search.noResults

search.searching

saml.title
dataCollection.invalidEmail
note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
Feature


Psychological safety: The human factor behind successful AI adoption


By Darya Mishyna, Principal Business Psychologist at Matthew Syed Consulting


W


hat do Pixar’s “Braintrust” and New Zealand’s All Blacks have in common?


Despite their different fields


both drive success not by individual brilliance, but by a culture where people with diverse skills and perspectives contribute ideas and challenge each other constructively1,2


. Today, companies like Amazon


and Infosys are using the same principle to boost the success of their AI implementation efforts3,4


.


Psychological safety in the AI era At the heart of this is psychological safety5,6


– an environment where


people feel empowered and responsible to contribute unique perspectives, collaborate with others, challenge the status quo, and learn from experience. While academic research is still


catching up with the frenetic pace of AI adoption, we believe the importance of fostering psychological safety is amlified not diminished. The data we have so far is striking. A research paper by MIT Technology Review found that leaders


overwhelmingly view psychological safety as a driver of AI adoption, with 83% observing connections between psychological safety and tangible AI outcomes. And yet fewer than four in ten describe their organisation as having “very high” levels of psychological safety3


Even more revealing, while 91% of employees say that it’s important to speak up, a sizable 61% admit they rarely do so in front of senior leaders8


although experimentation-friendly companies have greater success with AI projects3


. , 41% of employees report


that experimenting with new approaches is usually seen as a risk rather than opportunity in their organisation8


In other words, the capability organisations most need is the one many currently lack. So, what is really going on?


. . Similarly,


> Special Edition | 45


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76