Do his comments add any value, regardless of how they are delivered? Or do they primarily serve to derail discussions?<p>Does he have any formal responsibilities at all or is he an éminence grise, probably with some patents or a major product under his belt, but no portfolio of products or services?<p>Does he do drive bys, stepping in just long enough to interject then walk away, or does he sit through and participate in the discussion?<p>It’s tempting to say to ignore him, the problem is that if he truly has no responsibilities but is still employed, he's valued by your company in some way for some reason, and he can knee cap your projects or career and you'll likely never know.<p>If his comments actually add value then you can try to interact with him. If he's just wasting everyone's time, get your immediate management chain on your side, and then knee cap him at the next opportunity that avails.<p>I'm now his (likely) age. When I was much younger (late 20s) I tried to tolerate and make nice with people like this and it likely helped end my career at that employer. I don't mean you need to be mean to him, but if he's wasting your time, and he's wasting everyone's time at these meetings, then he's wasting company time. It doesn't show up anywhere except that you're not getting things done as rapidly as expected, meanwhile he's off derailing another meeting. There's no OKR or PBC for "successfully derails meetings" and most company cultures don't measure negative impact until an employee is already on a performance plan. But these employees are toxic and need to be called out.<p>Tactically: get someone in your management change who is comparable or higher in seniority to him on your side who can either attend some of these meetings or be ready to “just drop in” if he shows up. Let that person make the call on whether or not it's a problem for the business, and address the problem. If you try to do so you're more likely to get flagged than he is.