Most of us were taught that when uncomfortable friction arises during a disagreement, we have only three responses to consider: Fight Push back using a tit-for-tat reaction. Flight Step away. Avoiding the moment, and sweeping it under the carpet. Freeze Get stuck. Go silent. Ignoring the situation and shutting down.

I was in a discussion on LinkedIn the other day about disagreement in conversation. The point he raised was that disagreement is a form of friction, and that some amount of friction is necessary for a healthy discussion. I think there is something slightly off in that framing.

Most of us don’t recognise it because dogma hides inside conviction. The stronger we feel about being right, the less likely we are to question the beliefs that make us feel that way. And in the world of management and consulting, where confidence sells, this blindness is rewarded.

And so, tension quietly builds, trust erodes, and what was once a cohesive team begins to fracture. We can keep encouraging people to “speak up,” but the real question is how should a team member respond in that very moment when someone crosses their line?

In workplace teams, everyone nowadays seems to be talking about psychological safety and how an ideal culture protects people within it. But little thought is given to preparing for the daily failures that occur ad nauseam - the small ruptures born of our human fallibility, emotions, and egos. It’s these subtle moments, when someone’s tone sharpens or a correction feels like unfair criticism, that can quietly erode trust.

For years, organisations have been talking up psychological safety, inclusion, and communication culture. But talking isn’t the same as doing, and certainly not the same as addressing and resolving. We’ve mastered the art of reporting major incidents but still struggle with what happens before they escalate, the small moments of friction, tone, or misunderstanding that quietly corrode trust and alignment.

I figure we’re at the Wright Brothers moment, trying to get this thing called teamwork to truly fly. And I can’t help feeling a bit like one of those amateur bicycle mechanics (perhaps with mild delusions of grandeur).

In a long and insightful dialogue between Des Sherlock (the creator of SpatzAI) and his consultant, a powerful alignment emerged — a potential partnership that could redefine how organizations handle workplace conflict....

The biologist Edward Wilson argued that humanity has Paleolithic emotions, Medieval institutions, and Godlike technology. I think that combination explains why we feel so unstable as a species. Our tools have outgrown both our psychology and our systems.

Most people treat disagreeing and objecting as the same thing, but in my view, they are very different, and understanding the difference changes how we handle micro-conflicts.

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.

"To be, or not to be—that is the question:" Hamlet’s eternal struggle wasn’t just about existence. It was about endurance; whether to suffer in silence or speak truth in a world that may not be ready to hear it. Today, that same dilemma plays out in workplaces everywhere. When we see unfairness, disrespect, or overly dogmatic behavior, the question echoes in our minds: Do I call it out, or do I stay quiet and burn out slowly instead?

I agree with neuroscientists suggesting the negative effects of complaining: it drains energy, breeds resentment, and often changes nothing. But not many people know that there is a responsible way to complain. It’s called objecting.

“Your behavior as a leader sets the tone for your team.” That’s the line we often hear. And yes, it can be true, if you believe it’s only the leader’s role to do so. But what if leadership wasn’t about setting the tone, but enabling it to be set collectively? Imagine instead of one person determining the culture of the team, you had a system that allowed anyone in the team to fairly course-correct the tone of another team member, even the leader.

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?

It seems to me that I see psychological safety a lot differently than most.. Team members often don’t stay silent because they have nothing to say, but because they’re concerned they won’t receive the respect they deserve for contributing. Not because they are weak, but because they don’t know how to address objectionable behavior without exasperating the situation.

We believe that most team blowups don't start as major conflicts. They slowly unravel through micro-conflicts, born by dogmatic, "I am right, you are wrong thinking." Subtle tensions, repeated interruptions, and passive-aggressive comments. These aren’t “small” problems; they are early signals of cultural erosion.

In Design Studies (2017), Joel Chan and his colleagues observed that teams that failed to resolve their micro-conflicts often failed to achieve their project goals. Conversely, those that successfully navigated these everyday tensions didn’t just avoid breakdown, they reduced uncertainty, built trust, and ultimately delivered stronger outcomes.

How many workplace team members does it take to screw up addressing misbehavior in a meeting? Five billion....ha! That's because every human on the planet seems to have their own specific way of handling a spat. Some avoid it. Some explode. Some smile and stew. Others call HR. Few actually address it fairly, in the moment

Two years ago, when I pitched SpatzAI fair play for teams to an investor from Atlassian Investment, he listened carefully, smiled, and said something that stuck: “Managers might start getting honest pushback from their teams.”

Organizations are supposed to be organized, but when it comes to helping teams resolve their minor spats, the best advice we’re still getting (even from Harvard Business Review) is for managers to intervene. Here’s what they recommend managers do:....

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?

Now ask any expert on psychological safety and they’ll repeat the same rhetoric, that people need to feel safe (respected) when they speak up. In fact, ask anyone on the street and they’ll probably say the same thing. We all want to be treated with respect, especially when we share ideas or concerns.

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.

It seems that most organization consultants and psychology experts on Linkedin talk about respect in teams. From HR manuals to corporate slogans, the message hasn’t changed for millennia: treat people with respect.