Score

BANI / VUCA / RUPT Readiness Assessment

They wait for more clarity before committing to a direction

They make a call based on the best available read, while staying genuinely open to revising it

They act decisively on the first coherent interpretation, adjusting course as needed

They tend to default to whichever direction feels lowest-risk given the uncertainty

When information is incomplete or actively contradictory, how do your leaders typically proceed?

They prioritise certainty; important decisions wait until the picture is genuinely clear

They prioritise speed; a good, timely decision usually beats a perfect, late one

They deliberately match the trade-off to the decision: fast on reversible calls, more deliberate where reversal is genuinely costly

This varies by individual leader without a consistent organisational standard

How do your leaders generally balance decision speed against decision certainty?

They tend to resolve the tension by clearly prioritising one side over the other

They try to balance both, though it often feels like an uneasy compromise

They genuinely hold both as legitimate and necessary, and actively design approaches that serve both rather than trading one against the other

Paradoxical situations tend to create real organisational confusion and inconsistent decisions

How well do your leaders navigate paradox: situations where two seemingly contradictory things must both be genuinely true or pursued at once (e.g., cutting costs while investing in innovation)?

They tend to project calm outwardly, whatever they're feeling internally

They acknowledge the difficulty honestly with their teams, without necessarily having it fully resolved themselves

They have genuine, practiced personal capacity to stay grounded under real pressure, and can be honest about difficulty without that honesty becoming the team's added burden

This varies considerably by individual leader, without much organisational support around it

How do your leaders manage their own anxiety and emotional regulation when the environment feels genuinely overwhelming or incomprehensible?

Planning is generally built around a single, most-likely scenario

Alternative scenarios are occasionally discussed, though planning still centres on one main path

Multiple plausible futures are actively and regularly considered, and plans are built with enough flexibility to adapt across more than one of them

We haven't built scenario thinking into how we plan

How actively do your leaders engage in scenario thinking, exploring multiple plausible futures rather than planning against a single expected one?

Decisions tend to be driven primarily by what the immediate situation demands

Values are considered, though they sometimes get set aside under real pressure

Stated values and purpose actively anchor decisions even under real pressure, providing a stable reference point precisely when the situation itself feels incomprehensible

This varies depending on the specific leader and situation

In a genuinely volatile situation, how do your leaders typically anchor their decisions: to stated values and purpose, or to the immediate tactical demands of the moment?

Authority tends to concentrate more tightly at the top during volatile periods

Authority stays roughly where it normally sits, without much deliberate adjustment

Authority is deliberately distributed further during volatility, since a networked response, with clear guardrails, moves and adapts faster than a purely centralised one

This varies significantly depending on the specific situation and who's involved

How does your organisation approach decision-making authority during periods of genuine volatility: more centralised, or more distributed?

The focus is mainly on recovering back to how things were before the disruption

Some learning is captured, though it doesn't consistently change how the organisation operates going forward

Disruptions are deliberately treated as a source of genuine learning, and the organisation's structures and practices are actively adjusted based on what each one reveals

We haven't approached disruption this deliberately

How does your organisation treat shocks and disruptions: as events to recover from, or as inputs that make the system genuinely stronger over time?

They tend to project more certainty than they genuinely feel, to provide reassurance

They're honest about the uncertainty, though it can leave teams feeling somewhat unmoored

They're honest about what's genuinely unknown, while still providing clear direction on what is known and what happens next, so uncertainty doesn't become directionlessness

Communication during uncertain periods tends to be inconsistent across different leaders

How do your leaders communicate with their teams during periods of genuine uncertainty, when they themselves don't have all the answers?

They push through, largely relying on personal resilience and commitment

They take breaks and recovery time when the schedule genuinely allows it

They treat personal renewal as a genuine, non-negotiable discipline, built into how they operate, not something that only happens once the turbulence eventually settles

This varies considerably by individual, without much organisational support or expectation around it

BANI / VUCA / RUPT Readiness Assessment

How Equipped Are Your Leaders to Navigate a Brittle, Anxious, Nonlinear, Incomprehensible World?