POV: You raise something in a meeting and suddenly .... someone starts justifying, deflecting or even going on the attack.

These are nice people who generally get along!

But you're not imagining it. The tone did change and even passive defensiveness burns time, focus and trust.

First I'm going to show you how to understand it and then how to bring down people's defences. 

Defensiveness is protection

It’s how people try to hold onto competence, belonging or control when they feel it could be under threat.

Your job isn’t to “call it out” but to make it safe enough that people don’t need to defend.

Here's how to set up meetings so that people are far less likely to enter that 'defended' state.

1. Normalise disagreeing and contain it with a safety statement

A safety statement is a positive 'we' sentence, sthat flags two things: that disagreement is helpful and the ground rules we'll use in this session.

Examples:

"Let’s start by making sure we all see the same picture. We’ll question everything we need to until we’re clear and ready to move forward together."

"We’re choosing from good options, not right or wrong ones. Let’s focus on what fits best for where we are and what we’ve agreed matters most."

"Today we'll look at what needs to change and choose the next best steps rather than defend old ones."

2. Slow the moment down

There is ONE thing that will raise defences immediately - and that is time pressure. If you need to bring defences down, you can use the same principle to do the opposite - slow down, add time and re‑open the space:

“Can you say a bit more about what’s feeling tricky here?”

“I can see this might have landed awkwardly. Where's your head going to as we talk about this?”

“Let’s pause for a second. What are we each hearing?”

Use your body language, tone and pace to signal that you’re listening, there is time.  Lend the room your calm. 

3. Help people 'ATHI' (Assume The Highest Intent)

Also known as MGI (Most Generous Interpretation), this is about modelling how we respond to potential defensiveness. Of all the possible intentions that might be behind the thing they've just said, you're going to pick the best one and assume it's that.

Ask yourself:

“What might be the positive intent behind what they just said?”

“What might they be trying to protect, fix or move forward?”

Respond by giving them the opportunity for a do-over:

“I’m going to assume you’re raising this because you care about getting it right…”

“Let’s assume we’re all trying to do the best for the team — what’s the real concern here?”

“That landed a bit sharp, but I’m guessing there’s something important underneath — can you say more?”

A clean agreement is a crystal-clear, mutually understood, realistic commitment. It’s not a vague “sounds good” or a hopeful “happy to help”. It’s what stops drift, duplication, and disappointment.

Let me show you how to make one:

1. Surface people's true agendas and concerns

No clean agreement can happen if people are hiding doubts, concerns or capacity issues. A yes, which doesn't acknowledge these is a 'messy yes' which is unlikely to be fulfilled.

To surface them, ask:

“What’s important to you about this?”

“What’s your biggest concern?”

If someone’s saying yes while quietly thinking “this won’t fly”, the agreement’s already as good as broken.

2. Initiate trade offs

Clean commitment means honest trade-offs, not compromise or 'meet in the middle'.

Ask:

"What would need to happen for this to be a great plan for you?"

"What is stopping you saying a full yes to this as a plan?"

Encourage people to use these two phrases to express the answer super clearly:

“Yes, if…”
Example: “Yes, we can do that — if we pause Project X.”

“No, unless…”
Example: “No, unless we get a clear go ahead from legal first.”

3. Commit out loud — clearly

A clean agreement should sound like this:

“Design will share two homepage options by Friday. Marketing picks one by Monday.”

“If finance haven’t approved it by 10 May, we go with Plan B.”

Avoid:

“Let’s explore it…”

“It’d be good if someone could…”

If you can’t write it down without follow-up questions, it’s not clean yet.

Bonus: How to be clear without teing ‘that person’

Clean ≠ controlling. In fact, it's the opposite - it's handing control back to where it exists anyway i.e. with the people who will or won't do it.

Try:

“Can we check what we each heard?”

“What would need to change for this to work for you?”

The tone is curious, mutually supportive, but crystal, crystal clear.

Struggling with honest, direct conversations (like so many organisational dysfunctions) is usually the overuse of a strength.

The way we fix this is providing a clear safer scaffold to allow new norms to develop. When disagreement or tension becomes part of the normal rhythm, people stop seeing it as risky.

Here are four scaffolds to try.

1. Use a “What’s Not Being Said?” round

Before closing any meeting or big decision, ask:

“What haven’t we said yet that we need to?”

“What’s hard to raise, but might help us?”

Over time, it becomes just how you work.

2. Try a “Constructive Rant”

Let people air their frustrations fully so that you can listen for the key messages. Frame it like this:

“You’ve got 60 seconds to get it off your chest. No solutions needed, just honesty.”

This turns emotion into usable insight and relieves pressure that builds up when people feel they have to be endlessly “professional”.

3. Run a “Black Hat” round

Inspired by Edward de Bono’s thinking hats, this gives permission to name risks and worries:

“Let’s do a quick Black Hat round. What could go wrong here?”

“What’s the most obvious red flag we might be missing?”

This gives people clear permission to be constructively negative. It creates space for disagreement without it feeling personal.

4. De-shame disagreement

Not really a scaffold, more just mantras to keep saying over and over.

“We don’t need to agree, we just need to get to the best answer.”

“Challenge is a sign of care, not conflict.”

The more you say (and model) this, the more others will believe it.