Dr Peter Stephenson.

The Dark Pyramid · Audit Workbook

Auditing the vulnerability to failure pathway

An evidence-led exercise for auditing your own organisation through the Dark Pyramid framework.

The central question What combination of conditions could allow serious organisational harm to develop, persist and escalate?

Your answers are saved only in this browser, on this device, so you can come back to them. They are sent nowhere unless you ask for a copy by email.

Free access

Enter your email to open the workbook

One email address opens both Dark Pyramid tools and their printable versions on this device.

I use your address to see who is using the tools, and to email you only if you tick the box. Your answers in the workbook stay in your browser unless you ask for a copy by email. Privacy notice.

Stage 1 · 5 minutes

Frame the exercise

01Define the case you will audit

Choose a real organisation, division or organisational process that you know reasonably well (anonymise if you prefer).

02How to work through the exercise 45 minutes

  1. 5 minFrame
  2. 10 minScan
  3. 15 minConnect
  4. 15 minChallenge
  5. OptionalDebrief

03Use scores as prompts, not predictions

For each statement in the scan, choose a score and your confidence in that assessment. Use examples or evidence where you can; if you cannot judge, mark ‘?’ rather than inventing a score.

0Strong evidence of resilience
1Mostly resilient; minor concern
2Mixed evidence; potential vulnerability
3Significant vulnerability
4Serious vulnerability

Confidence: H = direct/repeated evidence; M = some evidence; L = impression or limited view. ? = unable to assess. Neither “?” nor low confidence is a low-risk score.

Note Do not disclose confidential information or identify colleagues.

Stage 2 · 10 minutes

Rapid vulnerability scan

Choose one vulnerability score (0–4) or ? (unknown); then choose confidence H, M or L. Avoid adding up the scores.

Internal

People, power, culture and systems

I1Powerful people can bypass normal challenge or controls.

I2Bad news is filtered, softened or delayed before reaching decision-makers.

I3Challenging influential colleagues could carry a personal or career cost.

I4Targets and incentives can make risky shortcuts attractive.

I5Complexity or organisational silos could allow serious problems to remain hidden.

External

Customers, investors, advisers and market expectations

E1Outside stakeholders benefit from the organisation continuing to appear successful.

E2Dependence on key customers, investors, funders or suppliers shapes decisions.

E3Advisers or partners gain commercially or reputationally from the current strategy.

E4Critics and uncomfortable external voices are dismissed or discounted.

E5Competition or industry norms normalise behaviour that deserves questioning.

Regulatory

Boards, audit, assurance, compliance and formal regulators

R1People expected to stop harmful conduct lack independence, information or authority.

R2Commercial priorities can override legal, professional or compliance concerns (Who pays the regulator? What are the pressures on them?).

R3Oversight bodies rely on information selected or interpreted by management.

R4Responsibility for a key risk is fragmented, so everyone assumes someone else owns it.

R5The organisation could meet formal requirements while still causing serious harm.

After the scan 0 of 15 scored

Mark the 2–3 items most likely to reinforce one another (not necessarily the highest scores).

Weak evidence is not evidence of resilience. These figures are not failure probabilities.

Stage 3 · 15 minutes

Build the failure pathway

The goal is a credible explanation of how conditions interact - not three separate lists of problems.

Select the conditions that form the most plausible harmful combination. Include at least two faces of the pyramid; use all three where relevant. An item can play more than one role.

Internal
External
Regulatory

Trace what happens and why Give each link a mechanism

Use these as steps in a possible sequence, not as a rigid causal order. Label the relevant I / E / R items and describe how each step affects the next.

  1. Trigger
  2. Enables
  3. Reinforces
  4. Fails to stop
  5. Harm

Make the interaction explicit

Factor strengthens factor because:

Repeat as necessary: each new pathway gives you a fresh copy of Stage 3.

Stage 4 · 15 minutes

Test and interrupt the pathway

Challenge your assumptions, identify the outcomes and propose one credible intervention.

01What are the risks?

Not every category need apply. Specify the consequences that are plausible.

02Challenge the story before trusting it

03Break one link, not just one behaviour

Choose a practical change that weakens the combination you identified - for example, independent information, safer escalation, changed incentives or stronger scrutiny.

Optional · Debrief

Peer challenge / group discussion

In groups, explain your pathway without naming people or sharing confidential information. Ask: What supports it? What might disprove it? Where does one face amplify another? What protection should work but might not?

If you identify a real, urgent concern, follow your organisation’s appropriate reporting or safeguarding process.

Prefer paper? Download the printable version (PDF, A4, 4 pages).

Diagnostic aid based on Stephenson, Bolden & Witzel (2026), The Dark Pyramid, British Journal of Management. doi:10.1111/1467-8551.70057. Scores indicate areas for inquiry, not a validated probability of failure.