“Ready” is rarely a neutral word.
In organisational settings, it often sounds practical — a way to manage risk, resources, or outcomes. Someone isn’t ready yet for housing, for work, for leadership, for participation. The decision is usually framed as care. Sometimes it is.
But it’s also power.
Because readiness is almost always decided by someone who isn’t living the consequences of waiting.
Lived experience tells a different story about timing. It knows that people are often asked to be stable before they are safe, articulate before they are settled, compliant before they are trusted. It knows that readiness is not a fixed state, but something that flickers — present in one moment, gone the next.
Organisations tend to prefer readiness that looks predictable. Measurable. Calm. But real change often arrives messy, partial, and inconvenient. It rarely aligns with program timelines or funding cycles.
So when someone is told they are not ready, what is really being protected?
Sometimes it’s the system’s comfort. Sometimes its reputation. Sometimes its fear of getting it wrong. And sometimes — quietly — it’s an unwillingness to share control.
This doesn’t mean there are no boundaries. It means boundaries should be named honestly. Not disguised as developmental wisdom when they are actually organisational limits.
When people with lived experience are included in deciding what readiness looks like, the definition shifts. It becomes more relational, more flexible, more humane. It recognises that readiness is often something people grow into when given opportunity — not something they must prove in advance.
