1. Overview

The Fulfilment and Resilience Framework is a reflective and developmental framework designed to help a person:

understand how fulfilled and secure their life currently feels;
recognise the factors that make them vulnerable to uncertainty or disruption;
identify competencies that can strengthen their capacity to live meaningfully under changing and resource-constrained circumstances; and
make deliberate decisions about what to improve, protect or change.

The framework has two complementary components:

Component	Central question	What it measures
Fulfilment and Resilience Indicators (FRI)	How fulfilled and resilient is my life at present?	Present life conditions, fulfilment of needs, clarity under uncertainty and assurance of foundational resources
Fulfilment and Resilience Competencies (FRC)	What capacities help me create, maintain or recover fulfilment and resilience?	Ways of thinking, deciding, learning, acting and relating that influence future outcomes

FRI is therefore primarily an outcome and condition assessment. FRC is primarily a capacity and development assessment.

2. Relationship between FRI and FRC

FRI and FRC should not be treated as two independent scores. They describe different parts of the same system.

2.1 FRI describes the present state

FRI records what is currently happening in a person’s life:

Are their basic needs being met?
Do they feel safe, connected and respected?
Are they able to pursue personally meaningful growth?
Can they think clearly when facing uncertainty?
Could they find another source of livelihood if their current work ended?
Do they have savings, relationships or other resources that would protect their basic needs during a disruption?

FRI may change relatively quickly because of events such as losing a job, illness, family conflict, receiving new support, finding meaningful work or developing financial security.

2.2 FRC describes capacities that influence the state

FRC examines whether the person has developed capacities such as:

questioning inherited assumptions about a good life;
making decisions that consider both immediate and long-term consequences;
understanding needs and accepting necessary trade-offs;
imagining livelihood alternatives;
transferring skills into new contexts;
building useful relationships and support systems;
acting creatively within constraints; and
continuing to learn without requiring guaranteed success.

These competencies do not eliminate uncertainty. They increase the person’s ability to anticipate, navigate and recover from it.

2.3 The relationship is many-to-many

A single FRC competency may influence several FRI indicators. Similarly, one FRI difficulty may require several competencies and material supports.

FRI area	FRC competencies likely to influence it
Basic and safety needs	Understanding needs and security; resourcefulness; skill-based confidence; support systems
Love and belonging	Exposure and network; support systems; agency in relationships
Esteem	Vision; growth mindset; skill-based confidence; supportive relationships
Self-development	Vision; long-term decision-making; learning agility; resourceful experimentation
Clear thinking during uncertainty	Growth mindset and long-term decision-making; understanding priorities; agency within constraints
Availability of livelihood alternatives	Entrepreneurial mindset; transferable skills; exposure and network
Savings and fallback support	Understanding security; resourcefulness; support systems and reciprocal relationships

This is not a mechanical cause-and-effect relationship. For example, strong competencies cannot always compensate for unemployment, discrimination, illness or severe poverty. Conversely, a person may presently have high FRI because their environment is favourable, even though their competencies for dealing with future disruption remain limited.

FRI should therefore not be used to blame a person for difficult circumstances, and FRC should not be treated as a measure of personal worth.

3. How the framework supports a fulfilled and resilient life

The framework is intended to create a repeated cycle of assessment, reflection, action and reassessment.

Step 1: Understand the present condition

FRI helps the person create a profile of their present life rather than relying on a general answer such as “my life is good” or “I am struggling.”

The assessment may reveal, for example, that:

basic needs are secure, but belonging and meaning are weak;
work is fulfilling, but losing the job would immediately threaten basic needs;
several livelihood alternatives exist, but anxiety prevents clear decision-making; or
strong family support exists, but the person has little awareness of their transferable skills.

Step 2: Identify the underlying bottleneck

The FRC assessment helps distinguish between different reasons for an FRI difficulty.

Suppose a person sees no alternative to their present job. Possible causes include:

limited exposure to other kinds of work;
inability to identify transferable skills;
belief that only salaried employment is legitimate work;
lack of relationships that provide information or introductions;
fear of experimenting without guaranteed success; or
genuine scarcity of available opportunities.

These causes require different responses. A generic recommendation such as “be more confident” would not be sufficient.

Step 3: Select a development priority

The person can choose one or two competencies that would have the greatest practical effect. Development may involve:

meeting people in unfamiliar occupations;
preparing a skills inventory;
conducting a small income-generating experiment;
building an emergency fund;
practising structured decision-making;
having a difficult conversation about family expectations;
strengthening reciprocal support relationships; or
revisiting assumptions about status, salary and success.

