Patrick Anderson, Cofounder of ndgenius and a Tlingit elder who serves as parliamentarian for the National Congress of American Indians, has spent decades being called into tribal meetings to "restore order." What he's discovered might surprise you:
"I get to some meetings where they tell me, 'Oh, we just had a terrible meeting and people weren't behaving.' Then I'm sitting there watching—where's the terrible meeting? We can behave. What I've learned is that we don't behave because we have lost our culture and tradition."
Here's the revealing part: when Patrick walks into these supposedly dysfunctional meetings, people immediately start following proper procedures. They already know what they should be doing. The dysfunction isn't about lacking knowledge it's about something much deeper.
To understand meeting dysfunction in tribal governance, we need to acknowledge what Patrick calls "the great suppression"—the systematic disruption of traditional indigenous governance systems over generations.
For thousands of years, indigenous communities had sophisticated protocols for group decision-making, conflict resolution, and respectful communication. These weren't just procedures; they were cultural frameworks that naturally guided how people interacted with each other.
"Traditionally, tribal peoples had a way that we were required to talk in our meetings," Patrick explains. "In Tlingit society, we policed our adults." If someone's words could offend another clan, our matriarchs would help them revise their approach. If offense did occur, there were established ways to make things right through ceremony and compensation."
When these cultural frameworks were disrupted, we didn't just lose a set of rules—we lost the wisdom that made respectful interaction feel natural and necessary.
Meeting dysfunction often stems from individual trauma responses that have nothing to do with parliamentary procedure. Research on Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) shows that people who experienced trauma in childhood are significantly more likely to struggle with:
- Defensive behaviors when challenged
- Difficulty accepting feedback or admitting mistakes
- Fixed mindset ("this is how I've always done it")
- Power struggles and control issues
- Fear of vulnerability in group settings
In a meeting context, these trauma responses can look like:
- Someone who always has to be right
- A person who takes every disagreement as a personal attack
- Board members who use their position to settle old grievances
- Individuals who shut down when conflict arises
- People who monopolize discussion time
Traditional Robert's Rules training doesn't address these underlying trauma responses—and often can't, because the facilitator doesn't understand the cultural and historical context that created them.
Many tribal councils have long-serving members whose entire identity has become wrapped up in their role. Take a treasurer who has been serving for 20+ years. A suggestion to change to the way the books are handled can feel like criticism of their work, or even an existential threat.
This isn't about being stubborn or power-hungry (though it can look that way). It's about people who have found their sense of worth and relevance through their position, and who genuinely fear what happens if they're no longer needed.
Newer members can face their own version of this dynamic. Eager to prove their worth to the community or position themselves for re-election, they may feel compelled to "own" ideas and claim credit for initiatives. This can lead to grandstanding, refusing to collaborate on solutions, or opposing good ideas simply because someone else proposed them.
Both dynamics stem from the same root issue: when people see council service as a way to build personal status or affirm self-worth rather than contribute to collective wellbeing, meetings become competitions instead of collaborations.
Patrick observes: "We have to learn to see when we're offending someone so that we don't offend them in the first place. It's a prophylactic—I need to have my in-laws listen to how I'm going to communicate to the people that I work with."
The solution isn't to force these individuals out, but to help them understand how their behavior affects the collective and to find new ways for them to contribute meaningfully. If a restorative approach fails, then procedural solutions can be considered.
Perhaps the deepest issue is the shift from indigenous collective thinking to Western individualistic approaches. Patrick contrasts these mindsets:
Western/Colonial Mindset:- "I'm going to introduce my motion and get someone to support me"
- Focus on personal goals and being "the boss"
- Thinking about immediate benefits
- Being right in the moment
Indigenous/Seventh Generation Mindset:- "How does this fit into our grand vision for the future?"
- Focus on collective benefit and unifying the body
- Thinking about great-grandchildren who aren't born yet
- Being responsible to the community across time
When people approach meetings from an individual perspective—trying to "win" or advance their personal agenda—dysfunction is almost inevitable. When everyone understands they're there as representatives of something larger than themselves, the entire dynamic shifts.
Rather than simply imposing Robert's Rules, effective solutions often involve what Patrick calls "Indigenizing" governance:
1. Creating Psychological Safety
Before teaching procedures, create an environment where people feel safe to participate without fear of attack or ridicule. This might involve:
- Establishing agreed-upon "rules of respect"
- Starting meetings with acknowledgment of ancestors and future generations
- Using traditional opening protocols that remind everyone why they're there
2. Addressing Root Causes
Use what Patrick calls "learning to see"—helping people understand how their personal experiences affect their meeting behavior, and how their actions impact the collective.
3. Divergent Before Convergent
Start with non-judgmental idea gathering (divergent conversation) before moving to debate and decision-making (convergent conversation). This prevents people from immediately going into defensive mode when new ideas are presented.
4. Focus on Future Vision
Constantly reconnect discussions to the long-term vision for the community. When people remember they're working for future generations, personal ego tends to take a back seat.
So does your tribal council need Robert's Rules training? Maybe. But first ask:
- Do people actually know how meetings should run but struggle to implement it?
- Are there long-standing power dynamics or personality conflicts that derail discussions?
- Has your community lost touch with traditional protocols for respectful interaction?
- Are people approaching meetings from individual rather than collective perspectives?
- Do meeting problems stem from deeper trauma responses rather than procedural confusion?
If you answered yes to any of these questions, your community might benefit more from indigenous governance restoration than parliamentary procedure training.
As Patrick puts it: "What we end up with are the rules, and then laying out—you have a meeting every month, what's the purpose of the meeting? Well, you tie that purpose to this grand future state that you wish to have."
Sometimes the most powerful thing you can do for meeting dysfunction is to help people remember not just how to run a meeting, but why they're there in the first place—and whose future depends on them getting it right.
Patrick Anderson, Cofounder of ndgenius, is a Tlingit elder who serves as parliamentarian for the National Congress of American Indians and works with tribal organizations across the country on governance issues. His approach combines traditional parliamentary procedure with indigenous wisdom and trauma- informed practices.
