Services
Sharper thinking. Stronger decisions. Together!
Whether you’re an individual, a team or an organisation, thinking shapes every decision and every interaction. Through tailored formats and research-based methods, I help you strengthen your reasoning, sharpen your decision-making and create clarity where it matters most.
Areas of impact
Reduction of meeting and coordination overhead
Accelerated decision-making
Reduced risk of costly wrong decisions
Reduced friction and rework in collaboration and execution
Increased psychological safety in teams
Lower turnover
Individuals
Clarity starts with you.
In one-to-one sessions we examine how you think, decide and reflect. Whether you are facing personal crossroads, professional uncertainty or want to strengthen your cognitive skills, this space helps you build clarity and confidence in your choices.
Together we surface cognitive patterns, challenge mental shortcuts and develop practical tools for clearer thinking. The work is grounded in cognitive and behavioural psychology and always tailored to your goals.
Outcomes
Greater mental clarity and noticeably less decision fatigue
Reduced rumination and cognitive overload
Enhanced self-awareness and a more deliberate handling of personal thinking patterns
Improved decision quality through recognition of cognitive biases
Stronger confidence in your own judgement and ability to act
Formats
60 or 90 minute sessions
2 or 4 week programme
Retainer for continuous support
In person or virtual, with optional asynchronous check-ins
Typical focus areas
Making high-stakes or long-term decisions
Reflecting on internal conflicts or external pressures
Strengthening self-awareness and metacognition
Understanding personal bias and emotional influences
Learning to think more clearly under pressure
Communicating decisions and reasoning more clearly
Topics covered
Critical thinking, decision architecture, bias detection, metacognition, dual-process thinking, communication, AI as a thinking partner etc.
Scientific foundation
Research shows that targeted reflection and metacognitive strategy training significantly improve decision quality, reduce rumination and strengthen confidence in one’s own judgement. Even brief bias-awareness interventions produce measurable improvements in decision behaviour (Morewedge et al., 2015; Kakinohana & Pilati, 2023; Larrick & Feiler, 2015).
The aim is independence. You leave with tools, a clear language and stable routines that support clearer thinking and more intentional action.
Teams
Better collaboration begins with better thinking.
In team settings, thinking does not happen in isolation. It unfolds through communication, habits and shared assumptions. In tailored workshops or ongoing formats, I help teams examine how they think and communicate together, where cognitive biases appear and how collective decisions can become more deliberate and more effective.
Whether you’re navigating complex projects, internal tensions or cultural change, my work focuses on building clarity, shared language and cognitive flexibility across the team.
Outcomes
Significantly shorter decision cycles with higher overall quality
Fewer frictions and misunderstandings in meetings
Clearer responsibilities and stronger commitment across the team
Earlier detection of groupthink and hidden cognitive dynamics
Shared understanding of priorities, decision pathways and communication patterns
Formats
2 or 4 hour workshop
1 day intensive
in person or virtual
Typical goals
Identifying blind spots in team communication and decision-making
Recognising and addressing group-based biases and thought patterns
Strengthening psychological safety and productive disagreement
Developing shared frameworks for evaluating complex problems
Embedding critical thinking and reflective routines across the team
Topics covered
Critical thinking, team communication, decision architecture, bias detection, argument quality, premortems, red teaming, AI in the loop etc.
Scientific foundation
Research on team decision-making shows that structured reflection routines and clearly defined decision architectures improve coordination, reduce rework and lead to higher-quality outcomes. Studies further demonstrate that psychological safety and shared bias awareness significantly enhance communication quality and decision speed (Rutka et al., 2023; Jones & Roelofsma, 2000; Curșeu & Schruijer, 2012; Midtgård & Selart, 2025).
Workshops are scientifically grounded yet never abstract. Each format is practical, interactive and tailored to your team’s specific dynamics and communication culture.
Organisations
Better decisions do not emerge from more data, but from better decision architectures.
In complex organisations, decision quality rarely fails because of missing information. It fails because of unclear decision paths, distorted evaluations and unexamined assumptions. I work with organisations to strengthen their decision capability at a structural level, where decisions carry strategic weight and long-term consequences.
Together, we examine how decisions actually happen across leadership, teams and interfaces. We identify cognitive blind spots, sources of bias and noise and redesign decision environments so that judgements become clearer, more consistent and more robust under uncertainty.
The goal is not another framework layered on top of existing processes, but a coherent decision system that aligns with the organisation’s strategy, values and risk profile.
Outcomes
More consistent and higher-quality decisions across teams and organisational levels
Reduced bias, noise and rework in critical decision processes
Clearer decision ownership and transparent decision logic
Faster execution without sacrificing strategic coherence
Increased trust in leadership judgement and decision processes
Formats
Executive workshops focused on decision quality and strategic judgement
Structured analysis of existing decision practices and routines
Project-based support for strategic decision initiatives
Ongoing strategic advisory support for leadership teams
Moderation of leadership offsites and high-stakes decision processes
Typical Focus Areas
Designing and refining decision architectures that reduce bias and increase clarity
Supporting leadership teams in complex, high-impact decisions
Improving evaluation, prioritisation and risk judgement under uncertainty
Establishing clear decision and communication routines across functions
Embedding reflective practices into strategy, transformation and innovation
Topics covered
Decision architecture, Critical thinking, Bias and noise reduction, Evidence evaluation, Risk and uncertainty, Decision communication, AI-supported decision-making and AI governance
Scientific foundation
Empirical research shows that organisations with clearly defined decision structures and structured evaluation frameworks decide faster, more consistently and with higher quality. Bias-sensitive decision architectures have been shown to reduce rework, increase strategic coherence and strengthen trust in leadership judgement and governance (Dean & Sharfman, 1996; Milkman et al., 2009; Larrick & Feiler, 2015; Theodorakopoulos et al., 2025).
The collaboration is always tailored, whether as focused consulting, leadership workshops or ongoing strategic guidance.
Keynotes
Inspiration meets insight.
When I speak, my aim is not to impress but to invite thinking. Each talk opens new perspectives on how we think, why we fall into mental traps and what it takes to make clearer decisions in a complex world.
Rooted in science and built for practice, my keynotes blend cognitive psychology, real stories and clear models. They spark reflection, challenge assumptions and help you translate insight into meaningful next steps.
Outcomes
Heightened awareness of one’s own thinking processes and biases
New perspectives on leadership, communication and decision-making
Scientifically grounded aha moments with lasting impact
A renewed impulse to question and reshape established thought patterns
A balance of inspiration, clarity and analytical depth
Formats
20 - 30 minutes
45 - 60 minutes plus Q&A
Fireside chat or interview format
In person or virtual
Signature talks
Why smart people make poor decisions and how to change that
Thinking under pressure: clarity in moments that matter
Bias, belief and behavior: navigating uncertainty with insight
How to think critically in an age of noise and misinformation
What cognitive science can teach us about leadership and self-awareness
Topics covered
Critical thinking, bias detection, decision architecture, argument quality, communication, AI as a working partner etc.
Scientific foundation
Studies show that even brief, evidence-based interventions produce significant improvements in judgement and decision-making processes. Formats that target bias recognition and metacognitive insight foster lasting changes in thinking and behaviour, particularly among professionals and leaders (Morewedge et al., 2015; Lilienfeld et al., 2009; Berthet, 2022; Midtgård & Selart, 2025).
Every keynote is tailored to the audience and context, whether it is a leadership retreat, a conference or a company-wide event. The aim is always the same: to open a clearer path to better thinking.
-
Berthet, V. (2022). The Impact of Cognitive Biases on Professionals’ Decision-Making: A Review of Four Occupational Areas. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 802439. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.802439
Curşeu, P. L., & Schruijer, S. G. L. (2012). Decision Styles and Rationality: An Analysis of the Predictive Validity of the General Decision-Making Style Inventory. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 72(6), 1053–1062. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164412448066
Dean, J. W., & Scharfman, M. P. (1996). Does Decision Process Matter? A Study of Strategic Decision-Making Effectiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 39(2), 368–396.
