What we typically assess (and how)

Core Strategic Dimensions:

Across individuals and leadership teams, we assess empirically grounded aspects of strategic cognition and judgment, including:

• Executive functioning and cognitive control
  Planning, prioritization, working memory, cognitive flexibility, and inhibition as they relate to complex decision-making.
• Cognitive complexity and integrative reasoning
  Capacity to synthesize competing data, anticipate downstream effects, and manage trade-offs.
• Risk perception and probabilistic thinking
  Sensitivity to downside risk, loss aversion, overconfidence, and ambiguity tolerance.
• Temporal orientation and foresight
  Short-term optimization vs. long-range, systems-level thinking.
• Stress effects on judgment
  How decision quality, rigidity, or impulsivity shift under pressure.
• Values-based and ethical reasoning
  Consistency of judgment when incentives conflict with stated principles.
• Group decision dynamics
  Influence patterns, conformity pressure, conflict tolerance, and psychological safety.

Methods and Tools

Our approach integrates validated psychological science with applied strategy work. Depending on the engagement, methods may include:

Empirically Validated Measures

• Standardized assessments of executive functioning, decision style, risk tolerance, and judgment under uncertainty
• Measures of cognitive flexibility, planning capacity, and stress-related performance shifts
• Instruments with established reliability, validity, and normative benchmarks

Applied Decision Assessments

• Scenario-based strategic simulations modeled on real organizational dilemmas
• Judgment tasks designed to reveal bias patterns, risk calibration, and time-horizon preferences
• Structured trade-off exercises that mimic board-level and executive decisions

Qualitative but Structured Methods

• Semi-structured executive interviews anchored to decision science constructs
• Leadership team comparison analyses to identify alignment, gaps, and blind spots
• Optional integration with organizational data (strategy cycles, governance structures, performance outcomes)

This blended method ensures results are scientifically grounded, behaviorally observable, and immediately actionable.

How the results help

Most organizations invest heavily in strategy frameworks, data analytics, and market intelligence. Far fewer systematically examine the human decision systems through which all of that information must pass. Yet decades of research in psychology, behavioral economics, and organizational science converge on a clear conclusion: the quality of strategic outcomes is constrained by the quality of decision-making processes.

Strategic Thinking and Decision-Making Style Assessment creates value by making the invisible drivers of success—and failure—measurable, discussable, and improvable.

1. It Reveals Blind Spots That Performance Data Cannot

Traditional metrics show what happened, not why decisions unfolded the way they did. High performers may still rely on fragile or risky decision patterns—overconfidence, excessive speed, conflict avoidance, or short-term bias—that eventually erode results.

Empirically based assessment surfaces:

• Hidden risk-taking or excessive caution
• Overreliance on intuition or, conversely, analysis paralysis
• Cognitive rigidity that limits adaptation
• Group dynamics that suppress dissent or inflate consensus

By identifying these patterns early, organizations can intervene before they translate into strategic missteps.

2. It Improves Decision Quality Under Uncertainty—Where It Matters Most

Most strategic failures do not occur in stable conditions; they occur during ambiguity, volatility, and pressure. Stress reliably alters judgment, narrows attention, and amplifies bias.

This work helps organizations understand:

• How leaders’ decision quality shifts under stress
• Who remains flexible vs. rigid when the stakes rise
• Where escalation of commitment or risk aversion emerges

Armed with this insight, companies can design decision processes that compensate for human limits, rather than unknowingly magnify them.

3. It Aligns Leadership Roles With How People Actually Think

Titles and résumés do not guarantee strategic fit. Two equally capable leaders may think in fundamentally different ways—one excels at long-term vision, the other at rapid execution or risk containment.

Assessment allows organizations to:

• Place leaders in roles that match their cognitive strengths
• Balance teams across time horizon, risk orientation, and decision speed
• Reduce friction caused by unspoken differences in thinking style

The result is not homogenized leadership, but deliberate cognitive diversity aligned to strategy.

4. It Strengthens Boards and Executive Teams as Decision Systems

Even highly experienced leadership groups are vulnerable to groupthink, dominance effects, and informal power dynamics. These forces often operate quietly, reinforced by culture and hierarchy.

Strategic decision assessment:

• Makes team-level decision patterns explicit
• Identifies where challenge is missing—or excessive
• Improves psychological safety for dissent and debate
• Clarifies how influence actually flows in the room

This leads to better governance, healthier conflict, and more resilient strategic choices.

5. It Reduces Costly Strategic Reversals and “Surprises”

Repeated pivots, abandoned initiatives, and unforeseen risks are rarely random. They often stem from predictable decision errors—miscalibrated risk, ignored dissent, or short-term thinking disguised as agility.

Organizations that assess decision styles:

• Catch misalignment before significant investments are made
• Improve consistency between stated strategy and actual decisions
• Reduce reactive decision-making during volatility

Over time, this translates into greater strategic coherence and capital efficiency.

6. It Enhances Leadership Development and Succession Planning

Most leadership development focuses on skills and behaviors. Far fewer programs address how leaders think when no one is watching—under pressure, ambiguity, and ethical strain.

Decision-style assessment provides:

• Deeper, more durable leadership insight
• Clear development targets grounded in evidence
• Better forecasting of future leadership performance

This is especially valuable in succession planning, where the costs of a poor fit are extraordinarily high.

7. It Builds a Shared Language for Strategic Judgment

Perhaps one of the most underappreciated benefits is cultural. When organizations can name and discuss decision patterns openly, conversations shift:

• From personal conflict to cognitive difference
• From blame to process improvement
• From intuition alone to evidence-informed judgment

This shared language strengthens trust, speeds alignment, and elevates the overall quality of strategic dialogue.

Bottom Line

Strategy lives or dies in moments of choice. Strategic Thinking and Decision-Making Style Assessment provides empirical clarity in those moments—helping organizations see how decisions are actually made, design better decision environments, and develop leaders who can think clearly when it matters most.

It is not about labeling people. It is about building organizations that can make sound decisions—consistently, ethically, and intelligently—into an uncertain future.