You may have encountered the workplace ritual of rating a meeting on a scale from 1 to 10. I believe the idea has its origins in the Entrepreneurial Operating System (EOS), which you can read about in a book called Traction by Gino Wickman. I like a lot of things about EOS, but this rating system is not one of them. The original idea may have been a good one, but in my experience it is applied in a very manipulative way.
In theory, everybody is invited to give their input at the end of a meeting about how well the meeting went and how useful the time was. In practice, inviting feedback in a public setting does not work unless there is either an equal power dynamic or a very high level of trust and mutual respect. When you work in a traditional 8 to 5 job, you learn quickly that telling the truth may well get you fired or placed in the crosshairs. “Shoot the messenger” Is alive and well in today’s business culture.
The first time I encountered a “rate the meeting” exercise, I took the instructions at face value. Everyone else had already chimed in with glowing 9s and 10s, applauding the boss’s facilitation. When my turn came, I gave it a 4. I explained that we hadn’t met our objectives, ran over time, and got sidetracked by too many side conversations. I also pointed out that much of the discussion could have been handled more efficiently through emails or one-on-one chats. The room fell silent like someone had punctured a balloon. Several people shot me angry looks, and the rest of my day spiraled from there.
At first, I chalked it up to a one-off until I saw the same pattern repeat in other settings.
On a group coaching call where I was a paying participant, I was again asked to rate the meeting. This time, after a parade of 9s, 10s, and even 11s, I rated the meeting a 6. The power dynamics were different; no one on the call could fire me. The facilitator responded with concern, asking if I was okay.
Different tactic. Same objective.
The unspoken message was clear: if you don’t think this was a great meeting, YOU are the problem.
People who truly want honest answers don’t ask questions they already know the answers to.
If you’re paying attention, it’s usually obvious how a meeting went. So when a manager asks everyone to rate it, there’s a good chance they already know the general sentiment. What they may really be doing is trying to steer perception, layering on a false sense of positivity and getting public buy-in.
Sure, this is a generalization. But it’s worth asking: what’s the real motive behind the question?
When someone asks for feedback publicly instead of privately, that choice sends a message. Public gestures are usually about optics. People who genuinely want the truth ask for it behind closed doors.
There’s another layer here: every business meeting is, at its core, a negotiation. Sharing your honest thoughts, especially in front of others, can come with real consequences. Every word carries weight, and most people know better than to say the wrong thing out loud.
In a low-trust environment, feedback becomes strategic. Employees tailor their responses not to reflect reality, but to protect or advance their position. Pretending otherwise insults everyone’s intelligence. We all know who holds the cards — and what happens when you play the wrong one.
“Rate the meeting” exercises are a great example of why we need a proactive strategy for handling manipulative or bullying behavior in the workplace. Developing psychological situational awareness is just as important as physical awareness. That means tuning in to subtle signs when people are steering conversations, shaping narratives, or engineering group dynamics in unhealthy ways. If you’re blindsided in a meeting, odds are the warning signs were there all along. You just missed them.
One simple practice you can start today: pay attention to the questions people ask. Every question carries a subtext. When you learn to spot it, patterns emerge fast.
