I just listened to Geoffrey Hinton talking about LLMs. What struck me was that he wasn't particularly interested in whether AI was "conscious" or "sentient." He talked instead about subjective experience. That got me thinking. Much of the discussion around AI sentience seems to travel in one direction: Greater intelligence → greater subjectivity → subjective experience → perhaps sentience. But for several years, I have been travelling almost blindly in the opposite direction. My interest has been objectivity.
It’s the Review Process, Stupid
I have been thinking about what sits underneath the SpatzAI process. Previously, I arrived at: “It’s the uncertainty, stupid.” People often hesitate to challenge workplace behaviour because they are uncertain about what will happen next. Then: “It’s the process, stupid.” Reduce the uncertainty by giving everyone an agreed, predictable process. But I think there is another layer beneath both: It’s the review process, stupid.
To Escalate Early or De-escalate Later?
One thing has struck me recently. Most conflict-resolution experts talk about de-escalating workplace conflict. That makes sense because, by the time managers or HR become involved, the issue has usually developed into a serious workplace conflict. Emotions are high, positions are entrenched, relationships have deteriorated, and the priority is understandably to calm things down. But what if the problem of conflict resolution is being approached from the wrong direction?
The Spatz Escalator Pitch
What is the future of addressing workplace psychosocial hazards? For us, and perhaps for many in this field, the answer is becoming clear: AI-assisted, real-time psychological safety. But what does that actually mean? In our view, it means every team member having a standard toolkit and process that helps make speaking up private, transparent (when required), and consistent.
Psychological Safety AND Accountability
Psychological safety AND accountability are often treated as competing ideas. I think they become easier to understand when we separate the problems that, I believe, are designed to address....
It’s the Process, Stupid.
I've spent years thinking about the apparent tension between psychological safety and accountability. Psychological safety encourages people to speak up. Accountability expects people to own their behaviour. Both are important, yet many organisations struggle to achieve either. Why? I suspect we're looking at the wrong end of the problem....
SpatzChat™ Escalator Pitch
You know that feeling you get when someone unfairly and subtly puts you down after you share a radical idea at work? If it happens repeatedly, many people eventually complain about the person to their manager or HR. But what if you could safely address this behaviour, privately and in real-time, instead of waiting for them to repeat it? That’s what we do.
Plato and Aristotle had a Minor Spat
Our conversation began by contrasting Plato and Aristotle. Plato was presented to me as focusing on timeless ideals and abstract forms, while Aristotle - a student of Plato - was described as grounding knowledge in observation and the study of the natural world. This raised the question of where SpatzAI sits philosophically....
Resolved or Escalate. Repeat
Make sure the issue is repeated enough times before complaining. Then: If this happens, wait 90 seconds, stay calm. Be respectful. If that fails, document privately. If they respond this way, then complain anonymously to HR. If they respond another way, involve your manager secretly. Etc. Etc. No wonder there are so many unresolved conflicts causing toxic workplaces. SpatzChat takes a simpler approach.
Introducing the Spatz Team Cohesion Index – TCI
Much of the conversation on LinkedIn about workplace culture treats it as something that flows from the top down, with leadership acting as the primary governing force. At SpatzAI, we take a different view and have built a different framework...
Object123 