Step 4: Test actions in real life

FRC is not developed only through discussion. Competencies need to be practised through decisions, relationships, experiments and reflection.

An action should ideally be small enough to attempt but meaningful enough to produce evidence. For example:

“Over the next month, I will speak with three people working in fields that use my existing skills and identify one small project I could attempt.”

Step 5: Reassess

FRI and FRC can be reviewed periodically—such as every six or twelve months—or after a major life transition.

The aim is not necessarily to increase every score continuously. A temporary decline in FRI may occur when someone leaves an unsuitable job, undertakes further learning or accepts short-term discomfort for a more meaningful direction. The assessment should therefore be interpreted alongside the person’s circumstances and decisions.

4. Fulfilment and Resilience Indicators (FRI)

FRI has two parts.

4.1 Part 1: Fulfilment

The fulfilment assessment adapts Maslow’s hierarchy of needs into five domains. Each domain contains three questions rated on a four-level scale, ranging from the need not being met to it being met strongly.

A. Physiological needs

This domain examines whether foundational bodily needs are reliably met, including:

sufficient food;
access to clean drinking water; and
adequate, comfortable sleep.

A low result indicates an immediate foundational concern. Competency development alone is unlikely to be an adequate response; practical and material support may be necessary.

B. Safety needs

This examines whether the person:

feels safe at home;
feels safe at school or work; and
feels healthy and able to obtain treatment when required.

Safety includes physical security and access to essential care.

C. Love and belonging

This examines whether the person:

has friends or relatives with whom they enjoy spending time;
feels included in their family, school or workplace; and
has someone with whom they can share happiness or distress.

The emphasis is not merely on knowing people, but on experiencing connection and emotional accessibility.

D. Esteem

This examines whether the person:

feels proud of their work;
experiences recognition from others; and
enjoys attempting and learning new things.

Esteem therefore includes both internal self-respect and recognition within one’s social environment.

E. Self-development or self-actualisation

This examines whether the person:

engages in activities that bring happiness and growth;
learns about subjects that genuinely interest them; and
feels that they are becoming as capable as they can be.

This domain concerns meaning, growth and the ability to develop one’s potential.

Interpreting Part 1

The five domains should preferably be retained as a profile, rather than being reduced immediately to one fulfilment score.

For example, identical totals could conceal very different realities:

one person may have secure basic needs but very little meaning or belonging;
another may experience strong relationships and purpose while facing serious material insecurity.

The hierarchy should also not be interpreted as a rigid sequence. People may seek belonging, dignity and meaning even while foundational needs remain insecure.

4.2 Part 2: Resilience

Resilience is defined here as the capacity to continue functioning and protecting foundational needs when circumstances become uncertain or adverse.

It has two principal components.

Component 1: Ability to think clearly

The assessment asks how worries about the present or future affect the person’s ability to function.

The four levels broadly progress from:

worry substantially disrupting daily work;
continuing fear and unresolved questions;
generally being able to identify solutions, with some difficult concerns remaining; to
being able to examine recurring concerns, understand them and develop confidence that workable responses can be found.

The accompanying open-ended question records what the person has recently been worried about. This prevents the numerical rating from becoming detached from their actual situation.

Clear thinking does not mean never feeling anxious. It means retaining enough perspective and functioning to examine the situation, identify choices and act deliberately.

Component 2: Assurance of resources for foundational needs

Resource assurance is assessed through two possible protection channels.

A. Livelihood continuity

The assessment examines whether the person can see realistic employment or self-employment alternatives if their present work ends.

It considers:

the number and quality of alternatives visible to the person;
knowledge and skills supporting those alternatives;
likely compromises in salary, conditions or location; and
the person’s understanding of the process required to secure new work.

The open-ended questions require the person to name alternatives, relevant capabilities and concrete preparation steps.

B. Financial and social buffers

The assessment also examines how long foundational needs could be protected without immediate income through:

personal savings;
support from family or friends;
assets or alternative income;
reduced expenditure; or
other dependable arrangements.

The four levels range from basic needs becoming difficult within one or two months to lifelong assurance of basic and safety needs, although comfort and aspirations may still require adjustment.

Interpreting resilience

A resilient person does not necessarily have a permanent job or large savings. Resilience may arise from a combination of:

several employable skills;
modest savings;
low unavoidable expenditure;
strong reciprocal relationships;
multiple livelihood options;
willingness to adapt; and
an ability to think constructively during uncertainty.

The assessment should examine the reliability of this combination rather than assuming that one source of security is sufficient.

