How to Handle Coworkers Who Monopolize Meetings

Every workplace has them. The colleague who turns a 30-minute meeting into an hour. The senior leader who answers every question before others can respond. The well-meaning contributor who doesn’t realize their lengthy explanations are silencing the room. 

Meeting monopolizers rarely intend harm, but the impact is real: quieter voices go unheard, decisions get delayed, and resentment builds. If you’ve found yourself disengaging from meetings because someone else consistently dominates, you’re not alone.

The most effective way to handle a meeting monopolizer is to address the behaviour directly: name what’s happening, explain its impact, and make a clear request for change. When that feels too risky, structural changes to how meetings are run can shift the dynamic without confrontation. This article covers both approaches, including specific phrases you can use in the moment. 

Key Insights

• Meeting monopolizers often don’t realize the impact of their behaviour
• Most people stay silent because they don’t know what to say or fear making things worse
• A simple framework of naming the behaviour, explaining the impact, and making a request can make these conversations easier
• When direct conversation feels too risky, structural changes to the meeting can reduce the behaviour
• When nothing else works, documentation and thoughtful escalation become necessary

Why Meeting Monopolizers Are Hard to Address

Many professionals recognize disruptive behaviour in meetings but hesitate to address it in the moment. The gap between noticing the issue and speaking up usually comes down to uncertainty about how to intervene without making things worse.

What Makes People Hesitate to Speak Up?

There are good reasons people stay quiet. Speaking up can strain working relationships, backfire politically, or escalate into formal complaints. When the monopolizer is senior in rank, a high performer, or someone with influence, the risks feel even bigger.

The behaviour itself can be ambiguous. Some people interrupt to show support, finish a thought collaboratively, or clarify a point. The challenge is distinguishing between habits that disrupt participation and those that reflect conversational style or enthusiasm. This ambiguity makes it harder to justify raising the issue, especially when the person doing it seems unaware of the impact.

Another barrier is the absence of a clear script. Many professionals know the behaviour is problematic but do not know how to name it without sounding accusatory or defensive. The fear of making things worse often outweighs the frustration of staying silent. Over time, this dynamic can normalize the behaviour and make it harder to address later.

Understanding why the behaviour persists helps explain why learning to handle difficult workplace behaviours requires more than good intentions. It requires clarity about what is happening, why it matters, and what a productive response looks like.

The Behaviour-Impact-Request Method for Setting Boundaries

Addressing this kind of behaviour is really about setting a boundary: clearly stating what needs to change without attacking the person. PMC Training’s Behaviour-Impact-Request technique gives you a practical way to do that.

The method involves three steps: naming the specific behaviour, explaining its impact on the work or the team, and making a clear, reasonable request for what needs to change.

In practice, this might sound like: “During the last two meetings, I’ve noticed you’ve jumped in with solutions before others had a chance to share their perspectives. When that happens, we risk missing input from the team and end up revisiting decisions later. I’d appreciate it if we could hear from everyone before moving to problem-solving.” This approach keeps the conversation grounded in facts rather than assumptions.

The technique is not a script to memorize. It is a structure that can be adapted to fit the situation, the relationship, and the severity of the behaviour. What matters is that all three elements are present: the behaviour, the impact, and the request.

What to Say in the Moment

The Behaviour-Impact-Request method works well for planned, private conversations. But you also need words for the moment when you’re being talked over or the meeting is being hijacked. Here are some phrases that work well in practice:

To reclaim the floor:

• “I’d like to finish my point before we move on.”
• “Let me just complete this thought and then I’d welcome your input.”

To redirect a tangent:

• “That’s an interesting point. Can we note it and come back to it? I want to make sure we cover the agenda.”

To address the pattern privately:

• “I’ve noticed our meetings tend to run long, and I worry that some voices aren’t getting airtime. I’d like us to try a more structured format; would you be open to that?”

These phrases are direct without being confrontational. They focus on the meeting’s purpose rather than the person’s character.

How to Decide Whether to Address It Directly

Sometimes a direct conversation creates more problems than it solves. The decision to speak up

depends on several factors: the frequency and severity of the behaviour, the relationship with the person, the organizational context, and the likelihood that addressing it will lead to change rather than retaliation or conflict.

Consider whether the behaviour is isolated or part of a pattern. A single interruption during a high-pressure meeting may not warrant a formal conversation. Repeated monopolizing across multiple meetings, especially when it prevents others from contributing, is harder to ignore.

