Blog

A woman with a cyborg, human and robot face to face, artificial intelligence concept with cube shaped particles on neon background

<p>Artificial intelligence (AI) has quickly moved from curiosity to necessity, transforming how organizations operate and make decisions. Yet its rise also confronts us with a deeper question: What remains distinctly human in leadership when algorithms outperform us at speed, precision, and prediction? This article explores how AI and human intelligence (HI) can coexist in a hybrid model that prioritizes ethics, adaptability, and consciousness.&nbsp;</p><p>Drawing on emerging research in technology ethics, organizational psychology, and leadership studies, it provides a framework for leaders, teams, and consultants to navigate this convergence with both wisdom and strategy.</p><h2>Introduction</h2><p>Few topics generate as much noise, or confusion, as AI in the workplace. Much of the conversation toggles between apocalyptic fear and blind optimism, but both extremes miss the point. The real challenge is not whether AI will replace humans; it is whether humans will forget how to be human. According to Floridi and Cowls (2021), the defining feature of human intelligence is moral reasoning and consciousness. This allows for capacities that no algorithm, regardless of scale, can authentically emulate.</p><p>Still, resisting AI is futile. The better path, as Cukurova (2024) argues, lies in cultivating hybrid intelligence, where humans and machines complement rather than compete. In this configuration, humans remain the interpreters of meaning while AI accelerates execution. Understanding this interdependence is the foundation for every leadership decision that follows.</p><h2>Understanding AI and Human Intelligence</h2><p>AI systems excel in data-rich environments where precision, pattern recognition, and prediction dominate. Marcus and Davis (2019) describe these systems as “statistical engines,” capable of optimizing defined objectives yet blind to context. Their power lies in processing scale; their weakness is brittleness when faced with novelty or ambiguity (Zhou et al., 2023).</p><p>Human intelligence operates differently. It draws on metacognition, emotion, and experience. Qualities that make us both irrational and irreplaceable. As Sternberg (2021) notes, human adaptability thrives in uncertainty, precisely where algorithms falter. Rather than viewing AI and HI as rivals, Weidmann, Müller, and Törngren (2025) propose a symbiotic model where each strengthens the other’s limits. Understanding this complementarity reframes leadership from control to orchestration which becomes the act of deciding which system should lead in which moment.</p><p>This orchestration challenge leads naturally into questions of governance and oversight: How can leaders ensure AI enhances decision quality without eroding ethical integrity?</p><h2>Governance and the Red Flags of AI Adoption</h2><p>AI’s dangers rarely arrive with flashing lights; they creep in through subtle erosion of accountability and judgment. Burrell (2016) calls this the “black-box problem,” where even developers cannot fully explain why an algorithm produces a given output. When opacity combines with blind trust, organizations drift into moral outsourcing.</p><p>Metric obsession presents another risk. Goodhart’s Law, “When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure” warns that over-optimization can distort behavior (Goodhart, 1984). Similarly, biased training data can amplify discrimination under the illusion of objectivity (Mehrabi et al., 2021).&nbsp;</p><p>Liu, Zhang, and Wang (2023) further demonstrate that AI models, like humans, suffer from overconfidence by projecting certainty even when wrong.</p><p>These failures are not technological; they’re psychological. Klein (2022) warns that automation can dull human judgment, a phenomenon known as cognitive atrophy. When leaders surrender reflection for convenience, decision quality declines even as efficiency improves. Avoiding this trap requires deliberate governance structures, which begins with redefining the roles humans play inside AI-driven systems.</p><h2>Roles and Responsibilities in a Hybrid Workplace</h2><p>Leadership in the AI era is less about authority and more about translation. Executives must articulate how technology supports (not supplants)human judgment. Brynjolfsson and McAfee (2023) advocate for “human amplification,” where automation handles routine analysis, freeing leaders to focus on empathy, ethics, and long-range strategy.</p><p>Teams, meanwhile, must develop interpretive literacy—the ability to question, contextualize, and challenge algorithmic output. When employees understand why a system recommends an action, trust grows; when they do not, resistance festers.</p><p>Business owners face the additional challenge of balancing efficiency with liability. Every AI deployment carries ethical, legal, and reputational risks that extend far beyond ROI.&nbsp;</p><p>Consultants, finally, serve as cultural translators. Their task is not simply to install models but to teach organizations how to think critically about them (Binns, 2018). Together, these roles form the human scaffolding that allows AI to operate safely. Yet scaffolding alone is not enough; leadership must also mediate the interaction between human and artificial cognition - a dynamic explored next.</p><h2>The Human–AI Leadership Interface</h2><p>The relationship between leaders and AI systems now constitutes a new field of competence. Weidmann et al. (2025) describe leadership as the “mediating mechanism” that balances ethical, strategic, and cognitive tensions between human and artificial agents. This mediation involves three key functions: ensuring ethical alignment, defining strategic boundaries, and sustaining cognitive balance.