01
Executives & CEOs
Are you changing how you value rewards, commit effort, weigh risks or develop solutions? We track these changes against your personal baseline and interpret them in a medical context.
For executives
1738A heritage of Decision ScienceDaniel Bernoulli
For CEOs, senior executives and supervisory boards
Tracking changes in how CEOs make decisions.
We track individual changes in the decision-making behaviour of CEOs and other key decision-makers. We compare leadership-relevant decision tasks with your personal baseline and interpret the results in a medical context.
The reference is the individual’s own baseline: are reward valuation, willingness to exert effort, risk weighting or creative problem-solving changing?
Historical reference: Daniel Bernoulli’s theory of risk and utility, published in 1738.
Scientific heritage
So executives can perform at the highest level when making critical decisions.
Baseline
Two initial assessments
Track
Annual and event-triggered comparisons
Interpret
Professional assessment and independent second review
01
The core idea
The person behind the company’s decisions also deserves attention.
Companies regularly review their financial and operational results. We focus on the person behind them: how is decision-making changing in the individual who materially influences those results?
This is where Cognitive Due Diligence comes in. Leadership-relevant decision tasks and comparison with your own baseline are central to the procedure. Conventional neuropsychological tests provide a supplementary comparison and control layer. The focus is on individual change, rather than a blanket judgement of suitability.
02
Perspectives
A shared commitment.
Two perspectives.
A personal medical interpretation for the CEO. A clearly limited status report for the commissioning supervisory board.
02
Supervisory boards
Your board receives a status report agreed in advance: Stable, Review or Material Change. It describes change relative to the CEO’s personal baseline; detailed medical findings are kept separate.
For supervisory boards
03
Your engagement
Long-term monitoring of individual decision-making behaviour.
A long-term engagement connects your personal baseline with annual and event-triggered reassessments. Continuity, medical interpretation and an independent second review keep your individual trajectory in focus.
- 01
An individual baseline
Two initial assessments establish the personal reference point.
- 02
Annual and event-triggered reassessments
Track changes against the individual’s own starting point.
- 03
Professional assessment and independent second review
Interpret results against consistent criteria; keep personal feedback and the status report separate.
04
The medical perspective
Track changes. Understand the medical context.
Medication, sleep, medical conditions and selected hormonal and metabolic findings form the medical context of the procedure. Considering them together helps interpret differences and potential influences. A laboratory value alone does not establish decision-making ability.
We account for measurement uncertainty, practice effects and ordinary fluctuations in the analysis. Professional assessment and an independent second review provide a clear review framework for each interpretation.
Understand our approach05
Trust
Personal findings for the CEO. An agreed status for the board.
We keep medical assessment and board reporting strictly separate. You receive your personal medical interpretation. Your supervisory board receives only the status report agreed in advance.
Stable means stability relative to the baseline; Review indicates a need for further assessment; Material Change means a relevant change under defined criteria. These categories are not blanket judgements of suitability.
How information is shared
Next step
Keep the person behind critical decisions in focus.
Make the person behind critical business decisions part of your long-term perspective. Discuss your personal baseline, ongoing monitoring and reporting arrangements with us.
Arrange a confidential conversation