Sovereign Agentic Enterprise

Skip to selected?

Conversations become tense or people change the subject

Team members express concerns about job security or role relevance

People are curious but unsure how it applies to their work

Team actively discusses practical implementation questions

Team debates which tasks to delegate vs. which to retain for strategic value

Being the person who personally does the difficult work

Demonstrating deep hands-on expertise in manual execution

Balancing execution skill with some leadership qualities

Ensuring work gets done well, regardless of who does it

Architecting systems and orchestrating resources (human or AI) to achieve outcomes

No discussion or acknowledgment of role evolution

Vague rumors or anxiety-driven speculation

Informal conversations happening within teams, but nothing official

Roles are evolving organically through practice, but not yet formalized

Formal frameworks exist (e.g., "Writer" → "Content Architect," "Analyst" → "Insight Auditor")

Fully defined career pathways with training and advancement criteria

Blames the technology and shelves it indefinitely

Blames the user for "not knowing how to use it properly"

Shrugs it off and returns to traditional methods without discussion

Discusses what went wrong informally, then tries again

Conducts a structured review to understand failure and improve implementation

Treats it as a learning opportunity with documented insights shared organization-wide

Which best describes your role in the organization?

Contradictory or actively conflicting goals between leaders

Siloed experiments with no central coordination or vision

Loosely aligned but fragmented (each department doing their own thing)

Mostly unified through a central steering committee or working group

Single coherent strategy owned and championed across the entire enterprise

Leaders seem to contradict each other or send mixed messages

Each department appears to be doing its own thing

There's some general direction but it feels inconsistent

Leadership seems mostly aligned with a clear direction

There's a unified, well-communicated strategy that's evident in day-to-day decisions

Fear of being left behind by competitors (FOMO)

Mandate to reduce headcount and labor costs

Pressure to improve existing process efficiency and reduce operational costs

Desire to enhance products, services, or customer personalization

Ambition to build new organizational capabilities and strategic advantage

Zero trust; all AI outputs must be human-reviewed before any action

AI can assist and suggest, but humans must execute every action

AI can draft or prepare, but humans must approve before execution (e.g., must press "Send")

AI can act autonomously within tightly defined parameters and rules

AI has significant autonomy within well-designed safety boundaries and monitoring systems

No clear owner; ad hoc decisions by different people

IT department controls it as a technology initiative

Innovation or Digital Transformation team leads it

Distributed ownership across department heads with loose coordination

Executive-level ownership (e.g., Chief AI Officer, CEO, COO) with cross-functional governance

Never, or AI tools are discouraged/banned

Rarely; occasional experimental use by a few individuals

Weekly; team uses AI for specific routine tasks

Daily; AI is integrated into standard workflows

Continuously; team proactively experiments, refines prompts, and improves AI integration

Sovereign Agentic Enterprise

AI Cultural Readiness Assessment

No group id was found. To receive feedback on the survey, please provide your email. Your information will be used only for this purpose.