Code of Misconduct

We are all conductors in a team, I believe. Like conductors of electricity only in our case we are conductors of information and may be very similar to nodes in a network. And the network suffers when we have a mis-conduction between two team members caused by a misconduct. So, it seems to me to be imperative that we resolve or restore the mis-conduction or remove the damaged node or nodes.

How can we tell when a mis-conduction has occurred in a team? I guess it doesn’t take long before the rest of the networked nodes realize a disconnection in one or more of the nodes (bad news travels fast, ha!). This weakens the whole network or team, stressing the rest of the network.

So, how do we restore the disconnect caused by the misconduct? I suggest we use our Object123, a self-managing, code of misconduct.

What is the code of misconduct? We can usually feel it in our gut; first, I suggest. A misconduct can be deemed by any team member, at any time. This makes the code of misconduct very agile, and we don’t have to remember a list of dos and don’ts as in a code of conduct.

How is the code executed? All that a team member needs to do is object to the misconduct directly and in real-time to the offending team member’s behavior or leader’s behavior. Using Object123, it starts with a mild Step 1: Caution and a corresponding acknowledgment. If the alleged mis-conductor challenges the caution, it goes up to Step 2: Objection and, if still challenged, goes to Step 3: Stop, and the dispute is automatically posted on the AI-peer network, to be reviewed and added to the knowledgebase for machine learning. An acceptable apology would be necessary at this late stage of the code of misconduct.