At a workplace team meeting, eight colleagues are present. Mark makes a joke with an explicit innuendo that does not match a professional workspace. The room goes silent. Sara raises her palm calmly and issues a short verbal caution.
Sara: “I would like to caution you, Mark, I think that joke is not suitable for an office meeting. Can you please reframe any of your humour, from now on, to match the workspace context?”
Mark replies: “It was harmless, no harm done. Get over it Sara.”
Sara responds with a neutral deferral focused on delivery, not the person:
Sara: “Ok, I think that joke crossed a line. I’ll Spatz you later with a Formal Caution, so that we can address it”. The meeting continues.
The meeting resumes updates. Mark is a little more sheepish. The team relaxes, once again. No manager involvement is required. The event is later logged by Sara in the SpatzChat app as a Formal Caution because Mark’s acknowledgment was declined at the meeting.
Later, while Sara and Mark are using the chat app, Mark self-corrects:
Mark (logged): “Ok, Sara, I think my joke was out of line. Thanks for flagging it. Next time I’ll keep humour work-safe and avoid explicit innuendo.”
Sara closes the caution in-app:
Sara (logged): “Acknowledgment accepted. No escalation required.” (Spatz Resolved)
I’m surprised there isn’t a simple, standard process to address behavior we find objectionable. Like flagging or objecting to the behavior, as it happens, with a mild verbal caution, for instance?
Imagine if we all agreed to such an intervention, we could address all sorts of issues that normally get swept under the carpet.
And, don’t worry, if the caution was challenged or ignored, we had a prepared contingency and tools to help us all get this accountability over the line. Welcome to SpatzChat by SpatzAI.
Object123 
Leave a comment