How coalition leaders manage grenade throwers. (An 8-minute read).
We have all seen it happen.
A coalition has prepared its materials, worked through the issues, and appears ready to move forward. Then someone raises a concern with such ferocity that it stills the room.
Maybe they question the strategy, the intentions of other members, or whether the coalition is accomplishing anything at all. Maybe they point out that certain organizations have been cashing grant checks for years without moving real progress forward.
Their tone is sharp, certain, perhaps a little contemptuous of anyone who has not been as loud for as long.
The room goes quiet. Two members find something urgent on their phones. You can feel the next agenda item getting harder to reach.
And just when you thought the coalition had a clear path forward, someone pulls the pin.
I call them grenade throwers.
Sometimes the disruption happens once. Sometimes it becomes a pattern. Either way, the friction can slow progress, damage trust, and leave coalition leaders wondering whether the person is worth the trouble.
I have sat around enough tables to recognize this behavior and evaluate what it costs.
But I have also learned something else: sometimes the person making everyone uncomfortable is asking the question everyone else has been avoiding.
That complicates what to do next.
Nobody gets everything
Every coalition runs on a quiet bargain. Each member agrees to want less than everything in exchange for accomplishing more together than any could alone.
The early learning group accepts that this year’s priority is third-grade reading. The workforce group waits a cycle for its apprenticeship proposal. The bargain holds because everyone trusts that their turn will come.
The grenade thrower rarely rejects that bargain outright. They simply act as though it does not apply to them. Their priority is urgent; everyone else’s is a distraction. Compromise becomes complicity, and patience looks like surrender.
But sometimes the bargain itself deserves scrutiny.
Who decided which priorities came first? Whose interests shaped the agenda? Whose needs are being asked to wait?
For coalitions working on education, equity, civic engagement, and social justice, these questions matter. A coalition can agree on a politically practical strategy while leaving important voices or communities behind.
The person disrupting consensus may be protecting their own interests. Or they may be exposing an imbalance the rest of the table has learned to tolerate.
A good convener needs to know the difference.
The case for keeping a few grenades around
Some coalitions need shaking up.
I have sat at tables where the meeting is the product. The agenda matches last quarter’s, the workplan is a list of updates, and the liveliest conversation of the year concerns renewing the grant.
Nobody is obstructive because nobody is pushing on anything.
Those tables do not fall apart. They just stop mattering.
Into a room like that, a grenade thrower can be a gift.
Charlan Nemeth at UC Berkeley has spent decades studying dissent in groups. Her research with colleagues found that genuine disagreement can stimulate more creative thinking and improve the quality of ideas. Authentic dissent produced benefits that assigning someone to play devil’s advocate did not reliably replicate (Nemeth et al., 2001).
That distinction matters.
Someone who genuinely disagrees may force a coalition to examine assumptions, consider overlooked information, or explore alternatives. You cannot manufacture that contribution simply by assigning someone to argue the other side. Their conviction is part of what makes the dissent valuable.
There is a related concept in social movement research called the radical flank effect.
In a 2022 study, Brent Simpson, Robb Willer, and Matthew Feinberg found that more confrontational factions sometimes increased public support for moderate groups pursuing the same cause. Their experiments examined tactics considerably more extreme than typical coalition disagreements, including threats of violence and property destruction.
The research does not establish that disruptive behavior inside coalition meetings improves outcomes. Nor does it show that simply demanding more ambitious policies produces the same effect.
Still, it raises an interesting strategic question: can advocates pushing beyond what a coalition is prepared to demand sometimes change how others perceive its more moderate position?
Possibly. But that is different from the value of dissent inside the room.
A coalition needs people willing to challenge what seems politically possible. It also needs relationships strong enough to turn those challenges into action.
The urgency a grenade thrower brings may be exactly what a complacent coalition needs.
But not every grenade is worth catching.
What they cost
Will Felps, Terence Mitchell, and Eliza Byington examined how negative group members affect collective performance. Their research found that persistent negativity, withholding effort, and violations of interpersonal norms can trigger defensiveness, withdrawal, and declining trust (Felps et al., 2006).
Conviction does not exempt anyone from that damage.
Research by Carsten De Dreu and Laurie Weingart similarly found that relationship conflict was strongly associated with poorer team performance and satisfaction. Disagreement about the work itself was also associated with costs, though generally less severe than interpersonal conflict (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003).
The grenade thrower’s argument may be exactly what the coalition needs.
The grenade is the part that makes it personal.
But there is a complication here, too.
A pointed question about how resources are distributed, who holds decision-making power, or why progress has stalled may feel threatening to institutional partners. That discomfort does not automatically make the challenge inappropriate.
Coalition leaders should not confuse discomfort with dysfunction, or conviction with constructive dissent.
Their responsibility is to recognize the difference.
Three questions before you decide
Before deciding whether to keep, coach, or release someone, I ask three questions.
1. Are they aiming at the problem or at the people?
“We are not moving fast enough on reading” is an argument.
“Some of you are only here for the logo” is a grenade.
The first challenges the work. The second questions people’s motives and spends trust.