</p><p>Cukurova (2024) extends this by introducing adaptive feedback loops, cycles where human insights refine algorithmic behavior, which in turn improves decision speed and accuracy. Long and Magerko (2020) call for AI literacy as a fundamental leadership skill, equating it to financial literacy in its importance for modern governance.</p><p>Viewed this way, leadership becomes an act of sense-making in hybrid systems: knowing when to rely on automation and when to override it. Ethical discernment, not technical mastery, becomes the defining trait. Yet even discernment must evolve within an ethical framework robust enough to handle AI’s complexity.</p><h2>Ethical and Cultural Imperatives</h2><p>Every AI system reflects human values - just not always the right ones. Johnson (2022) reminds us that “ethical machines” depend entirely on the ethics of their creators. Bias, accountability confusion, and erosion of human agency are predictable outcomes of ungoverned systems. Moreover, high-performing models often trade transparency for accuracy, creating what Doshi-Velez and Kim (2017) describe as the interpretability dilemma: the more complex a model, the harder it is to explain.</p><p>Mitigating these risks requires both procedural and cultural interventions. Procedurally, organizations should implement ongoing audits, documentation, and version control. Culturally, leaders must normalize curiosity and dissent. Conditions where employees can question AI decisions without fear of reprisal.</p><p>This ethical vigilance paves the way for a practical playbook: a set of guiding principles that translate moral aspiration into operational discipline.</p><h2>Implications for Leadership and the Future of Work</h2><p>Leadership education can no longer treat AI as a technical elective. It must integrate technological, ethical, and psychological literacy as core curriculum. Floridi and Cowls (2021) suggest a unified framework grounded in five principles: beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy, justice, and explicability that leaders can operationalize in decision-making.</p><p>Organizations that cultivate these competencies will not only adapt to AI—they will redefine what it means to lead. In contrast, leaders who chase automation without awareness risk building efficient yet soulless enterprises.&nbsp;</p><h2>Conclusion</h2><p>AI does not threaten leadership; it exposes its depth. The algorithms may think faster, but humans think wider, integrating emotion, ethics, and purpose into every decision. The future belongs to leaders who can hold both truths at once: that automation is inevitable, and that humanity is irreplaceable.</p><p>When consciousness guides computation, intelligence transcends efficiency as it becomes wisdom; and in that wisdom, leadership finds its next evolution.Not artificial or human, but harmonized.</p><h3>References</h3><ul><li>Binns, R. (2018). Fairness in machine learning: Lessons from political philosophy. Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, 149–159.</li><li>Brynjolfsson, E., &amp; McAfee, A. (2023). The coming productivity boom: Harnessing artificial intelligence for growth and inclusion. MIT Press.</li><li>Burrell, J. (2016). How the machine “thinks”: Understanding opacity in machine learning algorithms. Big Data &amp; Society, 3(1), 1–12.</li><li>Cukurova, M. (2024). Human–AI hybrid intelligence for learning and leadership. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 5, 100166. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100166" data-mce-href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100166">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100166</a></li><li>Doshi-Velez, F., &amp; Kim, B. (2017). Towards a rigorous science of interpretable machine learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1702.08608.</li><li>Floridi, L., &amp; Cowls, J. (2021). A unified framework of five principles for AI in society. Harvard Data Science Review, 3(1). <a href="https://doi.org/10.1162/99608f92.8cd550d1" data-mce-href="https://doi.org/10.1162/99608f92.8cd550d1">https://doi.org/10.1162/99608f92.8cd550d1</a></li><li>Goodhart, C. A. E. (1984). Problems of monetary management: The UK experience. In A. S. Courakis (Ed.), Inflation, depression, and economic policy in the West (pp. 111–146). Rowman &amp; Allanheld.</li><li>Johnson, D. G. (2022). Ethical machines: The human values behind AI. Oxford University Press.</li><li>Klein, G. (2022). Sources of power: How people make decisions (2nd ed.). MIT Press.</li><li>Liu, Z., Zhang, J., &amp; Wang, T. (2023). AI overconfidence and human bias: Parallels and divergences. Nature Human Behaviour, 7(4), 512–523.</li><li>Long, D., &amp; Magerko, B. (2020). What is AI literacy? Competencies and design considerations. Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1–16.</li><li>Marcus, G., &amp; Davis, E. (2019). Rebooting AI: Building artificial intelligence we can trust. Pantheon.</li><li>Mehrabi, N., Morstatter, F., Saxena, N., Lerman, K., &amp; Galstyan, A. (2021). A survey on bias and fairness in machine learning. ACM Computing Surveys, 54(6), 1–35.</li><li>Sternberg, R. J. (2021). Adaptive intelligence: Surviving and thriving in times of uncertainty. Cambridge University Press.</li><li>Weidmann, A. C., Müller, C. R., &amp; Törngren, M. (2025). Leadership performance in human–AI collaboration. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, 8(128), 1–12.</li><li>Zhou, Y., Li, C., &amp; Song, H. (2023). Bias amplification in generative models: Mechanisms and mitigation. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, 34(10), 6852–6866.<br></li></ul>

Artificial Intelligence vs. Human Intelligence in Leadership: A Hybrid Future

Woman portrait with colored lights. Triple Exposure

<p>Every fall, the days get shorter and the pace of dentistry speeds up. On the surface, the season is framed by holiday cheer and year-end growth targets. However, many dental professionals are struggling with a quieter reality: seasonal depression.</p><p>The American Psychiatric Association (2023) reports that about 5 percent of U.S. adults experience Seasonal Affective Disorder (SAD), with symptoms that can last up to 40 percent of the year. Countless more experience subclinical seasonal mood shifts: fatigue, irritability, and loss of motivation that still disrupt performance. Rosenthal and colleagues (1984) showed decades ago that reduced daylight disrupts circadian rhythms and serotonin regulation, leading to fatigue, low mood, and cognitive impairment. For dental professionals, these biological changes collide with end-of-year pressures: tighter production schedules, financial reconciliation, and the emotional weight of holidays that may amplify grief or isolation.</p><h2>Why This Matters for Leaders</h2><p>Seasonal depression is not a private issue. It is an occupational risk. Bakker and Demerouti (2007) emphasized through the Job Demands–Resources (JD-R) model that when job demands rise and resources fall, burnout and depression are the predictable outcomes. Dentistry illustrates this perfectly in December: demands increase such as patients rushing to use benefits, compressed deadlines, performance reviews; all while resources decline such as natural light, downtime, and financial margin.</p><p>This imbalance does not correct itself. Leaders must intentionally design safeguards. When they do not, they risk higher absenteeism, errors, turnover, and ultimately, compromised patient care. Hayes, Cockrell, and Smith (2013) found that musculoskeletal strain among dentists was strongly associated with psychological distress; seasonal depression only magnifies this vulnerability.</p><h2>The Cost of Silence</h2><p>Even when symptoms appear, professionals rarely speak openly. Edmondson (2019) has shown that without psychological safety, people conceal both mistakes and personal struggles. Clark (2020) describes the four stages of psychological safety: inclusion, learner, contributor, and challenger safety. In too many practices, inclusion safety is missing. If a hygienist feels unsafe even admitting fatigue, there is little chance they will disclose depressive symptoms. Silence, particularly in high-stakes healthcare settings, is costly.</p><p>The World Health Organization (2019) now classifies burnout as an occupational phenomenon. That framing matters: it reminds leaders that seasonal depression is not a weakness to “tough out.” It is a systemic issue that demands systemic solutions.</p><h2>What Leaders Can Do</h2><p>Evidence points to practical steps:</p><ul><li><strong>Acknowledge the season:</strong>&nbsp;Call it by name. Naming seasonal depression reduces stigma and signals safety.</li><li><strong>Adjust workloads:</strong>&nbsp;Where possible, spread deadlines across January. Protect holiday time off by reducing non-essential meetings.</li><li><strong>Increase access to light:</strong>&nbsp;Natural light exposure, flexible schedules that maximize daylight, and even light therapy lamps can help regulate circadian rhythms.</li><li><strong>Embed wellbeing check-ins:</strong>&nbsp;Weekly 1:1s should include a structured question: “How sustainable does this week feel, and what would make next week better?”</li><li><strong>Make resources visible:</strong>&nbsp;Promote Employee Assistance Programs, local counseling services, and telehealth options. Normalize their use by mentioning them in team communications.</li><li><strong>Model behavior:</strong>&nbsp;Leaders who take breaks, leave on time, and talk about their own seasonal energy management create cultural permission for others to do the same.</li></ul><h2>Moving Beyond “Holiday Fatigue”</h2><p>Too often, leaders dismiss signs of seasonal depression as simple end-of-year fatigue. That mislabeling allows problems to deepen until they become crises. Seasonal depression is predictable. It intersects with biology, psychology, and organizational design. Leaders who ignore it risk not only the health of their people but also the health of their business.</p><p>Dentistry prides itself on precision and excellence. That excellence must extend to how we safeguard our people. Seasonal depression will not disappear with a motivational speech or a holiday bonus. It requires structural adjustments, cultural openness, and leaders who are willing to see beyond productivity to the rhythms that sustain long-term performance.</p><blockquote><p>If you or someone you know is struggling, call or text 988 for the Suicide &amp; Crisis Lifeline.</p></blockquote><h3>References</h3><ul><li>American Psychiatric Association. (2023). Seasonal affective disorder (SAD). APA.</li><li>Bakker, A. B., &amp; Demerouti, E. (2007). The Job Demands–Resources model: State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(3), 309–328. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940710733115" data-mce-href="https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940710733115">https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940710733115</a></li><li>Clark, T. R. (2020). The 4 stages of psychological safety: Defining the path to inclusion and innovation. Berrett-Koehler.</li><li>Edmondson, A. C. (2019). The fearless organization: Creating psychological safety in the workplace for learning, innovation, and growth. Wiley.</li><li>Hayes, M., Cockrell, D., &amp; Smith, D. R. (2013). A systematic review of musculoskeletal disorders among dental professionals. International Journal of Dental Hygiene, 7(3), 159–165. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1601-5037.2009.00395.x" data-mce-href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1601-5037.2009.00395.x">https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1601-5037.2009.00395.x</a></li><li>Rosenthal, N. E., Sack, D. A., Gillin, J. C., Lewy, A. J., Goodwin, F. K., Davenport, Y., ... &amp; Wehr, T. A. (1984). Seasonal affective disorder: A description of the syndrome and preliminary findings with light therapy. Archives of General Psychiatry, 41(1), 72–80. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.1984.01790120076010" data-mce-href="https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.1984.01790120076010">https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.1984.01790120076010</a></li><li>World Health Organization. (2019). Burn-out an occupational phenomenon: International Classification of Diseases. WHO.<br></li></ul>

