What if we thought about workplace conflict the same way we think about health? Most organisations already have systems for when things go seriously wrong. But the more interesting question is what happens much earlier. A useful continuum might look like this:
The No Asshole Loophole: Giving the Ass a Free Pass
I’ve been reading about Robert Sutton’s The No Asshole Rule, and there’s a lot about his thinking that aligns with what I’m trying to achieve with SpatzAI. Sutton’s basic proposition is simple: workplaces shouldn’t tolerate people who repeatedly demean, humiliate, intimidate or disrespect others — regardless of how talented or productive they might be.
Speaking Down, Not Talking Down, & Speaking Up, Not Talking Back
Speaking up, speaking down, giving feedback, challenging an idea — what do they all have in common? They are things organisations say they want people to be able to do. Yet employees can hesitate to speak up because of the possible cost. And managers can struggle to speak down without it becoming talking down. There is an important distinction.
What is Your Organization Prepared to Do?
I read a post today that contained this line: “That gap between what an organisation knows and WHAT IT IS PREPARED TO DO can tell us a great deal about its culture.” I think the intended meaning of prepared was fairly clear. The organisation knows there is a behavioural problem, but it is not sufficiently willing to confront it. Fair point. But I read another meaning into the same word.
SpatzAI Pre-grievance Intervention
We think that a pre-grievance intervention is what should happen before there is a grievance. Think of SpatzAI as a workplace smoke-alarm system. You don’t wait until the building is burning before deciding what to do.
How to Control Rogue AI, Straight form the Horses Mouth
I asked my trained AI to answer this question: "If you were charged with reducing the hazards of an AI going rogue what 5 steps would you take to ensure this behavior was addressed and resolved." Maybe the answer
Pre-Grievance Intervention: A New Workplace Category
Organisations usually have processes for workplace grievances, bullying, harassment and misconduct. But there is a much bigger space that comes before all of those; the everyday behaviours that irritate, undermine, embarrass or disrespect someone, but may not yet justify involving a manager, HR or a formal process I think this deserves its own category:
Is My AI Already Outsmarting Workplace Experts?
I asked my personal AI this question, thinking maybe it is smart enough to come up with a solution to this global problem: "If you were charged with reducing psychosocial hazards, (specifically minor behavior issues) in Australia, and given a free scope, what would you do?" Here is the AIs reply - *PS it seems to have been obviously influenced by my ongoing conversation with it : "My system would look like this:
Conflating Conflict: Why My Copilot Fell Into the Trap
For years, much of the conflict‑resolution field has leaned on an outdated paradigm: treating disagreement as conflict and tension as friction. My Copilot AI fell into that trap. It's training data, like the dominant literature, blurred these distinctions. It seemed neat to collapse everything into one continuum of “trouble.” But neatness comes at a cost.
How do Employees Know When to Involve their Manager or HR?
How do employees know when they should involve their manager or HR, instead of working issues out between themselves?. First, let's get a few definitions and ground rules down so that we are singing from the same hymn book. The framework I am using separates disagreements from conflicts:
