An Exploration of Dan Radecki’s S.A.F.E.T.Y.™ Model

Psychological safety is a deceptively simple idea: people feel able to speak up with questions, concerns, or mistakes without fear of embarrassment or reprisal. Amy Edmondson’s now-canonical definition captures this precisely, grounding decades of research into team learning, leadership, and culture.

But as the idea has spread into workplaces worldwide, different models have emerged that aim to operationalise or expand it. One of the more popular is the S.A.F.E.T.Y.™ model, developed by Dr Dan Radecki of the Academy of Brain-Based Leadership (ABL).

This article takes a closer look at what the model is, how it’s applied in practice, and how it compares with Edmondson’s canonical concept.

What is the S.A.F.E.T.Y.™ Model?

I always love it when an acronym just appears to serendipitously reflect the thing it’s about! What are the chances that psychological safety can be broken down into 6 components that happen to spell “safety”? 🙂 In this case, the acronym S.A.F.E.T.Y.™ stands for:

• Security – the need for stability, predictability, and consistency.
• Autonomy – the need to feel agency and choice in one’s actions.
• Fairness – the need for equitable and just treatment.
• Esteem – the need to feel respected, valued, and positively regarded.
• Trust – the need to rely on and feel supported by others.
• You – the individual lens: each person’s unique preferences, biases, and sensitivities.

Radecki positions the model as a neuroscience-based framework: each of these domains reflects a fundamental social need, rooted in the brain’s threat/reward systems. When one of these needs is threatened, the brain shifts into defensive mode, reducing openness and collaboration. When met, people feel safer, more creative, and more willing to engage.

How It’s Put Into Practice

1. Individual & Team Profiles

ABL provides a proprietary S.A.F.E.T.Y.™ self-assessment, generating an individual profile that shows which domains are most important or sensitive. Teams can then aggregate results to see, for example, whether Security dominates (preference for stability), or Autonomy (preference for freedom). This becomes a starting point for dialogue about how people’s needs interact in daily work.

2. Leadership Development

Leaders use the model to diagnose their impact on others. For example:

• A micromanaging leader threatens Autonomy.
• A secretive decision-making process threatens Fairness.
• Favouritism undermines Esteem.

Training helps leaders adjust behaviours to reduce these perceived threats.

3. Organisational Culture Work

At the organisational level, it’s claimed that the model helps identify cultural hotspots. Repeated restructuring may threaten Security; inequitable promotions may threaten Fairness. By mapping these domains, HR and leadership teams can design interventions to address them.

4. Neuroscience Framing

The model often resonates with executives because it connects to “brain science“. Talking about threat responses and neural wiring can provide legitimacy to what might otherwise be dismissed as “soft skills.”

Strengths of the Model

• Accessible and memorable: The five domains (plus You) are intuitive and easy to grasp.
• Diagnostic tool: Provides an (on the surface) concrete way to surface and discuss psychological needs in a team.
• Neuroscience appeal: Helps “sell” the concept of safety to leaders who prefer “hard” science framing.
• Individual differences: Acknowledges that not everyone’s safety needs look the same.

Weaknesses and Cautions

• Conceptual drift: The model stretches “psychological safety” to encompass general wellbeing and belonging. That can dilute Edmondson’s precise focus on interpersonal risk-taking.
• Commercialised tool: The assessment instrument is proprietary and less independently validated than Edmondson’s scale.
• Reductionist neuroscience: Brain-based business models often oversimplify complex neurobiology and can ignore the sociological and intersectional aspects of psychological safety.
• Power blind spot: By focusing on individual needs, it risks obscuring systemic power gradients that suppress voice, particularly for marginalised groups.

Comparison with Canonical Psychological Safety

In short: Edmondson tells us why people do or don’t speak up; Radecki helps us understand what people need to feel safe and engaged. They can be complementary, but they are not interchangeable.

When It’s Useful

• Leadership coaching: Helping managers understand how their behaviours may trigger different domains for their team members.
• Team workshops: Opening up dialogue about needs, values, and interpersonal triggers.
• Gateway model: For organisations not ready for deep dives into power, equity, and voice, S.A.F.E.T.Y. could be an accessible introduction.

When to Be Cautious

• Academic or safety-critical contexts: If conceptual clarity matters (healthcare, aviation, nuclear), stick to canonical definitions.
• Structural issues: If the deeper issues are systemic (e.g. discrimination, precarious work) – (and really, when aren’t they?) an individualised needs framework may miss the point.
• Overclaiming neuroscience: Avoid presenting the acronym as robust science rather than a useful heuristic.

Conclusion

Dr Dan Radecki’s S.A.F.E.T.Y.™ model is an appealing, practitioner-oriented framework that makes psychological needs visible and measurable. It offers a useful diagnostic lens for leaders and teams, and its neuroscience framing helps secure organisational buy-in.

But as with other popular adaptations, it’s best understood as a complementary tool — not a substitute for Edmondson’s canonical concept. If used carefully, it can enrich the conversation about psychological safety by helping us see how different people experience safety differently. If used carelessly, it risks diluting the very concept it seeks to promote.