Seasonal Depression in Dentistry: What Leaders Need to See Before the Holidays

Mental Health Emotional Well Being Psychological Cognitive Personality

<p>Every September, timelines fill with reminders to “check on your friends.” The intention is good, but in dentistry it is not nearly enough. Elevated suicide risk in our profession isn’t a mystery of individual weakness. It is the predictable byproduct of how the work is designed, how practices are led, and how silence is rewarded.</p><p>We know the contours of the risk. Dentists report high rates of anxiety and depressive symptoms, staggering educational debt, chronic musculoskeletal pain, and professional isolation. International studies have long noted suicide rates in dentistry exceeding those of the general population. None of this will change until leaders treat suicide prevention as an organizational mandate rather than a private struggle.</p><p>This article moves beyond awareness to operational change. It borrows from the Interpersonal-Psychological Theory of Suicide, the Job Demands–Resources model, the World Health Organization’s classification of burnout as an occupational phenomenon, and contemporary work on psychological safety by scholars like Amy Edmondson and Timothy Clark. Then it translates those frameworks into a concrete action plan for dental organizations.</p><h3>Why dentistry is structurally vulnerable</h3><ol><li>Interpersonal-Psychological Theory of Suicide (Joiner). Risk spikes when people experience perceived burdensomeness, thwarted belongingness, and acquired capability. Dentistry intersects with all three through debt and production pressure, solo practice isolation, frequent exposure to pain and pharmacologic agents, and a culture that normalizes suppressing distress.</li><li>Job Demands–Resources (Bakker and Demerouti). When precision, time pressure, patient anxiety, and administrative hassles outstrip resources like autonomy, peer connection, fair rewards, and supportive leadership, burnout becomes a system output, not a personal failing.</li><li>WHO on burnout. Burnout is classified as an occupational phenomenon, which squarely places responsibility on work design, staffing, and leadership norms rather than on the “grit” of individual clinicians.</li><li>Psychological Safety (Edmondson; Clark). Without inclusion, learner, contributor, and challenger safety, people hide errors and pain. In dentistry, that silence isn’t just costly; it can be lethal.</li></ol><p>If you run a practice or a DSO and your policies, cadence, and incentives aren’t aligned with these realities, you are leaving risk on the table.</p><h3>The leadership playbook: nine levers you can implement now</h3><p>1) Publish a no-reprisal mental health policy<br>Make it explicit that seeking help will not jeopardize status, pay, scheduling, or licensure disclosures beyond what law requires. Put it in your handbook. Reference how information will be handled, who has access, and what confidentiality looks like in your context. Ambiguity breeds fear; fear breeds silence.</p><p>2) Install a predictable 1:1 architecture</p><ul><li>Weekly 20-minute 1:1s between each leader and each direct report</li><li>Agenda: wins, workload heat map, one friction point, one wellbeing check</li><li>Scripted opener: “On a scale of 1–10, how sustainable did this week feel, and what would move it one point higher next week?” Normalize the conversation so support isn’t a special event reserved for crises.</li></ul><p>3) Redesign workload using JD-R<br></p><p>Audit job demands and resources line by line:</p><ul><li>Demands to dial down: chaotic scheduling, unrealistic chair-time density, after-hours charting, solo coverage on high-acuity blocks, opaque production targets</li><li>Resources to dial up: admin buffers daily, cross-coverage, autonomy over scheduling templates, transparent metrics, protected learning time, ergonomic upgrades Treat this like infection control: non-negotiable and audited.</li></ul><p>4) Build belonging on purpose<br></p><p>Isolation is a risk factor. Create durable peer structures:</p><ul><li>Pod model: 4–6 teammates meet biweekly for consults and debriefs</li><li>Monthly “case plus coping” rounds where clinical learning and emotional processing share equal time</li><li>Mentorship pairings that rotate every 6 months so belonging isn’t accidental</li></ul><p>5) Train gatekeepers and practice the drill<br></p><p>Use evidence-based gatekeeper training adapted to dentistry. Then run scenarios quarterly like you would a medical emergency:</p><ul><li>“A hygienist texts ‘I can’t do this anymore’ and doesn’t show for first patient”</li><li>“An associate has escalating errors and withdraws from team banter”</li><li>“A practice owner hints at ‘everyone would be better off without me’ after a financial setback” Rehearsal makes response faster, calmer, and safer.</li></ul><p>6) Make access effortless<br></p><ul><li>Share a living, curated list of local and telehealth therapists who understand healthcare</li><li>Cover at least two initial sessions through your benefits or a discretionary fund</li><li>Put 988 and emergency steps on the back of ID badges and in the staff portal</li><li>Offer quiet rooms and same-day coverage swaps without penalty when someone signals distress</li></ul><p>7) Establish a four-step crisis protocol<br></p><ol><li><strong>Stay</strong> with the person or keep them on the line, and move to privacy</li><li><strong>Ask</strong> directly: “Are you thinking about killing yourself?”</li><li><strong>Activate</strong> 988 or local crisis services and your internal escalation tree</li><li><strong>Remove</strong> access to means where possible, and never promise secrecy Document, debrief with the team, and schedule follow-ups. Compassion without structure is fragile.</li></ol><p>8) Measure like you mean it<br></p><p>Track leading and lagging indicators on a simple monthly dashboard:</p><ul><li><strong>Leading</strong>: 1:1 completion rate, schedule predictability, overtime hours, ergonomic issues resolved, EAP utilization, training completion<br></li><li><strong>Lagging</strong>: absenteeism spikes, turnover, incident reports related to fatigue, near-miss counts Share trends. What leaders measure, teams take seriously.</li></ul><p>9) Roll out with a 30-60-90 plan<br></p><ul><li>Days 1–30: announce policy, launch 1:1s, publish the provider list, schedule training<br></li><li>Days 31–60: complete JD-R audit, adjust templates and staffing, start peer pods<br></li><li>Days 61–90: run first crisis drill, publish dashboard, fix two systemic friction points the team identified Momentum matters more than perfection.</li></ul><h3>Language that helps instead of harms</h3><p>Leaders often want to help but choose words that shut people down. Use these scripts to move the conversation forward.</p><ol><li><strong>Say</strong>: “You’re important here, and I want to understand what would make next week more sustainable” <strong>Not</strong>: “Everyone’s stressed; it’ll pass”<br></li><li><strong>Say</strong>: “I’m hearing you feel stuck and alone; let’s map options together and loop in support” <strong>Not</strong>: “Have you tried taking a day off?”<br></li><li><strong>Say</strong>: “Thank you for telling me. You won’t be penalized for asking for help” <strong>Not</strong>: “Keep this between us”<br></li><li><strong>Say</strong>: “Are you thinking about killing yourself?” <strong>Not</strong>: “You’re not going to do something silly, right?”</li></ol><p><br>Directness signals safety and competence. Euphemisms telegraph avoidance.</p><h3>A brief self-audit for owners and executives<br></h3><p>Score each item 0–2 and total out of 10:</p><ol><li>We have a written, visible no-reprisal mental health policy</li><li>Managers complete scheduled 1:1s at least 80 percent of the time</li><li>Our schedule includes protected admin buffers every day for each clinician</li><li>We run at least two crisis simulations per year and debrief them</li><li>Our monthly dashboard includes at least three leading indicators tied to wellbeing</li></ol><p><br>If you scored 6 or below, you have structural work to do. If you scored 8 or above, share your model with colleagues. Hoarding good practice design helps no one.</p><h3>What this looks like in real life</h3><p>A startup group asked for “communication training” because meetings were tense and production had plateaued. A quick JD-R scan showed overloaded hygiene columns, no admin buffers, and managers canceling 1:1s during busy weeks. We replaced the meeting ritual with 15-minute daily huddles, hard-locked buffers into templates, and instituted a strict 1:1 cadence with the wellbeing check. Within six weeks, error reports dropped, same-day cancellations stabilized, and two team members who had been withdrawing accepted referrals to counseling. No one gave a motivational speech. The system changed, so the outcomes changed.</p><h3>The pledge</h3><p>If you lead in dentistry, adopt this simple pledge and mean it:</p><ul><li>I will make vulnerability safe and expected</li><li>I will design the work so sustainability is the default, not the exception</li><li>I will measure what matters and act on what I learn</li><li>I will treat suicide prevention as a core element of clinical quality and patient safety</li></ul><p>Behind every restored smile is a professional whose wellbeing is not optional. Suicide Awareness Month is a reminder, not an endpoint. The work is to change conditions so fewer people need to be “checked on” in the first place.</p><p>If you or someone you know is struggling, call or text 988 for the Suicide &amp; Crisis Lifeline.</p><p><strong>References:</strong></p><ul><li>American Dental Association (2023). Dentist health and wellbeing survey.</li><li>American Dental Education Association (2022). Educational debt data.</li><li>Bakker, A. B., &amp; Demerouti, E. (2007). The Job Demands–Resources model: State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(3), 309–328.</li><li>Clark, T. R. (2020). The 4 stages of psychological safety: Defining the path to inclusion and innovation. Berrett-Koe</li><li>Edmondson, A. C. (2019). The fearless organization: Creating psychological safety in the workplace for learning, innovation, and growth. Wiley</li><li>Hayes, M., Cockrell, D., &amp; Smith, D. R. (2013). A systematic review of musculoskeletal disorders among dental professionals. International Journal of Dental Hygiene, 7(3), 159–165.</li><li>Joiner, T. E. (2005). Why people die by suicide. Harvard University Press.</li><li>Kopecky, K., Kopeckova, J., &amp; Machova, R. (2017). Stress, burnout syndrome, and depression among dentists. Neuro Endocrinology Letters, 38(Suppl 1), 49–56.<br></li><li>Myers, H. L., &amp; Myers, L. B. (2004). “It’s difficult being a dentist”: Stress and health in the general dental practitioner. British Dental Journal, 197(2), 89–93.</li><li>World Health Organization (2019). Burn-out an occupational phenomenon: International Classification of Diseases.<br></li></ul>

