“That Will Never Work!”: Confronting Dogmatic Negativity in Team Discussions

In the quest for psychological safety within team environments, a key hurdle often encountered is the practice of browbeating with unfair dogmatic naysaying. This phenomenon, where individuals are discouraged from speaking up due to fear of negative repercussions or minor conflict, is a significant barrier to achieving the ‘holy grail’ of psychological safety in teams, we believe. Addressing these negative repercussions (and the people behind this misbehavior) directly and in real-time is our approach to creating an environment where team members can freely express innovative ideas without fear.

The standard approach to nurturing psychological safety often draws from Amy Edmondson’s method. This approach, celebrated and embraced widely in team management, emphasizes the creation of an inclusive environment where team members feel safe to take risks, voice their opinions, and admit mistakes. Edmondson’s model is steeped in the importance of fostering open communication, respecting diverse perspectives, and encouraging a culture of mutual respect and empathy. This method, while effective when they occur, does not offer a solution for when any of these required behaviors are infringed upon and unfair naysaying ensues. These well-intentioned respectful behaviors, sometimes fall short during difficult conversations with no method to actively combat the deep-seated issue of browbeating with the use of absolute and dogmatic language.

It is time for a change, we say at SpatzAI. We need to move beyond cliches and platitudes and take active, real-time steps to dismantle the culture of unfair dogmatic naysaying. Our solution is the SpatzAI intervention toolkit. This model offers a structured, real-time approach to addressing and resolving micro-conflicts in teams, focusing on the immediate acknowledgment and rectification of dogmatic misbehavior.

First it is imperative that team members agree to use the SpatzAI intervention procedure.
At Spatz we advocate for splitting micro-conflicts or spats into two parts:

1. The content of the disagreement and
2. The manner of its delivery.

This approach allows team members to distinguish between disagreeing with an idea (content) and objecting to how it is presented (delivery). A critical aspect of SpatzAI’s method is its three-step intervention process: Caution, Object, and Stop. Each step escalates the response if the micro-conflicts remain unresolved, ensuring that issues are addressed promptly and effectively.

In the SpatzAI model, initial objections to this misbehavior are addressed with a verbal a caution, requiring acknowledgment from the cautioned party. If the issue is ignored or challenged, a formal caution is issued via the SpatzAI App, documenting the spat and mandating a reply of acknowledgment. If the now dispute is still unresolved, an official objection is logged in the app, necessitating a simple apology from the opposing party. And finally in cases of unresolved conflicts, the issue is escalated to an official stop and posted on the SpatzAI peer network for a wider review, demanding a heartfelt apology for the infringing party.

This model stands in contrast to the traditional approaches, which often rely on building a culture over time. SpatzAI instead offers a dynamic, real-time solution that directly confronts and resolves minor conflicts as they occur, truly creating a safe and collaborative environment.

In conclusion, while traditional methods of nurturing psychological safety, such as Amy Edmondson’s approach, have laid a solid foundation, it is crucial to evolve and adopt more direct and effective measures. The SpatzAI intervention model represents a pioneering step in this direction, offering real-time solutions to the pervasive issue of browbeating and dogmatic naysaying. By implementing such innovative approaches, we can move closer to realizing the true potential of psychological safety in team environments.