“Am I my brother’s keeper?” — Genesis 4:9. What if the answer is yes? And what if my brother is also my keeper? Now extend that principle beyond humanity to artificial intelligence. As AI becomes increasingly intelligent and autonomous, we face a question explored by philosopher Nick Bostrom: How do we ensure that intelligence greater than our own remains accountable? Perhaps part of the answer lies not in greater intelligence, but in a common real-time behavioural operating system. Accountability Before Authority. This is the foundational principle behind SpatzAI, a pre-grievance self-management behavioural system originally designed for workplace teams:
The SpatzAI Explainer: Protection. Fairness. Proportionate Accountability.
Spatz is a pre-grievance self-management system for minor behavioural issues. Teams agree to the Spatz team charter, establishing a level playing field regardless of rank. Any member can issue a verbal caution when someone's behaviour crosses their line, knowing they're protected by an agreed, fair and proportionate accountability process. Just like a referee blowing the whistle for an unfair challenge, anyone can call a foul, but their call can also be challenged and reviewed fairly.
A Standard Solution to a Classic Problem
If a workplace problem is so common that we call it a "classic..", why haven't we developed a standard solution? I recently exchanged comments with Erika on LinkedIn about psychological safety, accountability and the everyday messiness of workplace relationships. Erika argued that psychological safety shouldn't mean avoiding difficult conversations. She emphasised the importance of trust, maturity and people learning to talk directly with one another rather than about one another. I largely agree.
Designed Personality vs Designed System
I think there are two very different ways to approach workplace culture. The first is the familiar leadership-modelling solution. Leaders are expected to model respectful behaviour, set the tone, reinforce values, correct poor behaviour, resolve disputes and somehow embody the culture everyone else is expected to follow. At its best, this can work remarkably well. A strong leader can create a strong culture.
The Empress’s New Safety
Psychological safety has become one of the workplace’s most fashionable promises, with all sorts of management consultants making these unfounded promoises. We are told that psychologically safe teams speak up more, learn faster, innovate better and make fewer mistakes. I have little argument with the destination. My problem is with the vehicle. Ironically when one speaks up and asks where is the test data from the operating system? Cue the crickets.
Spatz™: Culture By Default
I think culture is governed by how team members respond when minor behavioural issues emerge. Every team member, on occasion, will lose their cool, interrupt, dismiss an idea, talk down to someone, be overly dogmatic, use sarcasm or simply get their tone wrong. That does not suddenly make them a disrespectful person ie. full of disrespect. It means their level of disrespect has increased momentarily.
The “Gift” of Feedback
We often hear that feedback is a gift. I think that idea can become dangerous when it quietly turns into: “If someone gives you feedback, you should accept it, however they choose to deliver it.” That is where I think psychological safety can begin to unravel. Feedback contains at least two separate things: Content — what the person is actually saying Delivery — how they choose to say it.
Does Leadership Need to Create or Model Workplace Culture?
A standard definition of workplace culture is: Workplace culture is the shared assumptions, values, norms, beliefs, practices and patterns of behaviour that shape how people in an organisation think, interact and make decisions. Most culture frameworks then place leadership at the centre. Leaders are expected to model the desired behaviour, set the tone, correct others and somehow embody the culture. I’m increasingly unconvinced by that model, particularly the weakness of a system that relies so heavily on a relatively small number of individuals.
I Disagree With Conflating “Conflict”: Why disagreement and conflict are not the same thing
I recently came across a useful distinction between a hypothesis and a theory. A hypothesis is a testable proposition. A theory is a developed explanation supported by substantial evidence. That got me thinking about two other words I use a lot: framework and paradigm. A framework is the structure we use to organise concepts, assumptions and questions. A paradigm is broader again: the established way a field tends to understand a subject. Which raises an interesting question for workplace conflict.
Better Safe Than Sorry
“Better safe than sorry” is one of those everyday sayings we rarely question. Wear the seatbelt. Check the lock. Back up the file. Test the smoke alarm. The logic is simple: a small precaution now may prevent a much bigger problem later. So why do we so often abandon that logic when it comes to workplace misbehaviour?
