Why don't organisations have an Objection Departments? We have Human Resources departments, complaints departments, whistleblower hotlines and anonymous reporting systems. But where is the department responsible for helping employees object to one another's behaviour? Perhaps we don't need one. After all, we don't have Disagreements Departments or Course Corrections Departments either. These everyday interactions can ordinarily be handled directly between the people involved. But here's the problem.
THE POWER OF ONE
What if just ONE person could influence the culture of an entire workplace team? Not through leadership, authority, seniority, management intervention or majority agreement. But simply by saying one word: “Caution.” I've been thinking about the implications of this as we develop SpatzAI around a simple proposition: Helping Teams Object Well.
Resilience Training or Helping Teams Object Well?
For decades, many organisations have invested in resilience training, encouraging employees to become better at coping with workplace pressures, difficult conversations and objectionable behaviour. But I think we may be overlooking a more fundamental question Rather than primarily teaching people how to tolerate objectionable behaviour, why aren't we teaching teams how to object to it?
Intellectual Boundaries vs Behavioural Boundaries: How to Play Fair?
I believe one of the biggest challenges we face in workplace conversations is our tendency to confuse two very different boundaries: intellectual boundaries and behavioural boundaries. And interestingly, due to our biases, we can easily make this mistake in two opposing ways. 1. We mistake THEIR intellectual challenges for behavioural infringements. And call them UNFAIR. 2. We mistake OUR behavioural infringements for legitimate intellectual challenges. And call them FAIR
SpatzAI — How It Works
SpatzAI is a pre-grievance self-management system for addressing minor behavioural issues in workplace teams. Its purpose is to help team members resolve objectionable behaviour early, fairly and proportionately, without unnecessarily involving managers or HR. THE AGREEMENT Teams agree to the Spatz Team Charter (5-page PDF), establishing explicit behavioural boundaries and a level playing field, regardless of rank. Every team member has an equal right to disagree with another person's ideas and to object to their behaviour.
REFRAME IT OR OBJECT TO IT? TWO RESPONSES TO WORKPLACE OBJECTIONABLE BEHAVIOR
Imagine a colleague makes a remark in a meeting that you immediately interpret as insulting or threatening. Reframe It One approach advises you to pause, breathe and question that interpretation. Perhaps you misunderstood. Perhaps the remark was about something frustrating the speaker, not about you. With a little creativity, you can usually find a more benign explanation. You could check what they meant, but instead choose to believe they weren't out to get you. This is cognitive reframing. It may help regulate your immediate reaction, prevent unnecessary confrontation and preserve working relationships. Ironically, it is up to you to adjust to someone else's rudness. But does it address the behaviour itself, or merely change how the recipient feels about it?
Should We Rely on Leaders Modelling the Culture — or on Teams Using Independently Tested Systems to Shape It?
Recently I challenged a post by Sally, whose work I admire. She wrote: “Leadership will make or break your culture. On this there is no middle ground.” I asked a simple question: If culture fails, must we blame the leaders? More importantly, does assigning blame actually fix anything? The familiar response from most management consultants to a failing culture is more leadership and team training, better role modelling, clearer expectations and stronger managerial accountability. These may help. But they keep returning us to the same assumption: better leaders are the answer.
Objections Before Complaints: Get It Wrong and Maybe We’re Screwed
We encourage people to speak up at work. But what happens when the person they're speaking to responds unfairly? Imagine you raise a concern about a faulty screw during a team meeting. Your manager dismisses you rudely or simply ignores your concerns. The screw may or may not be faulty. That's one issue. Your manager's behaviour is another. So, you complain anonymously about her to HR. But consider what happens next.
Accountability Before Authority: A Possible Framework for Human and Artificial Intelligence
“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.
