For most of my career, technology arrived first. People adapted second.
I first learned to type on a typewriter.
I still remember the classroom filled with the sound of keys striking paper as we raced to improve our speed without sacrificing accuracy. I was a 17-year-old junior at Farragut High School, and that class led directly to my first job at a reservation center during my freshman year at the University of Tennessee. Passing the typing test meant proving both speed and accuracy.
At the time, our biggest fear was that MTV and Video Killed the Radio Star meant radio would disappear.
It didn’t.
Radio evolved.
So did we.
Throughout my career, I’ve experienced every major workplace technology shift—from typewriters to word processors, paper memos to email, dial-up internet to Wi-Fi, and desktop software to cloud-based work. Every transformation followed the same pattern. Technology changed first. Humans learned how to work with it afterward.
Artificial intelligence is different.
Not because it represents another technological shift, but because we still have an opportunity to influence how the future of work is designed before today’s practices become tomorrow’s workplace norms.
As I continue researching AI, workplace wellbeing, organizational psychology, leadership, and the future of work, one recent study fundamentally changed how I think about AI implementation.
Researchers studying more than 2,000 participants found that psychological safety strongly predicts whether people adopt AI, but it does not predict how frequently or intensely they use it once adoption occurs. Psychological Safety in AI Adoption and Usage
That distinction immediately stood out.
It suggests that leaders are solving two entirely different problems.
AI adoption is emotional.
AI usage is structural.
Adoption depends on whether employees feel safe enough to experiment, ask questions, make mistakes, and learn. Usage depends on something entirely different: workflow design, organizational systems, role clarity, governance, and how work itself is redesigned around artificial intelligence.
That insight brought me back to the pioneering work of Amy Edmondson, who defines psychological safety as “a shared belief that the team is safe for interpersonal risk-taking.” Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams
For years, we’ve understood psychological safety as a hallmark of effective leadership and high-performing teams.
In the age of AI, I believe it has become something more.
It is becoming part of the architecture of organizational design.
This idea has profound implications for CEOs, CHROs, HR leaders, organizational psychologists, learning and development professionals, healthcare leaders, and anyone responsible for designing the future of work.
If employee stress continues to rise alongside AI adoption, are we facing an individual resilience problem—or a work design problem?
If organizations become more productive while employees become more cognitively depleted, what does sustainable performance actually look like?
And if the future of work is truly human, how do we intentionally design AI systems that strengthen—not diminish—human judgment, wellbeing, purpose, connection, and brain health?
These are the questions I explore in my newest article.
As someone researching and writing at the intersection of human-centered AI, workplace wellbeing, brain health at work, organizational culture, leadership, and the future of work, I believe our greatest opportunity isn’t simply building better AI.
It’s building better work.
I hope you’ll read the article and join the conversation because the future of work will not be defined by technology alone.
It will be defined by how intentionally we design work for humans.
Read the full article in HR Press: https://hrpress.co.uk/2026/07/08/hr-is-the-role-to-lead-ai-adoption-and-creating-psychological-safety-matters-more-than-ever/
Comments
Nothing yet. Say the first thing.
Sign in to join the conversation.