Jones, P. E., & Roelofsma, P. H. M. P. (2000). The potential for social contextual and group biases in team decision-making: Biases, conditions and psychological mechanisms. Ergonomics, 43(8), 1129–1152. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140130050084914
Kakinohana, R. K., & Pilati, R. (2023). Differences in decisions affected by cognitive biases: Examining human values, need for cognition, and numeracy. Psicologia: Reflexão e Crítica, 36(1), 26. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41155-023-00265-z
Larrick, R. P., & Feiler, D. C. (2015). Expertise in Decision Making. In G. Keren & G. Wu (Hrsg.), The Wiley Blackwell Handbook of Judgment and Decision Making (1. Aufl., S. 696–721). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118468333.ch24
Lilienfeld, S. O., Ammirati, R., & Landfield, K. (2009). Giving Debiasing Away: Can Psychological Research on Correcting Cognitive Errors Promote Human Welfare? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4(4), 390–398. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01144.x
Midtgård, K., & Selart, M. (2025). Cognitive Biases in Strategic Decision-Making. Administrative Sciences, 15(6), 227. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci15060227
Milkman, K. L., Chugh, D., & Bazerman, M. H. (2009). How Can Decision Making Be Improved? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4(4), 379–383. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01142.x
Morewedge, C. K., Yoon, H., Scopelliti, I., Symborski, C. W., Korris, J. H., & Kassam, K. S. (2015). Debiasing Decisions: Improved Decision Making With a Single Training Intervention. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 2(1), 129–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732215600886
Theodorakopoulos, L., Theodoropoulou, A., & Halkiopoulos, C. (2025). Cognitive Bias Mitigation in Executive Decision-Making: A Data-Driven Approach Integrating Big Data Analytics, AI, and Explainable Systems. Electronics, 14(19), 3930. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics14193930
Figures & Indicative Calculations
The figures shown below serve to contextualise potential effects and are deliberately conservative. They do not constitute a guarantee of specific results.
Reference case (illustrative company)
60 employees
46 working weeks per year
Average fully loaded cost per working hour: approx. €40
(typically, depending on role mix and compensation level, this lies closer to €60–€100. For the following examples, a deliberately conservative baseline is used)
Average meeting load: 3 hours per person per week
Actual figures vary depending on role structure, compensation levels, meeting culture and degree of implementation.
-
Problem: high and permanently bound time expenditure
Bound capital (baseline):
3 h/week × 60 employees × €40/hour × 46 weeks
→ ≈ €330,000 per year
Typically reported: 20–40% reduction
→ ≈ €65,000–€130,000 potential
Conservatively calculated: 10% reduction
→ ≈ €35,000 per year
-
Problem: delayed decisions due to clarification and coordination loops
Typically reported: double-digit time gains, typically in the range of 10–30%
Conservatively calculated: 30 minutes per person per week
→ ≈ €58,000 per year
-
Problem: rework caused by unclear decisions and handovers
Typically reported: 10–20% reduction
Conservatively calculated: 1 hour per person per month
→ ≈ €29,000 per year
-
Problem: additional clarification and conflict-related costs
Typically reported: effects manifest indirectly through quality, learning capability and conflict costs
Conservatively calculated: 1 hour less clarification effort per person per month
→ ≈ €29,000 per year
(plus qualitative effects)
-
Problem: individual decisions with substantial downstream impact
Typically reported: structured decision processes reduce poor decisions particularly in complex contexts
Conservatively calculated: 1 avoided poor decision per year
→ ≈ €50,000–€150,000 per year
-
Problem: high replacement and onboarding costs
Typically reported: 50–200% of annual salary per departure
Conservatively calculated: 0.5 departures per year and 0.75 × annual salary
→ ≈ €20,000–€30,000 per year
Bound capital caused by inefficient structures
Time that is regularly absorbed by meetings, decision loops, rework or conflict clarification is not available for value-creating work. It functions as permanently bound productive capital.
Example (reference company)
Meetings and coordination: ≈ €330,000 per year
Decision and clarification loops: ≈ €230,000 per year
Friction, rework and conflict resolution: ≈ €280,000 per year
→ ≈ €840,000 of structurally bound capital per year
Conservatively realisable share:
→ ≈ €120,000 per year
This capital is not lost.
It is available, but structurally blocked.
Context
The figures deliberately distinguish between bound capital in the status quo and conservatively realisable shares. Actual effects depend on the starting situation, degree of implementation and role mix.