Misbehavior Vs Mistakes

I think a large part of why everyday harm persists in organisations is linguistic rather than psychological. We are precise with work outputs, but evasive with conduct.

We have no hesitation calling a bad analytical take a mistake. We do not say, “there is a problem with takes, and some poor takes cause issues.” We name the miss because naming enables correction. A mistake is not moral; it simply means the outcome missed the mark.

Behaviour is treated differently. Harmful everyday actions are wrapped in neutral language, justified by context, or quietly tolerated. The use of the term “Behaviour” becomes a shield, even when the action was a deliberate choice. This creates an asymmetry: work quality is correctable, conduct is negotiable, and uncertain.

Separating mistakes from misbehaviour resolves this.

A mistake is unintentional. It arises from error, ignorance, or misjudgement. The remedy is learning, feedback, and iteration.

Misbehaviour is intentional or knowingly chosen. The person could reasonably have acted differently. The remedy is accountability, and putting up of one’s hand, rather than coaching.

Avoiding the word misbehaviour does not remove blame; it removes clarity. What actually avoids blame is how misbehaviour is handled.

In SpatzAI, misbehaviour is non-punitive by design. The response is proportionate and immediate: an acknowledgment if the issue is minor, a simple apology if needed, or an acceptable apology if escalation occurs. No sanctions. No character judgments. No historical scorekeeping.

Crucially, misbehaviour is addressed in the moment, while it is still correctable. This prevents the familiar failure mode where people avoid speaking up, storing resentment, and later complain to others about “patterns” after harm has accumulated. Complaining later moralises the issue; addressing it early operationalises it.

Intent also does not need to be asserted upfront. Misbehaviour is named as having missed the mark. If it is acknowledged, the issue is resolved and the system resets. If it is challenged or ignored, a 3-step escalation occurs, and intent is adjudicated by the Spatz Team and AI Review process, not by the individuals involved or management alone.

Calling objectionable behaviour as misbehaviour is not about punishment. It is about restoring symmetry between how organisations treat poor work performance and poor conduct. Just as calling a mistake a mistake improves thinking, calling misbehaviour misbehaviour enables accountability without collapsing into blame.