In Design Studies (2017), Joel Chan and his colleagues observed that teams that failed to resolve their micro-conflicts often failed to achieve their project goals. Conversely, those that successfully navigated these everyday tensions didn’t just avoid breakdown; they reduced uncertainty, built trust, and ultimately delivered stronger outcomes.
The critical difference wasn’t the absence of minor spats, but the presence of an implicit process. Successful teams had unconsciously developed internal mechanisms for surfacing and resolving heated disagreements in real time. It seems that this “micro-conflict intelligence” became the invisible scaffolding that allowed collaboration to keep moving forward.
With SpatzAI, our goal is to standardize this process, to give any team a simple, explicitly structured way to address micro-conflicts caused by overly dogmatic behavior (unfair play) and reduce the uncertainty that such behavior creates. Not to prevent micro-conflicts, but to course-correct the behavior causing them: first by identifying early friction, then by getting the person to account for it when required, and finally by returning focus to the issue at hand and achieving a fair agreement.
Just as project management systems organize tasks and timelines, SpatzAI organizes and addresses overly dogmatic attitudes and the tensions they can cause; turning minor infractions into opportunities for clarity, accountability, and convergence. We call this micro-conflict intelligence.
Where most teams rely on intuition or a specific person to manage tensions, SpatzAI codifies the process. It gives teams a shared structure to detect, address, and resolve, in real time, the minor but problematic behaviors that overly dogmatic (I am right, you are wrong) thinking can elicit.
The backbone of this micro-conflict intelligence is the SpatzChat app, which is activated by an offended team member when their 0. verbal caution is ignored or challenged. Using the Spatz app, the following sequence unfolds:
- Formal Caution: Signals a spat has formally commenced, reiterating that their teammate’s overly dogmatic behavior was unacceptable, and inviting a simple acknowledgment to resolve it.
- Formal Objection: Issued if the caution is ignored or challenged, requiring a simple apology as the dispute escalates and potential egos mount.
- Formal Stop: Initiated if the objection is still ignored. It is automatically posted on the Spatz Team & AI Review Platform, requiring an acceptable apology as the dispute has now escalated to a conflict. This transparent step allows the team and AI to comment, offering outside perspectives.
If the behavior remains unresolved, the process can escalate to the company’s official conflict resolution procedure, supported by contemporaneous data collected during the earlier steps.
The first three Spatz steps are proportional, fair, and reversible, turning what could have been a personal conflict into a learning opportunity for the entire team and creating a LLM for the Spatz AI. The fourth step aligns with the organization’s formal conflict resolution framework.
In essence, SpatzAI isn’t designed to suppress micro-conflicts but to channel them intelligently. By embedding micro-conflict intelligence into everyday collaboration, teams can maintain psychological safety not as a platitude but as a living, evolving practice, allowing teams to push the envelope but preventing chaotic escalation long before a more formally organized intervention is needed.
Object123 
Leave a comment