their leaders are out of touch or unapproachable or flat out wrong are less likely to feel invested in their work.

The second thing it does is it fuels a culture of gossip. So trash talk about the meeting after the meeting fosters a toxic culture where gossip and negativity thrive. Instead of creating solutions, these conversations often reinforce dissatisfaction. Now, research from MIT Sloan School found that toxic workplace cultures are one of the leading drivers of employee turnover, far more impactful than issues like pay or workload.

The third thing it does is it stifles innovation and collaboration. When people fail to voice their concerns in the room, great ideas or sometimes necessary critiques never make it to the surface. And over time, employees might start to feel like it's not worth sharing their ideas at all.

And this stagnates innovation, and it discourages the kind of open collaboration that's essential for the best outcomes in our workplaces and really for the future of work itself. Now we also have to look at the link to employee engagement and retention. So employee engagement thrives on Trust, transparency, and the notion of psychological safety where it's okay to take a risk or say something that might not be a very popular opinion. When employees feel that they can voice their dissent respectfully, they're more likely to feel valued and included and share what's on their mind. Conversely, the meeting after the meeting, well, that kind of behavior signals to employees that honest dialogue is either unwelcome, ineffective, or not going to get any results.

Gallup's research on employee engagement has shown that highly engaged teams are 59% less likely to experience turnover. Yet disengagement stemming from toxic practices like the meeting after the meeting can push top talent to look elsewhere. Because really, who's going to leave? It's not your slackers, not your low performers, it's your high potentials, high performers who are always going to be the first to leave when they are experiencing a toxic culture.

And in the context of thinking about where the workplace is headed, where hybrid and remote teams are already challenged by disconnection, fostering trust and inclusion is non negotiable. We have to make people feel included and we have to make them feel like their contribution is valued. Now, one of the most insidious aspects of the meeting after the meeting is the assumption that if you don't participate, then you really weren't there. But I am very fond of saying silence equals consent. When you sit in a room and nod along, or even sit in a room and say nothing, you are signaling your agreement to everybody else. Even if inside your head you're screaming, no way, absolutely not. So by failing to express your dissent during the meeting, you contribute to that false consensus. And this has two toxic outcomes potentially.

First of all, the leader assumes that everybody is on board and moves forward with a flawed plan. Or the dissent gets amplified in that meeting after the meeting, creating that division and mistrust I was just talking about earlier. Now, even worse, your silence in the follow up gossip, like that meeting after the meeting, your silence is presumed to be agreement with the other people in the meeting after the meeting. And so this passive participation further entrenches the negativity. Even if you didn't speak a word, and everybody who was in the meeting after the meeting thinks that you agreed, even if you said nothing, maybe you agreed with the decision that was made in the main meeting. And then in the meeting after the meeting you thought like, ooh, this, this is not good, this is not healthy. Well, if you stick around, you are thought to be in agreement, so what to do instead?

Well, first of all, voice Your dissent respectfully and professionally in the meeting itself. So the best way to combat the toxicity of the meeting after the meeting is to eliminate the need for it.

If you disagree with something that's being said in a meeting, say so obviously professionally and respectfully, and do so while the meeting is still happening. Use statements like, you know, I see where you're coming from, but I have some concerns about how this might impact the timeline or impact our team culture or whatever it is that you're concerned about. Or you might frame it as a question. Can we explore a different approach? I think there might be some risks that we haven't considered or some factors that we need to think through differently. Now, this approach doesn't just foster better decisions. It also strengthens your reputation as a thoughtful, engaged team member. It also makes space in the conversation for anybody else who was maybe holding back, who is concerned about the direction or the conversation itself that's being held in the meeting. Now, another thing to do is to redirect the meeting after the meeting.

So if you find yourself in that post meeting gripe session, don't feed the fire. Instead, redirect the conversation by encouraging the group to take their concerns back to the leader. You might say something like, you know, I hear what you're saying and I kind of agree, but we really need to bring this back to Janel so that we can address it with her directly.

Now, if you're feeling outranked and you feel like you can't redirect the group, then create a plausible reason to excuse yourself for. For example, you might say something like, hey, I've got another top, I've got another meeting I need to jump on, I'll catch you later. Or I need to go off and pick up, you know, it's the end of the workday, I need to run off and pick up my kids. Now obviously you're not going to say that you need to go pick up your kids if you don't have kids. So you need to make sure that whatever your plausible excuses for leaving is something that you can follow through on.

