Your board will ask.
HARI L™ is the answer.
The world's first individual AI governance assessment for people leaders. A personal score, a board-ready Leadership Card, and a 90-day practice plan — delivered through ICF-accredited coaching.
In 2024, the board question was "do you have an AI policy?" That question is settled. The 2026 question is about evidence of practice — not aspiration. Most organisations do not have a clean answer. HARI L™ is designed to help leadership teams build a stronger answer.
The governance gap has real consequences.
AI is already making decisions about your people. The question is whether your leaders are governing those decisions — or just aware of them.
Boards are demanding evidence, not policy
Audit committees are moving beyond "we have an AI governance policy" to "show us how specific leaders are personally overseeing AI-assisted decisions." Policies are assertions. Evidence is a score, a dimension breakdown, and a documented practice shift.
Board pressureRegulatory exposure is landing on individual leaders
The EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act, and NYC Local Law 144 are attaching accountability to individual decision-makers — not departments. If you cannot name the leader who governed an AI-assisted hiring or performance decision, the governance design is already weak.
Leadership accountabilityThe window to act before a governance incident is narrow
Most AI governance failures do not arrive with warning. They arrive as an employment tribunal, an audit finding, or a front-page headline. Many leadership teams are still building the routines, evidence, and language required to govern AI-assisted people decisions with confidence.
Incident riskBuilt narrow. On purpose.
HARI L™ does one thing: measure whether an individual leader is personally governing AI-assisted decisions about their people across six behavioural dimensions. It does not measure AI literacy, organisational readiness, or technology maturity. It measures leadership practice.
Individual accountability, not generic awareness
The instrument is designed around named leaders and actual governance behaviour in the flow of work.
Measures what can be coached
Scores are built to convert directly into a single focused 90-day practice shift, not a vague learning agenda.
Useful to both board and leader
The same assessment produces confidential individual insight and board-level evidence when aggregated correctly.
What HARI L™ actually measures.
Each dimension targets a specific governance behavior — not a belief, intention, or aspiration. Three reverse-coded items surface the gap between what leaders say and what they do.
Accountability
"When an AI-assisted decision about your team is challenged, can you name who was responsible for governing it — and show what oversight they exercised?"
Oversight
"Does this leader have a documented practice of reviewing AI-assisted recommendations before acting — or do they trust the output by default?"
Learning Agility
"When an AI system makes an error affecting a people decision, does this leader update their governance approach — or attribute it to the technology?"
Psychological Safety
"Do team members feel safe raising concerns about AI-assisted decisions — or does the culture signal that questioning the algorithm carries a cost?"
Transparency
"Are people whose outcomes are affected by AI-assisted decisions told that AI was involved — and given a human explanation when they ask?"
Inclusion & Equity
"Does this leader actively check whether AI-assisted decisions produce equitable outcomes across demographic groups — or assume the model is neutral?"
The Leadership Card. Board-ready evidence.
Every assessment produces a one-page Leadership Card — confidential to the individual leader. In cohort engagements, an aggregate version is prepared for board or audit committee presentation.
- Personal governance score (0–100), benchmarked against the APO global average of 52
- Dimension-level breakdown: where governance is strongest and where the gap is largest
- Three highest-priority items from the assessment for immediate attention
- A 90-day practice plan — one dimension, one weekly habit, calendar-protected
- Produced by an ICF-credentialed coach in a 60-minute debrief
Half a day. Six concrete outputs.
HARI L™ is not a self-serve quiz. Every assessment is paired with an ICF-credentialed coaching debrief — because a score without a conversation produces numbers, not change.
Leader receives a short context brief
No preparation required beyond reading it. It sets the frame for the 30 assessment questions.
Context set30 questions across 6 dimensions
Three reverse-coded items are designed to surface the gap between aspiration and practice. It cannot be gamed by optimism alone.
Signal capturedICF-accredited coaching debrief
An APO coach reviews the score and dimensions with the leader. The Leadership Card is produced at the close.
