Most theories of conversation assume feedback leads to learning. Sometimes it does, but mainly when the feedback is easy to hear. This also encourages overly careful, even obsequious, delivery that avoids saying what actually needs to be said. When feedback is liked, learning is frictionless. When feedback is disliked or unwanted, human systems default to biology. We either fight or flight.
The Missing “Roll” in Psychological Safety
Attention all systems thinkers. I’d love your take on all the talk about psychological safety, and just how scientific it really is, especially here on LinkedIn. Even from leading experts, I find plenty of claims but little verifiable science. Don’t get me wrong, achieving genuine psychological safety would be the holy grail of behavioral psychology. But when I search for “the system of achieving psychological safety,” I find a lot of rhetoric and almost no mechanics.
If Psychological Safety Can Be Lost So Easily, How Safe Is It Really?
In a recent exchange with Eadine Hickey, she described psychological safety as something that can be reduced whenever someone feels shut down or made to look “stupid.” It got me thinking, if psychological safety can be so easily disturbed, is it really "safety" at all?
Formally Addressing Micro-Conflicts Vs Toxic Conflict Resolution
Why is it that formal conflict resolution is always at the end of the process and not the start? When most workplace conflicts, needing resolution, usually (if not in every case) start with a minor infraction, why not enable team members to more formally address these micro-conflicts or minor spats, well before intense and expensive conflict resolution is ever needed?
Why is conflict resolution at the end of the process and not at the start?
When most workplace conflicts, needing resolution, usually (if not in every case) start with a minor infraction, why not enable team members to effectively address these micro-conflicts well before expensive conflict resolution is ever needed.
When “Team-Building” Isn’t in the Team Charter
Sometimes the friction isn’t a difficult colleague (Narcissist) at all; it’s a ritual that outlived its usefulness. When teams centre on the Charter and let SpatzAI handle real-time respect and accountability, they often discover they need fewer “team-building” events, because the real bond is forged in how they handle minor spats, not in how well they throw a trivia night.
What is SpatzAI in a Nutshell
SpatzAI is a real-time micro-conflict resolution platform designed to help teams address and resolve minor workplace spats before they escalate into disputes or conflicts. It combines a structured messaging app, team, and AI review platform that holds team members accountable, creating fairness and psychological safety through transparency.
Conflict Resolution Vs Dynamic Collaboration
Picture two work colleagues locked in a simmering disagreement. Their spat drags on for weeks, finally reaching HR and senior management. Meetings are scheduled, statements are taken, emotions harden. By the time the official “resolution” arrives, the energy that once drove their work is long gone, trust has eroded, and collaboration has been compromised.
Free Speech vs Psychological Safety: What Really Protects People?
Psychological safety: Has been talked about since the 1965 by Schein and Bennis, which included "an atmosphere where one can take chances (which experimentalism implies) without fear and with sufficient protection." in its definition and later popularized (and diluted in my opinion) by Amy Edmondson.
Why Do Workplace Teams Need to Resolve Their Minor Spats?
In creative and collaborative teams, disagreements are inevitable. But what turns a team that falters into one that flourishes isn’t if minor conflicts happen, it’s how those “micro-conflicts” are handled....
Object123 