So maybe you're just simply going to go to the restroom. So say, hey, I've got to step away and use the restroom. And then do what I always tell my kids, just go try. Because if they see that you are going to do something else when you said you're going to the restroom, that just puts inauthenticity in the space. And that's not going to help anything. But stepping away will prevent you from being complicit in that toxicity without escalating tensions. If you feel like, again, you're politically outranked or you are outranked, maybe by tenure in the organization, that sort of thing. Now, what is the meeting after the meeting? Let's not sugarcoat it.

If you dissented internally during the meeting, but you said nothing, that is passive aggressive behavior. You're essentially saying yes with your words or with your silence, but no with your feelings and your actions. So when you say yes, but you really feel no, that is passive aggressive behavior. And in the long run, this behavior can damage not only the workplace culture, but also your own credibility and your own reputation in the organization. According to a study published in the Journal of Organizational Behavior, passive aggressive communication in teams leads to lower cohesion and reduced overall performance. In short, nobody wins.

Now, if you happen to be listening to this podcast and you're a leader, maybe you're running those meetings and you're starting to question, are people having the meeting after the meeting, after my meetings? Well, fear not. Leaders also have a role in addressing the issue.

There is something for you to do besides just wonder and worry. When you create a culture where dissent is welcomed and addressed constructively, you as a leader can reduce the likelihood of the meeting after the meeting. So some techniques include explicitly inviting feedback. Hey, I want to hear your honest concerns. What opinions do you have? And don't worry about hurting my feelings. Or you might normalize constructive dissent. So celebrate team members who raise thoughtful critiques and questions, acknowledge that positively and say, oh, thank you so much for raising that tough question. I mean, I might need some additional time to think about it, but you are really demonstrating some thoughtful analysis here.

Now, another thing that you can do as a leader is follow up. So revisit decisions to check if that alignment remains or if new concerns have emerged. Especially if you think that you surprisingly got agreement and assent from people when you were expecting some pushback.

All right, so the meeting after the meeting, my friends, is not something you want to have. And if you are a participant in the meeting after the meeting, or even the ringleader of it, as the person was who was in my session yesterday, I want you to take stock of your behavior and start to make some changes. Now, the meeting after the meeting, it might seem like a minor annoyance, or again, if you're part of it on the regular, it might seem like a fun thing to participate in. But its impact on trust, engagement, and your organization's culture is absolutely profound and not in a good way. It is toxic and it is one of the things that erodes organizational culture and team culture more than anything else.

If we want to build workplaces where employees feel valued and invested in, we have to start addressing this behavior Head On. The future of work absolutely depends on our trust, our collaboration, and our psychological safety. Things you've heard me talk about here on the podcast in the past. All of these things are undermined when we fail to voice dissent in the right way and at the right time. So the next time you find yourself tempted to join in or stay silent in the meeting after the meeting, ask yourself, what kind of workplace do I want to be part of? And then remember that you have agency in the moment. Maybe you have the agency to turn the meeting after the meeting around and take it back to the leader. Or at the very least, you have the personal agency to step away from the meeting after the meeting so that your silence isn't thought of as consent. Be the person who breaks the cycle, speak up, redirect, or if you have to, walk away.

Because when we address issues head on, we don't just improve meetings. We create a culture of respect, trust and genuine collaboration. That is the kind of place where people and workplaces and workforces thrive. Now, you've probably heard me use the phrase head on a number of times in today's episode. Well, if you aren't familiar with my book, it is titled Head on how to Approach Difficult Conversations Directly. And the formula that I give for holding a difficult conversation comes directly out of that book. So we'll link the links to a few free chapters of the book and where to buy the book. We'll link that up in the show notes in case it's something that you are interested in.

And there's also a couple of other episodes of the podcast that are related to that, so we'll link those up in the show notes as well. Because remember, taking those tough conversations on Head on and getting yourself out of dodge when you are in the meeting after the meeting makes a difference to your future in the workplace, your leadership ability. Whether you are leading from the side or leading from the top. This is important stuff, my friends.

All right. As always, stay curious, stay informed, and stay ahead of the curve. And tune in next week for another insightful exploration of the trends shaping our workplace. Now, if you learn something or you simply enjoy this content, there's a few things that you can do that don't cost you any money at all.

To help support my work, you can subscribe to my channel over on YouTube. You can subscribe to the podcast on your podcast player of choice and you can follow me on social media. You can find links to my social media over on the Show Notes page. This is episode 194. So you will find the show notes @janelanderson.com/194 until next time my friends. Keep thriving and keep working toward a future that we all want.

Stay connected, stay curious and I will catch you next week.