Insight translated90-day focused practice plan
One dimension. One weekly habit. Calendar-protected. Reassessment at day 90 with the same 30 questions and a movement report.
Movement proved
The score without the conversation is just a number.
Every HARI L™ assessment is paired with a 60-minute ICF-credentialed coaching debrief. Not a feedback PDF. A structured conversation designed to make an abstract governance score concrete — translating it into a specific weekly habit the leader can actually practice.
- All APO coaches hold ICF credentials — no exceptions
- Debrief is structured around the leader's dimension profile, not a generic script
- Leadership Card is co-created in the session — the leader leaves with it
- The 90-day plan is set collaboratively — one dimension, one habit, specific time blocked
- Confidential by design: the coach does not report individual findings to the employer
Outcomes for the board and the leader.
Two audiences. Different stakes. Both served by the same instrument — because individual governance behavior and board-level evidence are the same underlying question.
Evidence you can present to an audit committee.
- Aggregate Leadership Card showing team-level governance scores across all 6 dimensions
- Clearer visibility into where accountability sits for AI-assisted people decisions
- Baseline score plus 90-day movement data — showing governance is improving, not static
- Documented ICF-accredited coaching practice, meeting fiduciary expectations
- Confidentiality structure that makes individual scores non-attributable in public filings
A specific practice. Not another training module.
- Dimension-level breakdown: precisely where governance is strongest and where the gap is largest
- A coaching conversation that makes the score concrete in their actual week
- One 90-day focus area — one habit with calendar time assigned, not six aspirations
- Reassessment at 90 days with a movement report proving the practice worked
- Confidential score that belongs to the leader, not the employer
The average leader scores 52 out of 100.
52 is the baseline against which every HARI L™ score is positioned. A score below 52 signals governance behaviour below the current average. Context from the coaching debrief determines what that means for a specific leader and organisation.
Choose the scope that fits the question.
Two ways to engage HARI L™: a lighter pilot to establish a baseline fast, or a guided sprint for executive teams that want APO involved through implementation and reporting.
Leadership Readiness Assessment
For leadership teams wanting a governance diagnostic, a personal practice, and a reassessment at 90 days. You run the plan yourselves.
- HARI L™ assessment for 5 leaders
- Individual ICF-credentialed coaching debrief per leader
- Personal Leadership Card — confidential to each leader
- 90-day practice plan: one dimension, one habit, calendar-protected
- Aggregate view for the CHRO or sponsor — no individual scores shared
- Reassessment at day 90 with movement report per leader
AI Governance Readiness Sprint
Everything in Offering 1 — plus APO runs the 90-day implementation alongside your team and produces an aggregate Leadership Card for board presentation.
- Everything in Offering 1
- 90-day implementation run alongside your leadership team
- Aggregate Leadership Card for board presentation
- Executive-level synthesis of cohort patterns and risk themes
- Guidance on leadership practice shifts across the sprint
- Designed for larger cohorts and board-linked timelines
When HARI L™ is not the right tool.
Being clear about mis-fit has produced better engagements than overselling the instrument.
AI is not yet influencing people decisions in your function.
Wait six to nine months. When tools are in active use and leaders are approving AI-assisted outputs, the instrument becomes meaningful. Assessed too early, it measures aspiration, not practice.
Your primary question is organisational, not individual.
"Where is our organisation on the AI-readiness journey?" is answered by organisational tools. HARI L™ measures individual governance behaviour, not organisational maturity.
The intent is to use scores for performance review or compensation.
HARI L™ is a confidential development instrument. Using it for grading or pay decisions breaks the design premise and produces scores that reflect how leaders want to be seen, not how they actually govern.
Your leadership team is in active restructuring or M&A.
The coaching debrief works best when leaders have attention available to sit with uncomfortable findings. Acute organisational stress typically means that attention is not there.
"Did your leaders personally govern what AI decided about your people?"
Policies are assertions. HARI L™ is evidence. Start with five leaders and a 90-day plan — or bring us in to run the full sprint and produce the aggregate Leadership Card your board is asking for.