Time to rebuild psychological safety about AI
Lack of psychological safety in the conversation about AI is boosting resistance and destroying morale: It’s time for a different approach.
For over 20 years we have been training business leaders in the science of influence. In the scramble for AI, many are forgetting the most important principles. There will be a price to pay.
If organisations are going to succeed in the light of the new technology, they need to understand the social and psychological dynamics that underpin adoption. And above all, leaders need to have the courage to take a fundamentally different approach.
Employees are anxious about AI
It’s becoming increasingly hard to ignore the evidence. All the leading employee engagement surveys are showing a common pattern. Engagement levels, which have risen steadily since the late 2000s, are beginning to point downwards across the board. The downturn starts in 2023. Allowing for the expected time lag, it’s a timeline that seems to track closely with the advent of agentic AI in late 2022.
A slew of recent studies paints a consistent picture. Employees tend to be anxious about AI and are likely to resist its adoption. Their bosses don’t appear to be listening.
A study of 1,400 US employees by BCG highlights the disconnect: 76% of executives believed employees were enthusiastic about AI adoption. But in reality, less than a third (31%) of individual contributors said they were enthusiastic.
This lack of enthusiasm is hardly irrational. A recent Quinnipiac University poll found that:
- 30% of Americans said they were worried that AI could make their own job obsolete.
- 70% said advances in AI would reduce the number of jobs available overall.
People worry and that makes sense.
And just in case tech bosses aren’t getting it, former Google CEO Eric Schidt was roundly booed by students when he mentioned AI at his commencement address at the University oof Arizona. Arguably what was most remarkable was not the heckling but the fact that Schmidt seemed genuinely surprised. Bosses are out of touch way the way in which real people feel about AI; and that’s a problem.
AI and mental health
Most chilling is a major study by Byung-Jik Kim, Min-Jik Kim & Julak Lee published in Nature in May of last year.
The dark side of artificial intelligence adoption: linking artificial intelligence adoption to employee depression via psychological safety and ethical leadership. The study highlights the potential damage to mental wellbeing, including increased anxiety and depression, of driving AI adoption without giving careful consideration to psychological safety.
As one participant in a recent workshop told us – putting forward an alternative perspective means that you risk being branded a luddite or a laggard. In other words, you are either anti-technology or simply immutably behind the curve. Either way, it’s career-limiting.
Shouting louder about the benefits
The reaction of bosses and tech-industry zealots is to turn up the volume. They shout louder about the transformational nature of the technology. This is rarely an effective method of persuasion. Employees get the message: The way to stay safe is to get with the programme, and anyone who doesn’t, deserves what’s coming to them. You may get compliance in the short term, but you’re unlikely to get buy-in.
The backfire effect
As a strategy this couldn’t be more counterproductive. It ignores an important principle of influence. As we say at Threshold, ‘insistence leads to resistance.’ This is also known as the backfire effect.
The term comes from the political scientists Brendan Nyhan and Jason Reifler, who originally coined the term. Their research showed that when we thrust our point of view on people, their instinct is to resist. And the more forcefully we argue, the more we invite resistance. After all, people value their mental autonomy. And in a climate of anxiety, the effect is amplified.
Counterarguing
This is closely related to the inoculation effect, developed by social psychologist William J. McGuire. When an argument seems too one-sided, we feel suspicious and instinctively give more weight to the opposing view – a process also known as counterarguing.
This was the lesson of the ‘just-say-no’ anti-drugs campaigns of the 1980s. When young people felt that they were only hearing just one side of the story, they were more likely to believe that there were compelling reasons why people took drugs, that they weren’t hearing about. Acknowledging why some people take drugs alongside the risks and dangers proved to be more persuasive.
We frequently see a similar pattern when organizations seek to win buy-in to a new strategy or initiative: tell people it’s an unalloyed good, and you pique their mistrust. If you acknowledge different perspectives as valid, you have the basis for a conversation built on trust.
Investing in the soft skills of line-managers
Creating psychological safety is the role of the line manager. Organizations need front-line leaders on the ground who have the skills to listen.
This means investing in the soft skills of line-managers; an area where many organizations had cut investment since the advent of agentic AI. Redirecting investment away from leadership skills in favour of technical job-specific training is proving to be damagingly shortsighted. Organizations are now beginning to see the price to be paid for this.
Rooted in the proven science of influence
It’s sometimes said that you can only achieve what your people want you to achieve. Employees find multiple ways to scuttle organizational initiatives which they don’t support. If companies are to reap the benefits of AI, they must adopt a fundamentally different approach to influencing their people – one rooted in the proven science of influence and built on trust and rapport.
So, what do organizations need to do?
- Cultivate the communication and listening skills of line-managers
- Communicate frequently with openness and transparency: What can employees expect from AI adoption; and what will it look like for them
- Actively encourage a diversity of viewpoints and treat them all as valid
- Recognise that employees are the experts when it comes to how to do their jobs
- Listen to what they tell you about the extent of human agency that will continue to be needed
Above all, you need leaders on the ground who can make these psychologically safe conversations happen. Your frontline managers are pivotal.
Influence built on trust and rapport takes patience but gets you to the desired place quicker. There’s a Taoist parable that we sometimes share at workshops. A farmer is heading towards a market. He has a cart loaded with his crop of fresh apples. He asks a passerby if he’s heading in the right direction and how long it will take. The stranger assures him he’s on the right track, “It should take about an hour, but if you hurry it will take you all day.”
To find out how we can help leaders in your organisation to be more impactful, influential and persuasive visit www.threshold.co.uk