But ask another question: is there a legitimate concern underneath the accusation?
A member challenging funding decisions or institutional influence may be raising something the coalition needs to confront, even if their delivery needs work.
The goal is not to protect everyone from discomfort. It is to separate the substance of the challenge from behavior that prevents the group from addressing it.
2. Do they ever carry something for someone else?
Even a single-minded advocate can support another member’s priority: sign a letter, make an introduction, or testify on an issue outside their immediate interests.
Coalitions depend on reciprocity.
That does not mean everyone contributes equally. Grassroots advocates and well-funded institutions bring different resources and capacities. Commitment matters more than the size of the contribution.
But if someone consistently expects others to advance their priorities while never supporting the broader work, they may be using the coalition as a stage rather than participating in a partnership.
3. Is the room moving, learning, or bracing?
After they speak, does the conversation sharpen or shut down?
Does the coalition reconsider an assumption or confront a neglected issue? Or does everyone become preoccupied with defending reputations and recovering from the disruption?
Watch who stops talking, but do not mistake silence for evidence of harm. Sometimes people are quiet because they are thinking differently. Other times they no longer feel safe contributing.
The full price of a grenade may show up six months later in who stops coming.
Its value may show up in a better decision the coalition would never have reached without the challenge.
The distinction matters more than whether the disruption was intentional.
What actually works
Talk first, and alone.
Never deliver someone’s first hard feedback in front of the group.
Start with what they contribute, then explain the impact of their behavior.
“You are the reason this table still talks about chronic absence. But when you call out members by name, three people stop contributing. I need you to keep challenging us on the issue without attacking the people.”
Then listen. The behavior may need to change while the underlying concern deserves more attention.
Give the passion a job.
Sometimes persistent disruption comes from fear that an issue will disappear.
Give the concern a meaningful place: a working group, a defined agenda discussion, or a commitment to revisit the decision. Establish responsibility and accountability, not simply another opportunity to vent.
Write the agreements down, then use them.
Coalitions should establish shared expectations for disagreement before the next blowup.
Then you are not policing a personality. You are holding everyone to standards they helped establish.
And those standards must apply equally to powerful institutional partners and community advocates.
Make room for different roles in the movement.
Not every advocate needs to work from the same table or use the same tactics.
Some push publicly for ambitious change. Others build the relationships and agreements needed to advance policy. Those roles can complement one another without requiring everyone to work inside the same coalition.
The important question is where each approach advances the shared purpose and where it begins to undermine it.
Know your line and say it before you need it.
If personal attacks continue after coaching, clear expectations, and meaningful opportunities to contribute, the coalition may be paying more than it gains.
But before asking someone to leave, consider whether you are responding to destructive behavior or simply to a perspective that challenges established leadership.
Protecting the people who keep showing up is part of the convener’s job. So is protecting a process that welcomes legitimate dissent.
Sometimes separation is necessary. It should be handled privately, with dignity, and without foreclosing opportunities to work together outside the coalition.
Try this Monday: the pin check
Think about the coalition member who concerns you most.
Draw two columns on a single page.
What they bring: energy, allies, credibility, urgency, and questions nobody else is willing to ask.
What they cost: stalled decisions, strained relationships, people who stop speaking, and members who stop showing up.
Then ask yourself:
What truth might this person be telling that the rest of us would rather not hear?
That question does not excuse harmful behavior. It helps ensure that addressing the behavior does not silence something important.
Finally, have you shared both columns with that person, directly and privately?
If not, that conversation is your next move.
The decision about whether they stay comes afterward.
Keep the fire, lose the shrapnel
The song asks what you would give up for someone.
Coalition leaders face a quieter version of that question every month.
You will catch some grenades for people who bring fire to the work, and you should.
A table where nobody is willing to pull a pin is often a table nobody needs.
But catching grenades is not a plan.
Your job is to keep the passion and lose the shrapnel.
Sometimes the person disrupting the meeting is getting in the way of progress.
Sometimes they are pointing out that what everyone else calls progress is not nearly enough.
And sometimes both things are true.
The best coalition leaders do not eliminate disagreement. They create the conditions for disagreement to make the work better, without sacrificing the relationships necessary to move forward.
Convergent Strategic Consulting helps coalitions, partnerships, and leadership teams move their purpose forward, including through the members who make it hard. If your table has a grenade thrower, or needs one, let’s talk.
Sources
- De Dreu, C. K. W., & Weingart, L. R. (2003). Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4), 741–749. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.4.741
- Felps, W., Mitchell, T. R., & Byington, E. (2006). How, when, and why bad apples spoil the barrel: Negative group members and dysfunctional groups. Research in Organizational Behavior, 27, 175–222. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-3085(06)27005-9
- Nemeth, C. J., Brown, K., & Rogers, J. (2001). Devil’s advocate versus authentic dissent: Stimulating quantity and quality. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31(6), 707–720. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.58
- Simpson, B., Willer, R., & Feinberg, M. (2022). Radical flanks of social movements can increase support for moderate factions. PNAS Nexus, 1(3), pgac110. https://doi.org/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgac110
