I was recently asked, “How can a team deal with one person who is dominating a team of peers in project meetings?”

In teams without a formal leader, one voice often rises above the rest. It is usually described as over-assertiveness. Someone speaks first, speaks often, and shapes the direction of the conversation. Over time, others begin to hold back. The imbalance grows quietly.

It is tempting to locate the problem in the individual. To label the person as dominant, controlling, or unaware. Yet this framing is incomplete and often unhelpful.

Research on team dynamics suggests a more nuanced truth. Assertiveness itself is not the only issue. In fact, a certain level of assertiveness is essential for clarity, progress, and decision-making. The problem arises when assertiveness becomes disproportionate and the system around it fails to balance it.

In the absence of structure, teams tend to drift toward informal hierarchies. The most confident voice fills the vacuum. Not necessarily because they seek control, but because the team has not defined how influence should be shared.

The consequence is subtle but significant. Others begin to self-censor. Ideas remain unspoken. Agreement becomes performative rather than genuine. What appears as efficiency is often a narrowing of perspective.

This is the paradox. The more one person contributes, the less the team actually thinks. From a distance, this looks like a personality issue. From within the team, it is a systems issue.

The question, then, is not “How do we manage the over-assertive individual?” It is “What conditions have we created that make over-assertiveness necessary or possible?” This shift matters. Because once the problem is understood as systemic, the responsibility returns to the group. And with it, the possibility of change.

Start by revisiting the team charter

In teams without a formal leader, the team charter becomes more than a document. It is the closest thing the group has to a shared authority.

When one voice begins to dominate, it is often a signal that the charter is no longer fully serving the team. Not necessarily because it is wrong, but because it is no longer specific enough for how the team actually works today.

So the first move is simple. Return to it. Not as a formality, but as a practical question: “Is this still helping us work well together?”

Start with reflection:

  • Where does our current way of working support good thinking?
  • Where does it break down?
  • When do some voices carry more weight than others?
  • What impact does that have on our decisions?

Keep the focus on patterns, not people. This is about how the team operates, not who is at fault. Then move deliberately through three steps:

A) Revisit

Read the charter together. Not quickly, but with attention. Notice what still feels true, and what feels disconnected from reality. Most teams are surprised by how much they have stopped actively using what they once agreed.

B) Realign

Translate principles into behaviour. Replace general statements with clear, observable practices. For example:

  • “Respect each other” becomes “We do not interrupt”
  • “Encourage participation” becomes “We invite input before closing a discussion”
  • “Open communication” becomes “We challenge ideas directly and stay curious about the person”

This is where the charter becomes practical.

C) Recommit

Make the agreement live in the work, not just on paper. Be explicit: “Any of us can call a pause if we feel we are drifting from this.” Without this step, nothing really changes. With it, the team creates a shared responsibility for how conversations unfold.

The deeper shift is this. The goal is not to reduce one person’s voice. It is to create a team where no single voice can unintentionally dominate. And that begins with an agreement the team is willing to use.

Structure the conversation so balance does not depend on personality

Even with a clear charter, teams often fall back into familiar patterns under pressure. The most confident voice speaks first. Others follow, or withdraw. The imbalance returns, not because people disagree with the agreement, but because the structure of the conversation pulls them back into it. This is where many teams get stuck. They rely on goodwill to create balance.

Research on group dynamics suggests something different. Participation is not just a matter of intention. It is shaped by how conversations are designed. Without structure, dominance is not an exception. It is the default.

So the task is to make balance part of the way the team works, not something it hopes for.

A few simple shifts can change the pattern quickly. Start by slowing the opening of a discussion.

When one person speaks first, they anchor the direction of thinking. Others react rather than contribute. Instead, create space before discussion begins:

  • Ask everyone to write down their thoughts before speaking
  • Use brief silent idea generation before open debate

This ensures that ideas are formed independently, not shaped by the loudest voice.

