by Dr. Kevin Dean, President & CEO, Tennessee Nonprofit Network
If you’ve spent five minutes in the Volunteer State—or really, anywhere below the Mason-Dixon—you know one thing for certain: Tennesseans are just so syrupy nice. Bless your heart. Honestly. We’re so sweet, we’d apologize to the wall if we bumped into it. We’ll hold the door for you, bake you a casserole, and compliment your questionable sweater vest—all before noon. This ingrained, almost aggressive, politeness is a charming part of our cultural fabric, right up until it becomes a social liability.
Because while we may be masters of a cheerful “You’ve got a friend in me,” we are also, perhaps, the undisputed world champions of smiling brightly through a disastrously unproductive committee meeting, only to unleash our true, unvarnished thoughts the second we hit the parking lot. Suddenly, we aren’t so nice.
Yes, friends, I am calling for the immediate, federally-mandated prohibition of the most corrosive, time-wasting, and integrity-shredding tradition in the nonprofit sector: the “Meeting After the Meeting.”
The Two-Act Play of Southern Nonprofitdom
We all know the script. It’s a two-act play that runs constantly in conference rooms, Zoom calls, and community centers across the South.
Act I: The Official Meeting. This is where we gather, usually on time (bless our punctual hearts), and discuss the agenda items. We use phrases like “I just want to think out loud here,” or “That’s an interesting perspective,” when what we really mean is, “That idea is deeply flawed and based on zero data.” A difficult subject comes up—say, a significant budget cut, or a necessary but unpopular restructuring. What happens? Everyone looks down at their notes, a tense silence fills the room, and someone inevitably chimes in with, “Well, I think we’re all in agreement, let’s circle back to this later.” The resolution passes unanimously, the air thick with unspoken dissent. Everyone is polite. Everyone is “in agreement.” The meeting ends early! Hooray!
Act II: The Real Meeting. Ah, now this is the good stuff. The minute the door closes or the “End Meeting for All” button is clicked, the action begins.
- It happens in the hallway: “Can you believe they actually voted for that?”
- It happens via rapid-fire text chain: “OMG, Susan, read the room. 🤦♀️”
- It happens at the next book club or social event: “Well, what really happened was…”
- It happens in hushed corners by the coffee machine: The low-volume, high-sarcasm dissection of every flawed decision, every awkward presentation, and every missed opportunity that just took place five minutes ago.
This, ladies and gentlemen, is where the real work of the nonprofit sector gets done. The problem? It only gets done among a select few, and it only gets done after the decision has already been “unanimously” approved. We use the formal meeting only to set the stage for the true, informal, utterly inefficient shadow government that runs our organizations.
Why We Commit This Sin Against Efficiency
Why do we do this? Because in the South, and especially in the high-stakes, emotion-driven world of nonprofits, we are pathologically afraid of being disruptive. We have convinced ourselves that:
- Politeness is the Highest Virtue: Saying “No,” or “I respectfully disagree because your data is old,” feels rude. It feels like a character flaw.
- Conflict is Catastrophic: We view constructive disagreement not as a pathway to better solutions, but as a guaranteed route to hurt feelings, awkward Thanksgivings, and a permanent scarlet letter of “Difficult.”
- We Must Protect Our Reputation: We don’t want to get a reputation as the person who always asks the tough questions. We want to be known as the amiable one, the one who goes with the flow—even if that flow is heading straight for a waterfall.
But here’s a newsflash, one that needs to be shouted from the highest mountain of unmet community needs: It is okay to be disagreeable. It is okay to give constructive feedback. It is okay to address inequity, to push back against a bad decision, or to point out that the emperor is, in fact, wearing no clothes. Isn’t that our actual job? Our mission isn’t to be nice; our mission is to get things done—to feed the hungry, to advocate for the vulnerable, to save the planet. Politeness is a tool, not the mission itself.
If we can be civil, emotionally intelligent, and constructive with our dissenting opinions—and we absolutely can and should be—why on earth are we not saying the things that need to be said IN the meeting?
The Damage: Trust, Integrity, and Just Getting Things Done
By deferring the important conversation until the hallway, we are doing far more damage than we realize.
1. We Damage Our Own Integrity
When you nod your head in agreement inside the meeting and then launch a full-scale critique seconds later, you are, by definition, operating with a dual standard. You are signaling to your peers that your word is negotiable and that you prioritize temporary comfort over honest collaboration.
2. We Damage Trust and Foster Exclusion
The “Meeting After the Meeting” is, by its very nature, an exclusionary event. It happens among the “in-crowd,” the established clique, or the people who just happen to walk out the door at the same time. Those not invited—the new staff member, the quiet board member, the person who had to jump to their next appointment—are instantly placed on the outside. They are denied crucial context, their input is not heard, and they feel, correctly, that they do not belong. They are left with the sanitized version of the truth while the inner circle gets the decoded gossip. This creates deep fissures and damages team morale beyond repair.
3. We Damage Effectiveness
The purpose of a meeting is to make decisions and advance the work. If you have the real conversation after the decision has been made, you have to then burn time (and money) on another, follow-up meeting to fix the problem you should have addressed the first time. It is the absolute opposite of efficiency. Transparency, fundamentally, means saying the things that need to be said when they need to be said.
The Pledge: No Meeting After the Meeting
I call upon local nonprofits, and the entire philanthropic community to make a simple, revolutionary pledge: We will not have meetings after the meeting.
It’s time to normalize the messy, brilliant, and sometimes uncomfortable work of actual collaboration. Here is a strategy for achieving this utopian—yet necessary—state:
For Organizational Leaders: Create Safe Spaces
- Re-Engineer the Agenda: Structure the agenda to include mandatory time for constructive critique. Instead of “Any other comments?” try “What is the single biggest flaw you see in this proposal, and how would you fix it?“ Use tools like anonymous feedback polling (even in-person) to break the initial ice.
- De-Stigmatize “No”: Train staff and board members that constructive conflict is a sign of respect. Praise the person who asks the hardest question. Hold up positive examples of civil, effective disagreement. For example, “I really appreciate Sarah’s willingness to challenge the assumptions in the budget—that made it stronger.”
- Model the Behavior: When a leader disagrees, they must do so openly, calmly, and immediately. If the CEO or Board Chair says, “I have some serious reservations about this plan, and here is why,” it gives everyone else permission to do the same.
For Individuals: Call It Out
This is the hardest, but most vital, part. You must police this behavior, not with anger, but with relentless good cheer and a laser-focus on integrity.
- Find yourself in an “After the Meeting” meeting? Call it out. Not aggressively, but firmly. When someone says, “Well, I actually think that was a terrible idea,” respond with: “That’s a critical point. We need to go back and address that in the room with the full team. Can we schedule five minutes with the group to bring this up?” Do not let the conversation proceed.
- Not invited to the “After the Meeting” meeting, but you know one is happening? Ask directly and openly: “I sensed a lot of tension in the meeting when we discussed the new program. I’m worried we didn’t get all the necessary feedback. Can we make sure we bring those dissenting opinions back to the full working group?”
The path to a more efficient, equitable, and trustworthy nonprofit sector is not paved with polite smiles and vague nods. It is paved with tough conversations, honest feedback, and the courage to say what needs to be said when it needs to be said.
Let’s retire the two-act play. Let’s make our official meetings the only meeting. We’re Tennesseans; we can still be nice. But from now on, let’s reserve our syrupy sweetness for our iced tea, not our organizational integrity. Now, who wants to grab coffee? And I mean, let’s talk about the weather, because all work discussions are officially over.