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?
Vaccinate Against Toxic Workplace Behaviour
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.
The Reciprocal & Anonymous Feedback Gap
I think there is a simple problem sitting underneath a lot of workplace feedback. When receiving feedback, many of us would prefer it to be early, specific and direct from the person with the issue. But when giving difficult feedback, many of us would also prefer distance, anonymity, or a manager to deliver it for us. That creates what I call the reciprocal feedback gap:
360-Degree Feedback and the Difficult Conversation
I read a post this morning about senior leaders resisting 360-degree feedback. I presumed "360-degree feedback" means everyone gets it, let me check. "The “360” refers to getting a rounded view from people above, beside and below you in the hierarchy, rather than feedback coming only from your boss." The interesting point was not that leaders dislike this feedback. Most leaders give feedback all the time. The interesting part was what happened when the feedback process was turned back on them.
SpatzAI Will Do Just One Thing Well — Resolve or Escalate
SpatzAI only does one thing for workplace teams. But it's design focus is to do that one thing extremely well. It will give every participating team member an agreed process for saying, “I have an issue with how you just behaved,” and getting that issue either resolved or escalate. That’s it. It won't try to replace HR. It won't be for reporting incidents. It won't be for mediation. It won't be an employee engagement survey, a whistleblowing hotline or another workplace culture platform. It operates much earlier than all of those.
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.
