The future can’t be predicted. Can it be led?

When leaders talk about preparing for the future the conversation often begins with strategy decks, scenario plans and trend forecasts. But what if none of that is enough? What if, as disruption accelerates and uncertainty becomes the norm, the very idea of ‘preparation’ needs to be redefined?

This was the deeper thread running through a recent session at the CIPD Festival of Work. While the session itself took the form of a formal debate, arguing whether leaders can or cannot prepare for the future, the insight it surfaced goes well beyond any binary answer. What emerged was a challenge to conventional thinking: not just about the limits of prediction, but about the evolving nature of leadership itself.

The illusion of foresight

Kim McMurdo, Standard Chartered Bank’s global head of organisational development, opened the session by arguing that the pace of change is no longer just high but accelerating exponentially. Referencing the physics concept of ‘jerk’ (the rate of change of acceleration), she argued that even the best-laid plans are often obsolete by the time they’re needed. “We’re living in deeply interconnected digital, societal and economic ecosystems,” she noted, where millions of variables interact at speed. “To think leaders can realistically prepare for the millions of potential outcomes is naïve.”

Preparation, in this framing, is a false comfort. Worse, it can be harmful. McMurdo suggested that relying on traditional planning creates blind spots: “We’re hardwired to use previous experience to predict the future but machines are already better at that than we are.”

This critique was echoed by Graham Botwright, chief executive of The Gap Partnership, who argued that over-reliance on preparation can actually make leaders less effective. “What we need now is big eyes and big ears,” he said. In other words: awareness, responsiveness and the humility to unlearn.

Redefining preparation

Opposing this position was a more expansive, and arguably more pragmatic, definition of preparation. Katrina Bozicevich, managing director at MG OMD, reframed it as a mindset of readiness, not prediction. “Preparation doesn’t require certainty,” she said. “It requires capability.”

Rather than aiming for accuracy this view of leadership focuses on building the conditions that allow for a fast, flexible response. “Our clients aren’t asking for a crystal ball,” said Bozicevich. “They’re asking us to help them prepare through data, maturity assessments, AI audits, capability frameworks. We don't yet know exactly what AI agents we might need to build for them but when they need them we'll be ready to execute.”

This argument was reinforced by Pete Brown, global workforce leader at PwC and a former Royal Air Force officer. Drawing on military training he shared that readiness is not about knowing exactly what will happen but about developing the muscle to adapt when it does. “In the RAF we trained relentlessly, rehearsing scenarios and developing plans that could flex under pressure” he said. “We weren’t guessing the future, we were equipping ourselves to face it.”

Readiness as capability, not clairvoyance

What’s striking in these reflections is the consensus that prediction is limited but readiness is essential. The disagreement lies in whether what most leaders do today genuinely constitutes preparation. For some the corporate rituals of strategic planning, SWOT analyses and five-year forecasts still dominate. For others those tools are being replaced with scenario rehearsals, capability mapping and cultural flexibility.

This shift moves the locus of preparation away from trying to predict what’s coming and toward preparing people to respond to whatever arrives. It means investing in:

• Adaptive capacity: building teams and structures that can flex quickly when conditions change
• Learning agility: fostering cultures where people can quickly absorb, unlearn and reapply knowledge
• Distributed leadership: empowering people at all levels to make decisions under uncertainty

Esther Mark, a senior facilitator at Debate Mate, underscored this when she said preparation is not learning to swim when your basement is flooding but about becoming a stronger swimmer, not about knowing when the flood will come.

What this means for leadership today

If we accept that prediction is limited and agility is the goal then the nature of leadership must also evolve. Traditional models that reward certainty, control and decisive planning may fall short in today’s ambiguous environment. Instead, effective leadership is increasingly defined by its ability to:

• Build psychological safety so teams can experiment and adapt
• Hold multiple possible futures in mind without becoming paralysed
• Act with speed and empathy, even when the outcome is unclear
• Champion resilience not as an individual trait but as an organisational asset

This kind of leadership doesn’t rely on answers but presence, courage and trust.

HR’s role in creating the conditions for readiness

If this is the new shape of preparation HR leaders have a pivotal role to play in enabling it. That means shifting focus from performance against static KPIs to investment in transferable, human-centred capabilities. It means designing learning ecosystems that build reflexes, not just knowledge. And it means helping organisations understand that culture not control is the foundation of agility.

Preparing for the future, then, becomes less about mapping the terrain and more about equipping your people for the journey, whatever the terrain turns out to be.

So, can leaders prepare for the future?

Not in the way they used to. The future can’t be predicted. But it can be led by those who understand that readiness isn’t a plan, it’s a practice. 

In a world defined by volatility the most powerful preparation is flexibility, presence and the confidence to respond with courage and care. That is where leadership truly begins.