Dear Bob ...In a recent meeting, someone abruptly spoke out (as in a shouting tone) making a false statement about a discussion that was going on between the chair and another person, and about which the disrupting person should not have had any input. A short while later, the meeting was closed. Should the disruptive person be corrected at the next meeting?Your guidance on this would be appreciated.- Sore earsD Dear Bob …In a recent meeting, someone abruptly spoke out (as in a shouting tone) making a false statement about a discussion that was going on between the chair and another person, and about which the disrupting person should not have had any input. A short while later, the meeting was closed. Should the disruptive person be corrected at the next meeting?Your guidance on this would be appreciated. – Sore earsDear Audiophile … I think this is a case where one of the most basic rules of management applies: Praise in public, criticize in private. Don’t wait until the next meeting. The only question is who should provide the feedback. It’s either the chair or the individual’s reporting manager. A peer can also provide this kind of feedback, but then only if the peer is at least approximately a friend, and then only if presented as an informal suggestion: “Hey, I think you should know – the way you handled the discussion hurt your credibility and didn’t help the meeting either.” But I’d challenge you as to whether the disruptive individual should have had any input. In any meeting, the only people who should be present are people in a position to participate in whatever is being discussed – why else would they be invited? And second, my rule for participation is that we want the best thinking we can get applied to whatever is being discussed. The question is expertise and judgment, not position on the org chart. So I’d recommend limiting the feedback to the factual inaccuracy and inappropriate tone and style. That’s plenty. – Bob Technology Industry