Mastering the Confidence Vote in SAFe

What is the Confidence Vote?

The confidence vote is a crucial step in PI Planning, where teams and stakeholders evaluate their belief in the planned objectives' feasibility. According to the SAFe framework, teams vote at the end of the planning session using a scale typically ranging from 1 (low confidence) to 5 (high confidence). If confidence levels are low, teams discuss their concerns openly and adjust the plan accordingly.

On paper, the confidence vote acts as a checkpoint for alignment—a final moment to ensure that everyone genuinely believes the plan can succeed. In reality, however, it often becomes just another formality, losing its intended impact.

Why the Confidence Vote?

The primary goal of the confidence vote is straightforward: to confirm teams genuinely support their planned objectives. It should help uncover:

Hidden risks Are there concerns that haven't been expressed?

Misalignments Does everyone share the same understanding?

Feasibility concerns Are capacities, dependencies, and constraints realistically accounted for?

Though SAFe emphasizes discussing low-confidence votes openly, many teams simply go through the motions. They may fear slowing things down or believe the plan can't change, rendering the vote meaningless. If teams consistently vote high without genuine discussion, it raises an important question: Is this real confidence, or just compliance?

When and How to Do It Right?

When to Do It:

• At the end of PI Planning, once teams have detailed features and dependencies.

• Before committing to PI Objectives to ensure true alignment rather than assumption.

• Before finalizing risks—using the vote as a final check to surface overlooked concerns.

How to Make It Effective:

Set Clear Expectations – Make it evident that the vote is not a mere formality but a critical success check.

Promote Honest Voting – People must feel safe to vote honestly without fear of judgment or repercussions.

Discuss Low Scores Openly – Don’t pressure teams into voting all 5s; instead, understand and address lower scores constructively.

Adapt the Plan if Needed – Take low votes seriously and adjust the objectives to address legitimate concerns.

Analyze Past Voting Patterns – If teams frequently vote high but later struggle, review whether votes accurately reflect reality.

What Happens If You Don’t Do It?

If the confidence vote is skipped or treated as automatic approval, teams might believe it doesn't significantly impact outcomes. Indeed, most teams often vote positively regardless. Yet, several risks emerge from ignoring this step:

⚠ Hidden Risks Remain Hidden – Without prompting a vote, teams might not discuss lingering concerns until these become real issues.

⚠ Misalignment – Without a formal checkpoint, teams may begin work with different interpretations of objectives.

⚠ False Confidence – Teams could commit to work without critically evaluating readiness, leading to unmet expectations.

Skipping the vote might not immediately cause disruption, but it eliminates a crucial opportunity to reveal and address issues before they worsen. The real value of the confidence vote is in the conversations it prompts, not just the numerical scores.

Addressing Common Fears in Voting

Teams often experience hesitation or anxiety around the confidence vote, thinking:

• "If I vote low, we'll have to reopen discussions and prolong PI planning."

• "If I vote low, I risk being perceived negatively since everyone else seems aligned."

To address these fears:

Normalize Constructive Dissent Communicate clearly that the vote is about transparency and improvement, not about unanimous agreement.

Create Psychological Safety Repeatedly emphasize that honest feedback is welcomed and encouraged, not penalized.

Implement Anonymous Voting Consider using anonymous tools or digital platforms to capture votes without social pressure, reducing fears of judgment.

Timebox Follow-Up Discussions Clearly define and communicate a short, manageable time frame for discussing concerns, alleviating fears that voting low will significantly prolong planning.

Forums and communities discussing SAFe practices frequently suggest anonymity and clear cultural support as effective methods to increase honest participation in confidence votes.

Final Thoughts: Confidence vs. Compliance

The confidence vote must be an authentic assessment, not simply a checkbox activity. Teams consistently voting high without genuine discussion indicates compliance rather than true confidence. The real power of the confidence vote lies in empowering teams to voice their concerns before execution.

Keep it authentic. Make it count. The discussion matters more than the final score.

How does your team approach confidence votes? Do they create value, or have they become just another formality?