A new study finds that employees who openly acknowledge using artificial intelligence at work are often trusted less by colleagues and clients than those who do not mention it. The research challenges the assumption that transparency about technology use automatically builds confidence.
This insight is timely for Thai professionals as businesses across the country increasingly deploy AI-powered solutions—from customer service chatbots to automated translation and data analytics. As Thai organizations pursue digital transformation and national initiatives like Thailand 4.0, the findings raise questions about how transparency around AI affects workplace relationships and teamwork.
Experiments in organizational behavior and psychology showed that people who honestly disclose AI assistance are perceived as less trustworthy and competent than peers who either avoid mentioning AI or imply they worked independently. “There is skepticism about authenticity and effort when AI is part of the equation,” one researcher noted.
The implications for Thailand’s workforce are broad. In hierarchical Thai workplaces that value harmony and personal relationships, trust underpins teamwork and career progression. The study suggests a dilemma: while honesty about AI use is important, upfront disclosure could unintentionally harm a professional reputation or disrupt group cohesion. This is particularly relevant in sectors such as banking, healthcare, and education, where sensitive information and decision-making are central.
Experts indicate public discomfort may stem from AI’s association with impersonality or a shortcut, prompting questions about the value added by human effort. While AI can boost efficiency, there is concern that reliance on machines may dilute credit for individual contributions and affect perceived quality.
In Thai contexts, the concept of “face” (รักษาหน้า) can influence whether professionals emphasize independence or acknowledge support from technology. Although tech adoption is rapid among younger and urban professionals, some senior staff or traditional sectors remain wary of rapid change.
Looking forward, the trust gap could slow AI’s adoption in Thai workplaces and hinder digitalization efforts. If workers fear damaged credibility, they may hide efficient practices, undermining innovation. Researchers suggest organizations establish clear guidelines for AI use and recognize both skill and accountability in conjunction with technological tools. “Rewards should reflect thoughtful, ethical use of AI, not just the end result,” they say.
For Thai professionals, transparent yet strategic communication is key. Frame AI as a tool that augments human judgment rather than replaces it, and present assistance as support to personal proficiency. Improving digital literacy and AI awareness across staff can reduce skepticism and help AI be viewed as an enabler rather than a threat.
As Thailand advances its digital economy, balancing openness with context, and integrating cultural norms around trust, will be essential. Readers are encouraged to review their own workplace practices, advocate for clear AI policies, and engage in constructive discussions about technology’s role in professional life.
Informed perspectives come from research by leading organizational behavior scholars, with insights echoed by professionals at a Bangkok hospital and other Thai institutions observing AI’s growing footprint in daily work.