Dentistry’s Silent Emergency: Rethinking Suicide Awareness

Abstract retro style 80s-90s design lightning shape memphis vintage background. Geometrical shapes. Bright glowing neon lights. Party concept

<h2>The Announcement&nbsp;</h2><p>On September 2, 2025, Salesforce confirmed layoffs of more than 4,000 customer service employees, nearly half of that workforce, replaced by its AI system, Agentforce (NBC Bay Area, 2025). Benioff justified the cuts with unsettling bluntness: “I need fewer heads.” (NDTV, 2025). At the same time, he boasted that AI now handles 1.5 million interactions with “93% accuracy” (Business Insider, 2025).</p><p>If this feels like déjà vu, it’s because automation always promises productivity gains at human expense. But this particular moment matters: Salesforce isn’t a factory—it’s the world’s top CRM platform, whose very identity is “customer success.” The irony of cutting the very humans who delivered that success is hard to miss.</p><h3>Automation Isn’t New—But the Context Is</h3><p>Scholars have documented waves of technological displacement since the Industrial Revolution (Brynjolfsson &amp; McAfee, 2014). Routine, codifiable tasks are first to be automated (Autor, Levy, &amp; Murnane, 2003). Customer support fits that bill. What makes Salesforce’s move different is the symbolic weight: when the most visible “customer company” publicly declares humans expendable, it signals a normalization of AI-first labor strategies across industries.</p><p>This isn’t “just business.” It’s a redefinition of what organizations value: efficiency metrics over relational depth.</p><h3>Psychological Safety and the Human Aftermath</h3><p>Let’s be clear: 4,000 layoffs are not just data points. They are ruptures in lives, trust, and identity. Amy Edmondson’s (1999) work on psychological safety emphasizes that trust is not just a “soft” metric—it predicts performance, learning, and adaptability. Leaders cannot build trust in their organizations while simultaneously celebrating the elimination of “heads.”</p><p>What message do remaining employees internalize? That loyalty is contingent on being cheaper than a bot. This creates climates of fear, not safety—a condition long known to erode creativity, risk-taking, and long-term commitment (Kahn, 1990).</p><h3>Labor Economics: Reallocation or Displacement?</h3><p>Benioff claims many affected workers were redeployed to sales, professional services, and customer success (LA Times, 2025). This echoes the task reallocation model (Autor, 2015), where technology removes certain functions while humans shift into higher-value roles. Theoretically sound, but in practice, reallocation often benefits a minority while most experience downward mobility or exit (Frey &amp; Osborne, 2017).</p><p>We don’t yet have longitudinal data on Salesforce’s “redeployments.” If the pattern mirrors prior tech disruptions, this story is less about “reskilling” and more about labor bifurcation—where a small group ascends, while many are left behind.</p><h3>The Narrative Problem: When Efficiency Becomes a Brand</h3><p>Words matter. Benioff could have framed this as a strategic redeployment. Instead, he leaned into the language of “fewer heads.” This is not semantics, it’s cultural DNA. Leaders set the tone. The rhetoric reduces humans to headcount, treating labor like a liability rather than a resource of innovation and trust.</p><p>Contrast this with stakeholder theory (Freeman, 1984), which argues organizations must balance value creation across all stakeholders—not just shareholders. The choice of narrative reveals who leaders believe their real audience is: Wall Street, not their workforce.</p><h3>The Future of Work: Hybrid or Hollow?</h3><p>Here’s the paradox: Even as Salesforce touts its AI, Benioff insists humans remain “central to the story” and dismisses hype around Artificial General Intelligence (ITPro, 2025). So which is it?</p><p>The likely future isn’t one where humans disappear—it’s one where humans are increasingly marginalized to “complex judgment” and “relationship work” while AI consumes the rest. Leaders who mistake this as a cost-cutting victory are blind to the long-term consequence: eroded employee trust, diminished customer loyalty, and an organizational culture built on instability.</p><h3>What Leaders Need to Learn from This</h3><p>Automation is inevitable. Dehumanization isn’t. Replace tasks, not identities.<br>Efficiency doesn’t justify everything. Organizational health cannot be reduced to quarterly savings. Narratives shape culture. “Fewer heads” is not leadership—it’s reductionism. Psychological safety is not optional. Without it, innovation collapses under fear.</p><h3>Closing Thought</h3><p>AI is not the villain here. The villain is leadership that celebrates efficiency without acknowledging the human cost. Salesforce’s layoffs are not just a labor event, they are a cultural signal. </p><p>The question for every leader watching is simple: <strong>will you use AI to enhance human potential, or as an excuse to shrink it?</strong></p><h3>References</h3><ul><li>Autor, D. H. (2015). Why are there still so many jobs? The history and future of workplace automation. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 29(3), 3–30. </li><li>Autor, D. H., Levy, F., &amp; Murnane, R. J. (2003). The skill content of recent technological change: An empirical exploration. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(4), 1279–1333. </li><li>Brynjolfsson, E., &amp; McAfee, A. (2014). The second machine age: Work, progress, and prosperity in a time of brilliant technologies. </li><li>Norton. Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383. </li><li>Frey, C. B., &amp; Osborne, M. A. (2017). The future of employment: How susceptible are jobs to computerisation? Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 114, 254–280. </li><li>Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Pitman. </li><li>Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. </li><li>Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692–724. </li><li>NBC Bay Area. (2025, Sept 2). Salesforce CEO confirms 4,000 layoffs. </li><li>NDTV. (2025, Sept 3). Salesforce lays off 4,000 employees. </li><li>LA Times. (2025, Sept 2). Salesforce CEO on layoffs. </li><li>TechRadar. (2025, Sept 2). Salesforce replaces 4,000 jobs with AI. </li><li>Business Insider. (2025, June). Salesforce AI handling inquiries. </li><li>ITPro. (2025, Sept). Humans must remain at the center of AI adoption.<br></li></ul>

Salesforce Just Laid Off 4,000 Humans for AI. Let’s Get Real About What This Means.

