The world got harder to read. The response can't be more information — it must be sensemaking.
Forty years ago a war college borrowed four words for a world that had stopped making sense. The condition they named isn't behind us — it's cresting. What resolves it isn't more data, more consultants, or more frameworks. It's a capability most leadership teams have never named.
Nearly forty years ago, a war college borrowed four words to describe a world that no longer made sense on the old terms. The acronym was pulled into business and, over two decades, calcified into a buzzword. It was printed on strategy decks, drained of meaning, invoked to explain everything and therefore nothing.
Here we argue two things. First, VUCA is not behind us. It is cresting: by all available measures, we are living through the most volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous operating environment in the working lifetimes of the people reading this. Second, that the standard corporate response — more data, more consultants, more frameworks — does not resolve that condition. It thickens it. What resolves it is a capability most leadership teams have never named and almost none have staffed for: sensemaking.
VUCA is an acronym — volatility, uncertainty, complexity, ambiguity — and like most acronyms it is smarter than its reputation. Its intellectual roots trace to Warren Bennis and Burt Nanus, whose 1985 book Leaders pressed a then-unfashionable point: that the leader's central task was no longer command but adaptation. It was about becoming comfortable operating amid conditions that would not resolve into certainty. The U.S. Army War College took up the four words in the late 1980s to describe the strategic landscape emerging at the end of the Cold War — a world whose threats no longer arrived with a clear return address. The term sat mostly inside military and academic circles until the early 2000s, when the financial crisis handed it to the business world, which adopted it with enthusiasm.
And there it curdled, as fads often do. A concept coined to sharpen thinking became a way to avoid it. "It's a VUCA world" turned into a shrug, a sophisticated-sounding way of saying things are hard and no one is to blame. The acronym got so much use that a rival vocabulary emerged to replace it: in 2020 the futurist Jamais Cascio proposed BANI — brittle, anxious, nonlinear, incomprehensible — on the grounds that after the pandemic, VUCA no longer felt strong enough to carry the weight. That assumes people have heard of VUCA to begin with. Many haven't. Which leaves two groups: those who've tired of the phrase, and those who've never met it.
VUCA earned its longevity because each of its four words names a genuinely distinct problem, and the four do not yield to the same response. Volatility is the speed and swing of change, the size and frequency of the shocks. Uncertainty is the absence of reliable prediction: you may understand the forces at work and still not know which way they break. Complexity is interconnection — many parts, many actors, effects that arrive far from their causes. Ambiguity is the deepest of the four: you cannot even settle what the situation is, or which lens to read it through. Volatility asks for resilience. Uncertainty asks for good bets. Complexity asks for a way to hold many moving parts at once. Ambiguity asks for interpretation — for someone to decide what the picture even means before anyone can act on it.
Here is the flaw the acronym carried from the start, and the reason it aged into a cliché. VUCA was a diagnosis with no treatment attached. It described the weather with great precision and said nothing about how to sail. Two generations of leaders learned to name the condition fluently while remaining exactly as unequipped to meet it. The word became a place to put the anxiety, not a way to resolve it.
VUCA described the weather with great precision and said nothing about how to sail.
It has become fashionable to say every era believes itself the most turbulent. Fair enough. But turbulence now has many more measurements available, and the numbers are clear.
The Global Economic Policy Uncertainty Index reached the highest level of the century in early 2025, surpassing both the 2008 financial crisis and the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic; in January it touched 428.9. The World Uncertainty Index climbed higher still in early 2026, to a reading of roughly 106,862 in February, its highest in more than three decades of data. Trade-policy uncertainty ran near a tenfold multiple of its prior decade's average. These are the closest thing economics has to a barometer, and the gauge seems maxed.
The people sitting in the hot seats feel it. In PwC's most recent global survey of chief executives, only about 30% expressed confidence in their own revenue growth over the coming year — down from 38% a year earlier and 56% in 2022. Roughly a third said geopolitical uncertainty had made them less likely to make large new investments, and the single largest anxiety was whether they were transforming fast enough to keep pace with technological change, artificial intelligence chief among them. And with trillions of dollars being flooded into the AI space, questionable ROI, and unclear future disruptions, the ground is moving faster — and the instinct is to freeze.
Layer over the economic data the things that resist measurement — a general-purpose technology rewriting the cost of cognition itself, a geopolitical order rearranging in real time, institutions and information ecosystems that no longer agree on a shared set of facts — and the case makes itself. This is not the residue of VUCA. It is the crest. We are at peak VUCA, and the four conditions are no longer sequential problems that arrive one at a time. They arrive together, entangled, at speed.
Which returns us to the sentence a leader says when this lands on their desk. Not this is hard. Not this is expensive. Something worse, and quieter: "This doesn't make sense to me." That sentence is the true face of peak VUCA. It is not a resourcing problem. It is a sensemaking problem.
The problems stopped announcing their category. The corporate playbook didn't notice.
