Psychological safety mediates link between AI adoption and worker depression

Artificial intelligence is changing how many companies operate, but its impact on workers’ mental health is not fully understood. A new study published in Humanities and Social Sciences Communications suggests that adopting AI in organizations may negatively affect employee well-being by reducing psychological safety, which can in turn contribute to depression. The research also provides evidence that ethical leadership may help protect employees from these effects by fostering a safer and more supportive work environment.

The researchers—Byung-Jik Kim, Min-Jik Kim, and Julak Lee—sought to examine how AI adoption in the workplace influences employee depression. While many studies have looked at AI’s benefits or its technical aspects, fewer have addressed how AI affects employee mental health. The authors argue that this is a critical gap, especially given the growing role of AI in business operations and the potential for these technologies to reshape job roles, increase uncertainty, and disrupt workplace relationships.

They focused on depression because it is one of the most common and costly mental health conditions in the workplace. The researchers also wanted to explore not just whether AI adoption affects depression, but how this happens. They proposed that psychological safety—a shared belief that it is safe to speak up or take interpersonal risks at work—might explain this link. Additionally, they investigated whether ethical leadership, which involves fairness, transparency, and care for others, might reduce the negative effects of AI on psychological safety.

The study used a three-stage survey design with 381 employees from various organizations in South Korea. Data were collected through an online panel maintained by a major survey firm. Surveys were administered at three time points over several months to reduce bias and strengthen the results.

At the first stage, employees reported on the extent to which their organization had adopted AI and how ethical they perceived their leaders to be. AI adoption was measured across five areas: human resources, operations, marketing, strategy, and finance. Ethical leadership was assessed using a standard 10-item scale.

Free daily newsletter

At the second stage, employees responded to questions about psychological safety. Items included statements such as whether it felt safe to take risks or ask for help at work.

At the final stage, employees completed a widely used 10-item measure of depression. This scale included questions about feelings of sadness, hopelessness, loneliness, and fatigue.

To analyze the data, the researchers used structural equation modeling, a method that allows for testing complex relationships among variables. They also conducted a bootstrapping analysis to test whether psychological safety acted as a bridge linking AI adoption to depression.

The results showed that AI adoption was not directly linked to employee depression. Instead, the relationship was indirect: AI adoption was associated with lower levels of psychological safety, and lower psychological safety was linked to higher levels of depression. This means that employees working in environments with more AI were less likely to feel safe speaking up or asking for help, which in turn made them more likely to experience depressive symptoms.

The analysis also showed that ethical leadership played a protective role. In organizations where employees perceived their leaders as ethical, the negative effect of AI adoption on psychological safety was weaker. In other words, ethical leadership helped reduce the loss of psychological safety that often accompanies AI integration. When leaders acted fairly, involved employees in decision-making, and communicated openly about changes, workers felt more supported and less threatened by AI technologies.

These findings suggest that the way organizations implement AI—and the kind of leadership in place—can make a significant difference in how employees respond psychologically.

While the study provides important insights, it also has limitations. First, all data were collected from self-reports, which can introduce bias. Although the researchers used time-lagged surveys to reduce this concern, future studies could include supervisor ratings or objective mental health data.

Second, the study was conducted in South Korea. Cultural factors such as high power distance and a strong emphasis on hierarchy may influence how AI adoption and leadership affect employees. Research in other cultural contexts is needed to see whether the findings apply more broadly.

The authors also note that not all effects of AI are negative. In some cases, AI could reduce stress by automating tedious tasks or improving job efficiency. Future research could explore both the positive and negative psychological effects of AI adoption, and under what conditions each occurs.

“The fast adoption and integration of AI at work is having a profound impact on the physical and mental health of employees. Given that AI is radically altering work processes and the overall employee experience, it is critical to examine the psychological risks and challenges that these technical enhancements entail,” the researchers concluded.

The study, “The dark side of artificial intelligence adoption: linking artificial intelligence adoption to employee depression via psychological safety and ethical leadership,” was authored by Byung-Jik Kim, Min-Jik Kim, and Julak Lee.