The relationship matters too. If the monopolizer is a peer with whom you work regularly, a direct conversation may be appropriate and even expected. If the person is significantly senior, a client, or someone with authority over your work, the risks increase. In those cases, indirect approaches or escalation to a manager may be more effective.

Ask yourself:

• What is likely to happen if I say nothing?
• What is likely to happen if I address it? 

If inaction leads to continued disruption, reduced participation from others, or damage to your own credibility, the case for speaking up is stronger.

If the behaviour is likely to resolve on its own or if addressing it could create significant professional risk, other approaches may be warranted.

Timing also matters. Addressing the behaviour immediately after it happens can feel reactive and increase the chance of conflict. Waiting until a neutral moment, outside the meeting itself, allows for a calmer conversation.

Facilitation Tools When a Direct Conversation Feels Too Risky

Direct confrontation isn’t always an option. When the person is senior, well-connected, or known to react poorly to feedback, structural changes to how meetings are run can reduce the behaviour without requiring a difficult conversation.

The key is shifting responsibility onto the meeting format itself, so intervention feels procedural rather than personal. Here are several approaches to consider.

Rotate the facilitator role. When different people take turns leading meetings, it becomes easier to enforce time limits, manage speaking order, and redirect tangents without appearing personally targeted. The facilitator has a structural reason to intervene.

Use timed speaking turns or round-robin input. When everyone is given two minutes to share their perspective before discussion begins, it becomes harder for one person to dominate. The structure itself enforces balance, and deviations become visible.

Try anonymous contribution methods. Asking people to submit ideas or feedback in writing before the meeting, or using digital tools that allow for simultaneous input, reduces the advantage that vocal participants have over quieter ones. This works particularly well in brainstorming sessions or when gathering input on sensitive topics.

Set agendas with strict time blocks. If the agenda allocates 10 minutes for updates and 15 minutes for discussion, the facilitator has a built-in reason to redirect someone who is using more than their share of time.

Use a parking lot. When someone derails the meeting with a lengthy aside, the facilitator can acknowledge the point, add it to the parking lot, and return to the agenda. Capturing off-topic comments or tangents for later discussion are invaluable facilitation tools. This keeps the meeting on track without dismissing the person’s contribution entirely. Just make sure the parked topics are addressed later or trust erodes quickly.

These methods work because they shift the burden away from individuals and onto the meeting structure itself. The facilitator can make changes that benefit everyone without singling out the monopolizer.

When Nothing Else Works

Sometimes structural fixes don’t solve the problem. The person talks over the facilitator, ignores the timer, or treats the parking lot as a suggestion. When this happens, you have a few choices.

Document the pattern. Keep a factual record of specific instances: dates, behaviours, and impact on the meeting. This becomes important if you need to escalate.

Escalate thoughtfully. If the behaviour is affecting team performance or psychological safety, it may be appropriate to raise it with a manager or HR. Frame it around impact, not personality: “Our team meetings are consistently running over time, and several people have mentioned they don’t feel comfortable contributing.”

Protect your own participation. If nothing changes and you have no authority to change it, focus on what you can control. Prepare concise contributions. Send key points in writing before or after the meeting. Speak early, before the conversation gets hijacked.

Not every situation can be resolved. But understanding your options helps you make deliberate choices rather than simply enduring.

Building the Confidence to Respond Under Pressure

Handling a meeting monopolizer is a learnable skill, but it becomes harder under pressure. When someone talks over you or hijacks the conversation, the instinct is often to stay silent, defer, or disengage.

The ability to respond calmly and clearly in those moments improves with practice and feedback. Knowing what to say is the easy part. Saying it when emotions are high, stakes are real, and the other person is defensive takes repetition.

That’s where deliberate practice makes the difference.

Developing These Skills Further

Build confidence leading meetings: PMC Training’s Practical Facilitation Skills course teaches you how to manage group dynamics, ensure balanced participation, and guide a group to decisions everyone can support. You’ll learn techniques to keep meetings on track, so one voice doesn’t dominate and quieter contributors get heard.

Build confidence speaking up: PMC Training’s Dealing with Difficult Behaviours course helps professionals practice these conversations in realistic scenarios, build confidence addressing behaviour without authority, and make better decisions about when to speak up, document, or escalate.