Confronted with a situation that does not make sense, the modern organization reaches for the tools it trusts: gather more data, commission more analysis, bring in more advisors, adopt another framework. Each is a reasonable instinct. In combination, against this problem, they misfire — because they treat a shortage of clarity as though it were a shortage of information.
It is not. Information has never been more abundant, and clarity has never been scarcer. More data, past a point, does not sharpen a VUCA problem. And traditional categories of outside help, which look like a valid solution on the surface, often compound the confusion unintentionally. The coach works on the leader, not the problem. The consultant recommends a path and hands implementation back. The strategic advisor offers counsel and leaves what you do with it as your business. The facilitator runs the agenda you set. Four parties, each competent and each partially effective. So for the problems that keep leaders up at night: four parties, one problem, zero owners.
The evidence shows up on all our calendars. The offsite was great, and then the gains slipped because the clarity had nowhere to live. The decision keeps getting re-made, because everyone left the room holding a different interpretation of what was decided. The most expensive meeting you run is not the one that lasts too long — it is the one everyone leaves with a different understanding of what was agreed. In a peak-VUCA environment, that failure is more and more becoming the default.
There is a name for the work that meets this moment, and like VUCA, it is not new, only overlooked. The organizational theorist Karl Weick spent a career on sensemaking: the process by which people take an ambiguous, overwhelming stream of events and turn it into an account coherent enough to act on. Sensemaking is not analysis and it is not decision-making. It is the step in between — the one where a situation becomes legible — and it is the step almost everyone skips, because it is the hardest to see and the easiest to assume has already happened. Often because people are under tremendous pressure to have answers and appear that they "know what they're doing."
Plainly stated: sensemaking is the work of getting a leader — or a leadership team — to see the situation clearly enough to act on it, together, in a timeframe that respects the fact that the business does not stop while they figure it out. It is exactly the capability the four VUCA conditions demand and the four-party market fails to supply.
And it is astonishingly under-named. In one MIT Sloan Management Review study, executives were asked to describe the qualities of effective leadership; of the 1,395 characteristics they named, fewer than 4% had anything to do with sensemaking — despite a body of research identifying it as one of the strongest predictors of leadership success. Leaders are, in effect, screening for every trait except the one that most determines whether they read reality correctly under pressure. The scarcest resource in the modern enterprise is not data or talent. It is human synthesis.
The true sentence is almost always already at the table. It is almost never already on the agenda.
Two capacities do the actual work, and both are essentially human. The first is productive safety. Most workplace conversations and gatherings offer safety at the cost of candor, or candor at the cost of safety; sensemaking requires the third condition, the one where the true sentence can be said out loud, held without flinching, and used. The truth is almost always already somewhere — in the meeting room, in the building, often already in the leader's own head. It is almost never already on the agenda. The second is perceptual speed. The real thing tends to surface for about half a second, sideways, usually from someone who did not intend to say it. The entire craft is catching it in that half-second and putting it in the middle of the table before it evaporates — rearticulating it in fresh language that invites the sharpening dialogue that centers the problem and the path forward.
Sensemaking is not a document. It happens between people, in a meeting, in real time. Which is why the operational discipline that carries it is, in the truest sense of a much-abused word, facilitation. The word deserves rescuing. Its Latin root, facilis, means to make easier; a facilitator, properly understood, is someone who makes the hard work of thinking together possible. That is precisely the skill a peak-VUCA environment is starved for.
But the market has hollowed the word out. "Facilitation," as usually sold, means running an agenda effectively — often one where the content was pre-determined by others. A neutral hand contractually forbidden from having a view about whether it is even the right meeting. That is not what the moment needs. The moment needs the facilitator's craft — structuring the conversation, drawing out the most potent ideas, engineering the conditions for candor — with the ability to say this is the wrong meeting, and here is the meeting you actually need to have. Craft without a point of view is stenography. A point of view without craft is just another opinion in the meeting. Sensemaking is the union of the two: the disciplined convening of the right conversation, by someone able to hear what is being said and what isn't, synthesize it as it happens, and drive toward the clarity, the pathways, and the decisions currently obscured by noise, politics, and the accumulated weight of how things have always been done.
This is the treatment VUCA never came with.
The instinct at peak VUCA is to buy more: more data, more analysis, more advisors, more certainty. The premise of this paper is the opposite. What is scarce is not information; the world is drowning in it. What is scarce is the human capacity to turn all of it into a shared, actionable read of reality, fast enough to matter.
In an environment this volatile, clarity is the new currency — and sensemaking is how it is minted.
For years this is the work we have been doing, and it is worth being clear about what it is and is not. We are not the coach working on you, or the consultant handing you a plan and walking away. We do not steer the ship. You do. We are the ballast — the stability in the conversations that makes it possible to hold a heading.
The condition VUCA named is not going to relent. The question is no longer whether the environment will make sense on its own. It won't. The question is whether you have someone in the room whose entire discipline is making sense of it with you, in the time you have.
Prefer the designed edition? Have the formatted PDF sent to you →
The environment isn't going to make sense on its own. A conversation is where every engagement we've ever run began.