ANTIFRAGILITY

AS A STRATEGY
Nassim Nicholas Taleb is known for the concepts of
black swans (=rare yet impactful events almost
Fragile things Robust things are too
impossible to predict and plan for) (Taleb, 2007), break under stable for sustaining in
and antifragility (=how to combine stress-resistance
with opportunity seizing). How to use them for stress; changing environment.
successful strategy building in high uncertainty
environment?
Antifragile succeeds.
Anna Grabtchak 9.10.2025
OUR OPERATIONAL ENVIRONMENT IS VUCA
Born in the late 1980s after the Cold War, VUCA concept was created to describe the operative
environment in a world of increasing volatility and uncertainty. In VUCA environment..

VOLATILE C H A N G I N G FA S T, J U M P S A N D T U R N S I N T H E D E V E L O P M E N T.

UNCERTAIN S U R P R I S E S D I S T U R B L O G I C A L , P R O B A B L E O R L I N E A R E X P E C TAT I O N S.

COMPLEX F R O M P R O C E S S E S T O S Y S T E M S C O M P L E X I T Y, I N T E R C O N N E C T E D.

AMBIGUOUS HARD TO SET LIMITS AND B ORDERS TO DIFFERENT ISSUES.

..growth is not an optional strategy, it is becoming the base for survival. Becoming antifragile is
about searching growth opportunities, using opportunities provided by uncertainty instead of
avoiding changes.
2
 ROBUST
Not harmed by volatility and hardly changing

HOW ORGANISATIONS FRAGILE

BEHAVE IN VUCA? Harmed by volatility, changing for weaker
(Taleb’s 3 system categories)

ANTIFRAGILE
Benefit from volatility, changing for better

3
ARE YOUR STRATEGIC
CHOICES CREATING
BASE FOR CONVEX ANTIFRAGILE
OR CONCAVE? e.g. Trying to solve
Benefits from volatility,
changing for better.
problems driving the
next 3-10 years..

convex

history increasing surprises and changes

TODAY Future(s)

“We do not need to know the history and concave

statistics of an item to measure its
fragility or antifragility, or to be able to e.g. Cutting costs,
ROBUST
Not harmed by volatility
predict rare and random (‘black swan’) waiting for better and hardly changing.
times, choices
events. All we need is to be able to assess benefitting (me) for FRAGILE
whether the item is accelerating towards the next 1-3 years.. Harmed by volatility,
changing for weaker.
harm or benefit.”

- Nassim N. Taleb

4
 SUCCESS IN VUCA DEMANDS
ACCEPTANCE OF NON-PREDICTION
It is easier to define whether the thing is fragile or not that than to predict the
occurrence of an event that may harm it, which provides a solution to Taleb’s Black
Less focus on Swan problem (the impossibility of calculating the exact risks of consequential rare
prediction events and predicting their occurrence): you cannot predict black swans, so what do
you do?

You can estimate your organisation’s fragility and find ways to “anti-fragile” it.

Detect antifragility (and fragility) by a simple test of asymmetry: anything that has more
More efforts upside than downside from random events (or certain shocks) is anti-fragile; the
reverse is fragile. Sensitivity for becoming harmed by volatility is easier to estimate than
on antifragility forecasting each event that would cause the harm.

=> Successful strategy depends on how well it can move an

organisation from the fragile toward the antifragile state, through
reduction of fragility or harnessing antifragility.
5
 ORGANISATIONS
FACING VUCA:
Avoiding volatility &
uncertainty
WHICH ONE YOU ARE
(concave minimizing)
REPRESENTING?
(Suggesting new framework,
ROBUST FRAGILE based on Taleb’s key concepts)

Robust resists shocks and Fragile spends all the

stays the same. energy on lightness and
Preservation: controlled, resource efficiency.
slow, incremental change Relying on environment
is the key. not to break it.
Shock- Shock-
absorbing damaging

ANTIFRAGILE AUDACIOUS*
Repeatedly taking high
Antifragile resists shocks
risks. While antifragile
and changes for better,
manages to seize the
loves randomness, uses = Nassim N. Taleb’s 3 SYSTEM categories
uncertainty, audacious
uncertainty (learn by errors
takes too long leaps by
to deal with unknown). = *one addition based on “ruin and path
putting all in. dependence” (Taleb, N. N., 2020).
Using volatility &
uncertainty
(convex maximizing)
6
ANTIFRAGILE AS A STRATEGY
= reduction of fragility + harnessing antifragility

1. SKIN IN THE GAME (=NO TO FREE RISK-TAKING)

Commitment to the activities and mutual success by involving success-based rewarding
systems, as described by Taleb: ”Thou shalt not have anti-fragility at the expense of the
fragility of others“. Paying bonuses in a situation, where an organisation is not developing in the
wanted direction, is questionable.

2. CONVEX SEEKING, NOT CONCAVE BATTLING

Do not accept cost-cutting as a strategy, as it is a concave-driving defencing choice. Demand
the leaders to provide convincing growth opportunities that solve long term issues. How can you
establish something growing using the change happening, is the key question. High risk-
aversion and cost-cutting (without a clear vision for growth) can serve as the tools for monthly /
annual balancing, but do not provide strategic growth. High risk gaming attitude can make you
fragile as well, thus balanced risk-taking is wanted, but complete risk avoidance is not a
strategy.

3. SHARED DECISION-MAKING
Move away from authoritarian control, focus on facilitating dynamic interactions. Organisation
should be seen as a complex adaptive system, capable to self-organize and evolve. Learning
requires being aware of changes: spotting, analysing and using change signals in collaborative
decision-making..and making mistakes. Move focus from decision-making results to the high
quality of decision-making process, that includes risk-taking and learning from mistakes.
Sharing of the decision-making responsibility in the group (instead of one person) could help in
admitting of the bad decisions, as there won’t be just one person to blame but a group learning
from mutual mistakes. Balanced risk-taking is a capability needed for convex.
7
REFERENCES &
ADDITIONAL READING SUGGESTIONS:
Adobor, H., & Kudonoo, E. C. (2025). Antifragility and organizations: an organizational design
perspective. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 46(2), 351-375.
Bennett, N., & Lemoine, G. J. (2014). What a difference a word makes: Understanding threats to performance in
a VUCA world. Business horizons, 57(3), 311-317.
Hole, K.J. (2016). Principles ensuring anti-fragility in Anti-fragile ICT Systems. Simula Springer Briefs on
Computing, Springer, Cham, Vol. 1, pp. 35-43.
Holland, J.H. (1995). Hidden Order: How Adaptation Builds Complexity. Addison-Wesley, New York.
Johansen, B. and Euchner, J. (2013). Navigating the VUCA World: an interview with Bob Johansen. Research -
Technology Management, Vol. 56 No. 1, pp. 10-15.
Lawrence, K. (2013). Developing leaders in a VUCA environment”. UNC Executive Development. pp. 1 -15.
Taleb, N.N. (2007). The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable, Random House, New York.
Taleb, N.N. (2012). Antifragile: Things that Gain from Disorder, Random House Publishing Group, New York.
Taleb, N. N. (2018). Skin in the game: Hidden asymmetries in daily life. Random House.
Taleb, N. N. (2020). Statistical consequences of fat tails: Real world preasymptotics, epistemology,
and applications.
Taleb, N.N. and Douady, R. (2012). Mathematical definition, mapping, and detection of (Anti) Fragility.
Taleb, N. N., Goldstein, D. G., & Spitznagel, M. W. (2009). The six mistakes executives make in risk
management. Harvard Business Review, 87(10), 78-81.