Next, distribute airtime deliberately. Rather than opening the floor, move around it:

  • Invite each person to contribute in turn
  • Ask quieter members early, not as an afterthought
  • Encourage those who tend to speak often to hold back initially

This is not about control. It is about creating equal access to influence. You can also introduce simple roles to support the process:

  • A facilitator to guide the conversation
  • A timekeeper to prevent overextension
  • A challenger to test ideas constructively

In leaderless teams, these roles can rotate. What matters is not who holds them, but that someone is holding the process.

Finally, introduce a small but powerful discipline. Agree that those who speak most will sometimes speak last. This creates space for others and shifts the dynamic from reaction to contribution.

The principle is straightforward. Do not rely on personality to create balance. Design the interaction so that balance is the natural outcome. Because when the structure changes, behaviour follows. And when behaviour shifts, the team begins to hear itself more clearly.

Address it directly, as a team

At some point, structure and agreements are not enough. If one person continues to dominate, the team needs to address it. Not indirectly. Not through hints or frustration. But directly, and together.

This is often where teams hesitate. Without a formal leader, it can feel unclear who has the right to speak. The default is silence, or private complaint.

Yet in the absence of hierarchy, responsibility does not disappear. It becomes shared. The most effective move is to raise the issue in the open, anchored in the team’s agreement.

Not as a judgement: “You speak too much.”

But as an observation connected to impact: “We agreed to create space for everyone to contribute. At times, our discussions are moving quickly, and some voices are not getting in. I think we need to rebalance that.”

This keeps the focus where it belongs. On the quality of the team’s thinking, not the behaviour of one individual. It also creates an important condition. The conversation becomes something the team owns, not something done to a person.

If appropriate, the team can go further and invite reflection:

  • “How are we each contributing to this pattern?”
  • “What would better balance look like in practice?”
  • “What do we need from each other to make that happen?”

This matters. Because dominance is rarely sustained by one person alone. It is often enabled, unintentionally, by others stepping back. Handled well, this kind of conversation does two things.

First, it gives the over-assertive individual a chance to adjust, without being singled out or undermined. Many are unaware of the impact they are having. Second, it strengthens the team’s ability to regulate itself. It builds a norm where behaviour can be named and shaped collectively.

There is a tone to hold here. Clear, but not confrontational. Honest, but not personal. Grounded in shared intent, not individual blame.

The shift is subtle but powerful. The question is no longer: “Who is causing the problem?”

It becomes: “How do we want to work together, and are we doing that?” And once a team can ask that question openly, it is no longer dependent on a single voice to lead.

Conclusion: Balance is a team responsibility

In teams without a formal leader, it is easy to personalise imbalance. One person speaks too much. Others speak too little. The solution appears to be adjusting individuals. But this misses the deeper point.

Teams create the conditions that shape behaviour. When agreements are vague, structure is absent, and responsibility is unclear, influence does not disappear. It concentrates. Often in the hands of the most confident or assertive voice.

The result is not just imbalance. It is a reduction in the team’s ability to think well.

The work, then, is not to manage the individual. It is to design the team. To revisit and use shared agreements. To structure conversations so all voices can contribute. To take collective responsibility for how the work gets done. And, when needed, to speak openly about what is happening in the room.

This is the shift. From hoping for balanced participation. To creating the conditions where it becomes inevitable. Because the goal is not to quiet strong voices. It is to ensure they sit alongside others. And when that happens, the team does not just feel better. It becomes smarter, more resilient, and more capable of making decisions it can stand behind.

Some further reading

How can I handle interruptions in meetings?: Practical ways to manage interruptions and protect space for more balanced contributions in conversations.

How can I influence upwards before and during meetings?: Explores how preparation and positioning shape whose voice is heard and how influence plays out in group settings.

How can I make my meetings more effective?: Sets out research-backed practices to create meetings that build clarity, ownership, and participation rather than drift and dominance.

Master assertiveness: 8 steps to voice needs with clarity: Explains assertiveness as the ability to express needs and boundaries clearly while respecting others, and how imbalance shows up as either passivity or dominance.

 

Do you have any tips or advice for working with a team member who dominates a peer-delivered project?

What has worked for you?

Do you have any recommended resources to explore?

Thanks for reading!