And someone responds with, "I named my dog Budget because everyone tells me he's too big."

After laughter subsides, you wonder why anyone would make such a silly remark in your meeting.

And this leads to a larger question: Why would anyone misbehave in a meeting? Taken to extreme, misbehavior can ruin a meeting. That wastes everyone's time and squanders opportunity to produce useful results.

Here are some possibilities.

1) They're uninformed

Many people do not know how to plan, conduct, or participate in a meeting. They think that gathering people in a conference room represents holding a meeting. They believe that planning is unnecessary because they expect everyone to arrive with a common agenda. They think that hosting a discussion actually leads to useful results. These well-meaning attempts at holding a meeting are so counterproductive that they can appear to be misbehavior. In addition, a bad meeting irritates others, causing them to retaliate with misbehavior.

Better: Show people how to plan and conduct meetings. Teach them how to use process tools that help people make methodical progress toward results. Schedule a workshop that shows people how to plan and lead meetings. (Call me to talk about my outstanding workshop.)

2) They're bored.

Many meetings occur with a few people talking while rest watch. When this happens, quiet participants entertain themselves by daydreaming, starting side conversations, or working on other tasks (such as preparing lists of things to do once meeting finally ends). People with extensive experience in bad meetings have learned how to feign credible interest while being mentally absent.

Better: Plan activities that involve everyone. Avoid relying on discussion for your meeting because it allows more vocal attendees to dominate.

3) They're mad.

People can be mad for many reasons, such as they feel trapped in an unplanned meeting or they disagree with results being obtained. They could also feel mad if others are preventing them from participating.

For many people, terms “manager” and “leader” are synonymous. In business world, they are often used interchangeably, i.e. “team leader”, “team manager”, “project manager” - you get idea. And why not? After all, leaders and managers do basically same thing, right?

In some instances, there do seem to be commonalities between two and management techniques are sometimes confused with leadership traits. However, there are, I believe, some key distinctions to be made that radically separate two.

Here then, are what I consider to be some key differences between a leader and a manager:

1. A manager administers. A leader innovates.

Managers take policies and procedures and ensure that they are carried out. Leaders are constantly challenging “status quo” to achieve bigger and better things.

2. A manager maintains. A leader develops.

As long as things are running smoothly, manager is typically happy. The leader is never satisfied with “status quo” or “the way we’ve always done it”. Leaders are constantly asking for more and bigger things – of themselves as well as those they lead.

3. Managers rely on control. Leaders inspire trust.

Managers can feel threatened by subordinates who don’t seem to be “towing line”. In doing so, they create a co-dependency in subordinates who, in turn, rely on manager to dictate nearly every step of process. Leaders know how to tap into inherent strengths of those they lead and then foster those strengths to benefit of organization.

4. A manager has his eye only on “bottom line”. A leader has his eye on horizon as well.

In orienteering (using a map and compass) you must set your sights on a distant object to get an accurate bearing. If you take only short-range sightings, it is much more likely you will stray far off right course. In same way, “bottom lining” only without also “visioning” can result in ending up at a destination you did not plan on.