<p>In his classic work <em>The Power of Ambition</em>, Jim Rohn (1986) argues that ambition is more than mere desire—it is the disciplined alignment of vision, purpose, and effort. Ambition, when channeled effectively, becomes a driving force for individual achievement and collective progress. Yet, in today’s workplace, the construct of ambition has become more complex. It now exists at the intersection of personal identity, organizational culture, and systemic design.</p><p>As an Industrial/Organizational psychology scholar and practitioner, I find Rohn’s perspective deeply relevant to how we understand the modern workplace. While ambition remains the raw energy behind achievement, research shows that the way ambition is nurtured—or neglected—shapes not only individual outcomes but also organizational health.</p><h3>Ambition as a Psychological Construct</h3><p>Ambition has long been viewed as a predictor of career success and life satisfaction. Judge and Kammeyer-Mueller (2012) define ambition as “the persistent and generalized striving for success, attainment, and accomplishment.” Ambitious individuals often demonstrate higher levels of conscientiousness and proactive behavior, which translate into stronger career trajectories and greater resilience under pressure.</p><p>Yet ambition is not a neutral force. Without alignment and scaffolding, ambition can result in burnout, interpersonal conflict, or disengagement (Maslach &amp; Leiter, 2016). In other words, unchecked ambition becomes costly—not just for individuals, but for teams and organizations.</p><h3>Ambition in Modern Organizations</h3><p>Today, ambition manifests in three primary layers within the workplace:</p><ol><li><strong>Individual Drive</strong> – Employees striving to advance careers, acquire new skills, and build meaningful impact.</li><li><strong>Team Aspiration</strong> – Groups motivated to exceed goals, innovate, and demonstrate collective excellence.</li><li><strong>Organizational Vision</strong> – Companies pursuing growth, scale, and market relevance.</li></ol><p>When these levels of ambition align, organizations experience synergy—people are motivated, collaborative, and engaged. When they fracture, we see the consequences in employee turnover, disengagement, and misaligned strategy (Edmondson, 2019).</p><p>This is where ambition becomes less about “drive” and more about design.</p><h3>The Infrastructure of Ambition: Safety, Systems, and Leadership</h3><p>The new workplace currency is not simply achievement—it is meaningful, sustainable achievement. Employees increasingly seek ambition that connects to purpose, autonomy, and psychological safety. Research by Deci and Ryan (2000) underscores that intrinsic motivation—driven by autonomy, competence, and relatedness—leads to greater satisfaction and performance than extrinsic motivators alone.</p><p>Psychological safety, as Edmondson (1999) demonstrated, allows individuals to take risks, voice ideas, and pursue ambition without fear of interpersonal cost. Without it, ambition turns into silent competition, withholding of knowledge, and disengagement.</p><p>This is precisely the intersection of the work my team and I address. Ambition cannot thrive in a vacuum; it requires intentional systems, clear leadership, and cultures designed for human growth. Whether through talent alignment, organizational development, or leadership training, we work with clients to transform ambition from raw energy into structured progress.</p><h3>Why This Matters Now</h3><p>The modern workplace is saturated with ambition—but it is not always healthy ambition. We see employees overworking to prove worth, leaders equating ambition with aggression, and organizations pursuing scale at the expense of culture.</p><p>But ambition, when cultivated correctly, is transformative. It becomes contagious, sustainable, and shared. Teams rise together, individuals feel invested in their growth, and organizations achieve without eroding the human foundation that makes success possible.</p><p>As Rohn (1986) noted, “Ambition is the fuel for achievement.” As scholars and practitioners, it is our responsibility to ensure that fuel is directed, ethical, and sustainable.</p><h3>Reflection</h3><blockquote><p>Where is ambition thriving in your workplace? Where might it be misaligned or even misfiring?</p></blockquote><p>The difference between ambition that builds and ambition that breaks comes down to whether leaders are designing environments where ambition grows together or burns people out in isolation.</p><h3>References</h3><ul><li>Deci, E. L., &amp; Ryan, R. M. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. <em>American Psychologist, 55</em>(1), 68–78.</li><li>Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. <em>Administrative Science Quarterly, 44</em>(2), 350–383.</li><li>Edmondson, A. C. (2019). <em>The fearless organization: Creating psychological safety in the workplace for learning, innovation, and growth.</em> Wiley.</li><li>Judge, T. A., &amp; Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D. (2012). On the value of aiming high: The causes and consequences of ambition. <em>Journal of Applied Psychology, 97</em>(4), 758–775.</li><li>Maslach, C., &amp; Leiter, M. P. (2016). <em>Burnout: A multidimensional perspective. In C. L. Cooper (Ed.), Stress: Concepts, cognition, emotion, and behavior </em>(pp. 351–357). Academic Press.</li><li>Rohn, J. (1986). <em>The power of ambition.</em> Jim Rohn International.<br></li></ul>

The Power of Ambition in Today’s Workplace: Aligning Drive with Organizational Design

