Psychological Safety: Accountability, Transparency, and the Devil in the Detail

I think far too much is talked around psychological safety—what it is, what it is not—while too few people state, plainly, how they believe it becomes real in someone’s day-to-day workplace.

These are my tips for how I think it can be achieved:

Rather than focusing on aspirational behavior and hoping the leader sets the tone, I think it is more effective to focus on the moments where we fail to uphold our own respectful aspirations, because that is where safety is won or lost, I believe.

Psychological safety tends to break in small, ordinary interactions: the interruption, the eye-roll, the dismissal, the sarcastic jab, the status flex, the quiet retaliation later. Not the big, dramatic blow-ups, those are usually the end of a long chain of smaller failures that were never addressed.

So the practical question becomes: what do we do, in real time, when one of those small failures happens?

My answer is: make “addressing it” normal, lightweight, and fair.

• Whatever we come up with, make sure that all team participants are using the same playbook.
  
• Make the behavior observable and nameable, so people can point to what happened without turning it into a character judgment.
  
• Make the response predictable and proportionate, so speaking up does not feel risky or random.
  
• Make the process available to everyone, so safety does not depend on hierarchy, charisma, or confidence.
  
• Make the resolution simple, so most issues end quickly: acknowledgment first, or a brief apology when needed, and escalation only when the issue is ignored or challenged.

This is the gap SpatzAI is built to fill: a small, shared course-correction due process for micro-conflicts, used in the moment, that turns “respect” from an aspiration into a repeatable practice.

Consisting of:

1. A shared definition of “micro-conflict”
   Small, correctable behaviors that create friction, usually caused by dogmatic, “I am right, you are wrong thinking and resulting in: continuous interruption, dismissive and evasive behavior, ridicule, status threats, withholding information, public shaming, or retaliation. The point is to address the behavior, not diagnose intent
   
2. A graduated, proportionate accountable response

• 0. Verbal Caution (in the moment): identify the behaviour and request an acknowledgment, or if challenged or ignored continue.
• 1. Formal Caution (lodged using the SpatzChat™ app, at an appropriate time): restate the behavior with basic context (time, place, what was said/done) so there is a clear documented record. If still challenged or ignored continue.
• 2. Formal Objection (escalation nudge using the SpatzChat™ app): if still unresolved continue.
• 3. Formal Stop (Final escalation nudge using the chat app) and automatically posted on the Spatz Team and AI Review platform.

3. Clear accountable resolution standards

• Verbal Acknowledgment for steps 0 and 1: “I see what you mean, I’ll adjust.”
• Formal SpatzChat™ acknowledgement using the SpatzChat™ app: “I see what you mean, I’ll adjust.”
• Formal Simple apology for step 2, using the SpatzChat™: “Sorry, I interrupted; I won’t do that again.”
• Acceptable apology for step 3, using the chat app: “what happened, why it happened, what will change next time”.

Transparency of the Team-assisted review as the accountability backstop
When two people cannot converge, and recalcitrance sets in, the team (supported by SpatzAI) reviews the SpatzChat™ data of the specific behavior and decides a fair outcome. This reduces “he said, she said,” removes status advantage, and makes accountability consistent.