How do we prevent psychological safety from turning into “nobody can challenge anyone”?

Safety isn’t the absence of challenge—it’s the ability to challenge without retaliation. Make dissent a required step (pre-mortems, Red Team), then end with a clear decision owner and “disagree and commit.” Accountability stays explicit via ADRs, owners, and dates.

Will this slow us down with more meetings and docs?

If you apply it to everything, yes. Don’t. Route only slow-track, high-blast-radius work through RFC/PRR. Keep templates short, time-box the rituals, and automate gates (ADR references, `CODEOWNERS`, CI checks). Most teams end up faster because they ship with fewer rollbacks and fewer Sev-1s.

How does this work with a traditional CAB and ServiceNow change process?

Use a two-track model: define Standard Changes with automation and evidence, and reserve CAB scrutiny for irreversible risk. Attach RFC/ADR links and CI logs directly to the change record so CAB reviews concrete mitigations instead of opinions.

What’s the first thing to implement if we’re starting from zero?

Start with a 30-minute pre-mortem + a one-page RFC template for any change that touches auth, payments, data integrity, or security boundaries. You’ll surface risks immediately—and you’ll learn where your authority gradients are hiding.

Culture · Dec 12, 2025 · 7 minute read

When the Blast Radius Is Real: Psychological Safety Frameworks for High‑Stakes Technical Decisions

You don’t get safer systems by telling people to “speak up.” You get them by hard-wiring communication rituals, decision mechanics, and leadership behaviors into the way work ships—especially when prod, compliance, and reputations are on the line.

Back to all posts

When the Blast Radius Is Real: Psychological Safety Frameworks for High‑Stakes Technical Decisions

Key takeaways

Implementation checklist