---
id: "prereq-psychological-safety-basics"
type: "prerequisite"
source_timestamps: ["§ When Experimentation Looks Like Rule-Breaking", "§ What Our Research Shows"]
tags: ["organizational-behavior"]
related: ["concept-praiseworthy-exploratory-testing", "entity-amy-edmondson"]
reason: "Required to understand why employees fear reputational damage and why trust is the primary mechanism for unlocking AI knowledge sharing."
sources: ["execution"]
sourceVaultSlug: "hbr-seg-execution"
originDay: 8
articleStem: "hbr-cl-76-employees-not-transparent-ai-usage"
sourceUrl: "https://hbr.org/2026/06/why-employees-arent-transparent-about-their-ai-usage"
sourceTitle: "Why Employees Aren’t Transparent About Their AI Usage"
---
# Psychological Safety

**Prerequisite concept.** The article relies heavily on [[entity-amy-edmondson|Amy Edmondson]]'s concept of **psychological safety** — the belief that one will not be punished or humiliated for speaking up with ideas, questions, concerns, or mistakes.

**Why you need it:** Psychological safety is the *mediating factor* between organizational trust and the willingness to share AI workflows. Without it, you cannot understand why employees fear reputational damage ([[claim-stigma-drives-silence]]), why hiding is rational ([[contrarian-ai-silence-is-rational]]), or why protecting [[concept-praiseworthy-exploratory-testing]] matters.

**Enrichment:** Edmondson's work is the cleanest theoretical bridge from this article's 'trust' thesis to established organizational behavior. Related trust typologies distinguish trust of *capability*, *communication*, and *character* — the article primarily engages communication trust and character/replacement fears.


## Related across articles
- [[concept-human-centricity]]
- [[quote-trust-speed-limit]]