<p>For years, we’ve championed psychological safety as the gold standard for high-performing teams, and rightly so. The research is compelling: when people feel safe to speak up without fear of embarrassment, rejection, or punishment, they learn faster, collaborate better, and innovate more boldly (Edmondson, 1999; Newman et al., 2017).</p><p>However, like any powerful concept, psychological safety can be misunderstood. Worse, it can be misused. In today’s emotionally literate workplaces, we’re seeing an alarming trend: psychological safety being weaponized to avoid accountability, suppress dissent, or mask toxicity under the guise of empathy.</p><p>This article explores the consequences of misapplying psychological safety, and how well-meaning leaders can inadvertently turn it from a catalyst for growth into a cover for dysfunction.</p><h2>What Psychological Safety Is</h2><p>Harvard Business School professor Amy Edmondson (1999) defines psychological safety as “a shared belief held by members of a team that the team is safe for interpersonal risk-taking” (p. 354). It enables candor, not comfort; learning, not passivity.</p><p>High psychological safety has been associated with:</p><ul><li>Enhanced team learning (Edmondson, 2004)</li><li>Increased employee engagement and creativity (Kahn, 1990; Frazier et al., 2017)</li><li>Improved organizational outcomes (Baer &amp; Frese, 2003)</li></ul><p>In theory, the concept empowers voice, authenticity, and connection; but here’s the problem: in practice, we’ve started confusing emotional comfort with psychological safety and that’s where things get dangerous.</p><h2>How It Gets Misused</h2><p>Let’s unpack three patterns I’ve witnessed in the field—across dental teams, healthcare systems, startups, and scaling companies.</p><h3>The Safety Shield</h3><p>Employees, under the banner of “safe space,” opt out of difficult conversations, feedback loops, or responsibility. Phrases like “This doesn’t feel safe to me” are used not to name trauma, but to sidestep discomfort or critique.</p><p>While trauma-informed leadership matters, psychological safety doesn’t mean immunity from challenge. As Brené Brown (2018) reminds us, “Clear is kind.” Kindness without clarity often leads to resentment, not resolution.</p><h3>The Empathy Overcorrection</h3><p>Leaders, in an attempt to foster openness, tip into over-accommodation. They lower expectations, withhold performance feedback, or walk on eggshells to “keep things safe.”</p><p>This empathy trap leads to what I call false psychological safety—a brittle version of culture that avoids conflict rather than transforms it.</p><p>Empathy, when decoupled from boundaries and accountability, breeds fragility (Luthans et al., 2015).</p><h3>The Culture Cloak</h3><p>Organizations brand themselves as “psychologically safe” while silencing whistleblowers, shaming dissent, or punishing nonconformity.</p><p>This is the most insidious form: a performative safety culture. It protects the image of inclusion while undermining its practice. It fosters “polite silence” (Detert &amp; Burris, 2007) instead of radical candor.</p><h2>Real Psychological Safety Is a Tension, Not a Trend</h2><p>True safety is not the absence of discomfort. It is the presence of <strong>trust </strong>and<strong> structure</strong> that enables people to tell the truth - especially when it’s hard (Liang et al., 2012). It means:</p><ul><li>You can challenge leadership without retaliation</li><li>You can admit failure without shame</li><li>You can be wrong and still be worthy</li><li>You can hear the hard stuff and not collapse</li></ul><p>Real safety requires <strong>two things</strong>:</p><ol><li><strong>Leader vulnerability</strong>—the willingness to model fallibility and humanity</li><li><strong>Team resilience</strong>—the psychological muscle to sit in discomfort and still move forward</li></ol><h2>A Better Framework: Safety With Accountability</h2><p>To operationalize safety well, leaders must strike the balance between psychological safety and cognitive accountability (Edmondson &amp; Lei, 2014).</p><blockquote><p>Safety without accountability breeds complacency. Accountability without safety breeds fear, but together, they create adaptive, resilient, and high-trust teams.</p></blockquote><p>This isn’t just a cultural philosophy. It’s a performance strategy. In high-complexity, high-stakes environments (like healthcare, military, and technology), the interplay between safety and structure is what keeps teams agile and aligned (Carmeli et al., 2009).</p><h2>Conclusion</h2><p>Psychological safety is still one of the most transformative dynamics in the workplace, but only when it’s practiced with precision—not postured with performance.&nbsp;Leaders who want the benefits of safety must be willing to engage its cost: clarity, consistency, and courage.&nbsp;Otherwise, we risk turning a psychological tool into a cultural trap.</p><p>Let’s not make safety soft. Let’s make it strong, honest, and deeply human.</p><h3>Key Takeaways for Leaders</h3><ol><li>Redefine safety. It’s not about being “nice”—it’s about being real.</li><li>Psychological safety isn’t a cushion. It’s a container.</li><li>Model truth-telling. When leaders admit mistakes, invite critique, and regulate reactivity, they make truth safe.</li><li>Don’t avoid discomfort—build capacity for it. Create space for emotional complexity and intellectual challenge.</li><li>Audit your culture. Where has “safety” become an excuse for underperformance? Where is feedback feared because it’s been mishandled?</li></ol><p><strong>Let’s talk: </strong><em>How are you ensuring that your version of psychological safety includes the whole truth?</em></p><h3>References</h3><ul><li>Baer, M., &amp; Frese, M. (2003). Innovation is not enough: Climates for initiative and psychological safety, process innovations, and firm performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(1), 45–68. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/job.179" data-mce-href="https://doi.org/10.1002/job.179">https://doi.org/10.1002/job.179</a></li><li>Brown, B. (2018). Dare to lead: Brave work. Tough conversations. Whole hearts. Random House.</li><li>Carmeli, A., Brueller, D., &amp; Dutton, J. E. (2009). Learning behaviors in the workplace: The role of high‐quality interpersonal relationships and psychological safety. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 26(1), 81–98.</li><li>Detert, J. R., &amp; Burris, E. R. (2007). Leadership behavior and employee voice: Is the door really open? Academy of Management Journal, 50(4), 869–884.</li><li>Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383.</li><li>Edmondson, A., &amp; Lei, Z. (2014). Psychological safety: The history, renaissance, and future of an interpersonal construct. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1, 23–43.</li><li>Frazier, M. L., Fainshmidt, S., Klinger, R. L., Pezeshkan, A., &amp; Vracheva, V. (2017). Psychological safety: A meta‐analytic review and extension. Personnel Psychology, 70(1), 113–165.</li><li>Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692–724.</li><li>Liang, J., Farh, C. I. C., &amp; Farh, J.-L. (2012). Psychological antecedents of promotive and prohibitive voice: A two-wave examination. Academy of Management Journal, 55(1), 71–92.</li><li>Luthans, F., Luthans, K. W., &amp; Luthans, B. C. (2015). Organizational behavior: An evidence-based approach (13th ed.). Information Age Publishing.</li><li>Newman, A., Donohue, R., &amp; Eva, N. (2017). Psychological safety: A systematic review of the literature. Human Resource Management Review, 27(3), 521–535.<br></li></ul>

Blog

Artificial Intelligence vs. Human Intelligence in Leaders...

Seasonal Depression in Dentistry: What Leaders Need to Se...

Dentistry’s Silent Emergency: Rethinking Suicide Awareness

Salesforce Just Laid Off 4,000 Humans for AI. Let’s Get R...

The Power of Ambition in Today’s Workplace: Aligning Driv...

When Psychological Safety Becomes a Weapon: The Dark Side...