The Disruption Proof Quiz — Vijay Pendakur Consulting

The Disruption-Proof Quiz

“Think about the last major disruption your team went through — maybe a restructuring, a big tech shift, or a strategic pivot. Hold that specific moment in mind as you answer the next 10 questions.”

How to answer: Each question has a custom 1–5 scale (not a generic “strongly disagree/agree”). Read the scale under the question and select the number that best reflects what happened most consistently for your team during that disruption.

Q1 — Clarity (Goals)

During that disruption, our team maintained a shared, ranked list of top priorities and used it to make trade-offs under pressure.

1 (Never true): No shared priorities; shifting asks dictated the work day-to-day. 2 (Rarely true): A list existed, but it was outdated or rarely referenced when disruption hit. 3 (Sometimes true): A list existed but wasn’t consistently used when pressure spiked. 4 (Often true): Priorities were usually clear and used, but some trade-offs still required escalation. 5 (Always true): A living, ranked list guided decisions consistently during disruption, without senior escalation.

Q2 — Clarity (Roles & Responsibilities)

During that disruption, every team member had crystal-clear responsibilities, and handoffs between people were handled smoothly without confusion or duplication.

1 (Never true): Roles were fuzzy; duplication and dropped balls were common. 2 (Rarely true): Some roles were defined, but confusion in handoffs was frequent. 3 (Sometimes true): Most roles were clear, but handoffs often required back-channeling or leader intervention. 4 (Often true): Roles and handoffs were usually clear, though occasional overlaps or gaps slowed execution. 5 (Always true): Everyone knew their lane, and handoffs happened cleanly without slowing execution, even under disruption.

Q3 — Trust

During that disruption, my team felt confident in leadership decisions and raised concerns or risks openly, without fear of negative consequences.

1 (Never true): Decisions weren’t trusted; concerns stayed underground, or people disengaged. 2 (Rarely true): A few people voiced concerns, but most stayed quiet; decision-making was doubted. 3 (Sometimes true): Team trusted some decisions but questioned others; only a few raised issues openly. 4 (Often true): Trust in leadership was strong, with most people comfortable raising issues. 5 (Always true): Leadership decisions were credible, and people consistently voiced concerns transparently — no hesitation, even in tough moments.

Q4 — Belonging / Support

During that disruption, team members actively supported one another — people checked in, celebrated small wins, and no one was left isolated or adrift.

1 (Never true): Everyone stayed in their silo; people felt invisible or ignored. 2 (Rarely true): Small gestures of support happened, but most teammates felt left on their own. 3 (Sometimes true): Some teammates offered support or recognition, but it was inconsistent. 4 (Often true): Support was the norm, though occasionally people still slipped through the cracks. 5 (Always true): The norm was to check in and celebrate progress — everyone felt seen, connected, and supported, even in tough moments.

Q5 — Resilience Mindset

During that disruption, our team treated challenges as chances to learn and adapt, rather than threats to avoid or occasions for blame.

1 (Never true): Team defaulted to fear or blame; mistakes were hidden, growth stalled. 2 (Rarely true): Leaders encouraged learning, but most of the team avoided risk or blame. 3 (Sometimes true): A few individuals leaned into learning, but many defaulted to self-protection. 4 (Often true): The team generally framed challenges as learning opportunities, though not consistently. 5 (Always true): The team consistently framed disruption as a learning moment — mistakes were mined for lessons, and everyone leaned into adaptation.

Q6 — Connection/Rhythm

During that disruption, our team meetings and routines were focused and effective — they clarified priorities, aligned responsibilities, and moved work forward instead of adding confusion or stress.

1 (Never true): Meetings/routines were unstructured or draining; people left with less clarity than they came in. 2 (Rarely true): Some structure existed, but meetings often created more confusion than alignment. 3 (Sometimes true): Some meetings were helpful, but many lacked focus — alignment often depended on side conversations or leader intervention. 4 (Often true): Meetings were usually clear and useful, though occasional sessions derailed or ran long. 5 (Always true): Meetings/routines were disciplined and useful, even under pressure — people left knowing priorities, ownership, and next steps.

Q7 — Execution / Accountability

During that disruption, team members followed through on commitments — people owned their work and delivered on time, without deflecting responsibility or letting things slide.

1 (Never true): Commitments were frequently missed; ownership was weak, accountability absent. 2 (Rarely true): Some follow-through occurred, but deadlines slipped regularly. 3 (Sometimes true): Some people delivered, but follow-through was uneven; deadlines slipped or needed leader intervention. 4 (Often true): Most commitments were met, with occasional misses or reminders needed. 5 (Always true): Commitments were reliably met under pressure — ownership was the norm, and accountability was shared across the team.

Q8 — Adaptability

During that disruption, our team was able to pivot quickly — we adjusted plans and roles without losing momentum or needing constant escalation.

1 (Never true): Team resisted change; pivots caused confusion, delays, or paralysis. 2 (Rarely true): Team adjusted reluctantly; pivots were slow and disruptive. 3 (Sometimes true): Team could adjust in some cases, but shifts often slowed momentum or required heavy leader intervention. 4 (Often true): Team usually adapted well, though some pivots still created friction. 5 (Always true): Team consistently flexed and adapted under pressure — plans and roles shifted smoothly, and momentum was sustained.

Q9 — Alignment / Team of Leaders

During that disruption, leaders in our group acted as one team — making decisions together, sharing accountability, and putting enterprise results ahead of individual agendas.

1 (Never true): Leaders prioritized their own functions; decisions were fragmented, accountability was siloed, and enterprise results suffered. 2 (Rarely true): Leaders occasionally aligned but mostly protected their turf. 3 (Sometimes true): Leaders aligned on some big calls, but often defaulted to defending their own turf; shared accountability was inconsistent. 4 (Often true): Leaders usually aligned and shared accountability, though conflicts sometimes disrupted unity. 5 (Always true): Leaders consistently operated as a true team of leaders — decisions were collective, accountability was shared, and enterprise outcomes came first.

Q10 — Energy / Sustainability

During that disruption, our team sustained energy and engagement — people stayed focused and productive without burning out or disengaging.

1 (Never true): Disruption drained the team; burnout, withdrawal, or disengagement were widespread. 2 (Rarely true): Some energy was sustained, but fatigue dominated overall. 3 (Sometimes true): Some people kept energy up, but many showed signs of fatigue, stress, or withdrawal; performance was uneven. 4 (Often true): Energy was generally sustained, though some individuals burned out or disengaged. 5 (Always true): The team maintained high energy and engagement throughout disruption — people stayed productive, resilient, and connected without tipping into burnout.

Please answer all questions.