Reward valuation
How does a person value a potential gain?
Startseite
Our procedure
Track individual changes in decision-making behaviour.
Our procedure combines leadership-relevant decision tasks, a personal baseline and medical context. Individual change is the focus: how is a CEO’s decision-making behaviour changing relative to their own starting point?
01
Core of the procedure
Leadership-relevant decision tasks
The tasks explore how much effort a person accepts for a potential gain, how they choose between certain and uncertain courses of action, and what alternative solutions they develop as conditions change.
Willingness to exert effort
How much effort will they accept to achieve that gain?
Risk weighting
How do they choose between certain and uncertain courses of action?
Creative problem-solving
What alternative solutions do they develop as conditions change?
02
Medical context
Record potential influences alongside the tasks
Medication, sleep and medical conditions, together with selected hormonal and metabolic findings, form the medical context. We include this information to investigate differences and potential influences.
Decision-making ability is not inferred directly from a laboratory value. Conventional neuropsychological tests supplement the decision tasks as a comparison and control layer; they are not the main product.
03
Comparison over time
Two initial assessments. One personal baseline.
Two initial assessments establish the personal reference point within our procedure. Annual and event-triggered comparisons focus on changes relative to the individual’s own starting point.
The central question is whether this person’s reward valuation, willingness to exert effort, risk weighting or creative problem-solving is changing.
- 01
Two initial assessments
- 02
Individual baseline
- 03
Annual / event-triggered reassessment
- 04
Comparison with the baseline
04
Analysis
Distinguish change from uncertainty and fluctuation
We account for measurement uncertainty, practice effects and ordinary fluctuations in the analysis. Results are assessed professionally against consistent criteria and undergo an independent second review.
05
Outcome
Personal interpretation and an agreed status
You receive your personal medical interpretation. Your commissioning supervisory board receives only the status report agreed in advance.
Stable
Stability relative to the individual baseline.
Review
Further assessment is needed to interpret an observed difference.
Material Change
A relevant change relative to the baseline under defined criteria.
06
Quality standard
Consistent criteria. Independent second review.
We assess changes against the individual baseline and within the medical context. A single difference is not a blanket judgement of your decision-making ability.
Our core service: systematically track changes in the person whose decisions materially influence the company. The long-term engagement connects repeated assessments, personal feedback and clearly separate reporting channels.
Next step
Understand the foundation of your engagement.
Discuss the decision tasks, comparison with your baseline and medical interpretation with us.
Discuss our approach