5. Fulfilment and Resilience Competencies (FRC)

FRC contains eight competencies, organised into four broad groups. Each competency uses a five-level behaviourally anchored rubric. Level 1 describes limited or rarely demonstrated capacity; Level 5 describes consistent, deliberate and highly developed practice.

5.1 Vision

Vision for a fulfilled and resilient way of being

This competency examines whether a person:

encounters people whose lives expand their sense of what is possible;
questions assumptions about the “best” way to live; and
continues learning about habits, mindsets and approaches that support a meaningful and resilient life.

At higher levels, the person does not merely copy a role model. They draw from multiple examples, examine their own assumptions and consciously construct their way of living.

5.2 Courage

Growth mindset and long-term decision-making

This assesses whether the person can:

consider several factors when making decisions;
tolerate uncertainty without rushing into immediate relief;
balance short-term needs with long-term direction;
redirect attention towards what remains within their control; and
pursue learning or growth without guaranteed outcomes.

Higher competency means neither reckless risk-taking nor endless waiting. It means being able to act with sufficient clarity despite incomplete certainty.

Understanding needs, priorities and security

This examines whether the person:

understands their core needs and responsibilities;
recognises the trade-offs involved;
can prioritise when everything cannot be achieved simultaneously;
distinguishes personal priorities from social expectations;
revises priorities as circumstances change; and
responds to difficulty without excessive self-judgement.

This competency is central to both fulfilment and resilience because choices become incoherent when needs and priorities remain undefined.

5.3 Reflection and resourcefulness

Entrepreneurial and resourceful mindset

This assesses whether the person can:

imagine alternatives to conventional salaried employment;
recognise time, skills, relationships and platforms as resources;
create value without waiting for a formal role;
conduct small experiments under uncertainty; and
notice opportunities within constrained situations.

“Entrepreneurial” here does not necessarily mean starting a company. It refers to the ability to identify needs, mobilise resources, create value and learn through action.

Agility and skill-based confidence

This examines whether the person:

can imagine more than one viable work or life pathway;
believes they can grow into unfamiliar roles;
transfers existing skills into different contexts;
identifies their skills using concrete evidence; and
understands how they learn effectively.

The highest levels involve maintaining an active learning system and repeatedly translating skills across domains, rather than depending solely on formal qualifications.

5.4 Relationships and agency

Exposure and network

This assesses whether the person:

seeks perspectives that challenge or broaden their worldview;
knows about diverse work and life pathways;
has people available for guidance or emotional support;
can initiate relationships beyond familiar circles; and
contributes to others rather than approaching networks only as a receiver.

A strong network is not measured simply by the number of contacts. Its value depends on diversity, accessibility, trust and reciprocity.

Freedom versus restriction: agency within constraints

This competency examines whether the person:

identifies the genuine limits on their choices;
recognises where room for action remains;
distinguishes actual restrictions from assumptions based on guilt or fear;
works creatively within constraints;
renegotiates expectations and roles through honest conversation; and
retains some sense of agency even when choices are narrow.

The purpose is not to deny structural constraints. It is to avoid treating every present limitation as permanent or absolute.

Support systems

This examines whether the person:

has people to approach during distress or confusion;
can share difficulty without fear of judgement;
invests in relationships before a crisis arises;
learns to provide support in forms useful to others; and
participates in relationships where support flows in both directions.

At higher levels, the person not only possesses individual supportive relationships but also helps sustain a wider culture of mutual assistance.

The complete five-level descriptions for these competencies are contained in the Fulfilment%20and%20Resilience%20Competencies%20%28FRC%29%20-%20Rubric%20and%20Assessment%20Tasks%20-%20FRC%20Rubric%20%281%29.csv.

6. Using and interpreting the assessment responsibly

The framework is best used as the basis for a facilitated conversation, not as an examination.

Assessments should be supported by concrete examples from recent life. A score should answer:

“What does the person consistently do in practice?”

rather than:

“Which description sounds most desirable?”

Several safeguards are important:

Scores should not be used to rank people or determine their worth.
Low FRI may reflect structural conditions rather than weak competencies.
High FRC should not be interpreted as an obligation to tolerate harmful conditions indefinitely.
Open-ended responses are as important as numerical ratings.
Mixed evidence should be recorded rather than forced into an artificially precise score.
Changes should be interpreted in relation to life events, not only against previous numbers.

Used in this manner, the framework provides a shared language for examining present wellbeing, future vulnerability and the competencies through which a person can gradually gain greater meaning, security and agency.