How Decision Profile Mapping Changed Who Gets in the Room
REDinc is a not-for-profit disability services provider whose executive team spans seven senior roles. Decision-making authority is shared across the group, which means the quality of every major call depends entirely on who is in the room — and how they engage with each other.
The team understood something many organisations don't articulate clearly: diversity of experience is not the same as diversity of thinking. They wanted to know which decision-making profiles dominated their leadership group, which were absent, and how that mix was shaping the quality and confidence of their decisions.
What the mapping found
The data showed a strong concentration of Collaborator and Deliverer profiles — thinking styles that prioritise consensus, relationships, and execution. These are genuine strengths. They help explain why REDinc decisions tend to be well-supported and well-implemented.
But the mapping also surfaced something more uncomfortable. The Explorer profile was completely absent. Analyzer, Achiever, and Visionary profiles appeared in low numbers. The organisation had the capacity to execute decisions well. It lacked the internal pressure to stretch them — to surface alternatives, challenge assumptions, or ask what else might be possible.
.
The moment that shifted something
The session surfaced what pure data rarely achieves: it moved the conversation from abstract categories to lived behaviour. People who had initially resisted their profile — saying "I don't see myself this way" — behaved exactly as their profile predicted during a practical decision-making exercise.
That moment of self-recognition changed the room. The conversation moved from labels to behaviours. From "who I am" to "how I decide" — and how that interacts with everyone else.
What Changed
REDinc left with a shared language for decision-making that travels beyond the workshop. The leadership team now asks, before key decisions: do we have the right mix of profiles in the room? When a group is homogenous, they actively seek out missing perspectives rather than accepting the default. The mapping has also shaped how they think about hiring — recruiting not just for experience, but for the cognitive dimension the team is currently missing.
"Wizer helped our executive team understand not just what decisions we make, but how we make them. The insights into our collective strengths and gaps have fundamentally improved the way we approach strategic conversations and team design."
— Tania Crosbie, Quality and Assurance Manager, REDinc
Why this pattern is not unusual
The research behind Wizer — from Scott Page's mathematical proof that cognitively diverse groups consistently outperform expert-but-homogenous ones, to Dr Juliet Bourke's finding that cognitive diversity reduces decision error rates by approximately 30% — tells us that what REDinc found is structural, not exceptional. When teams are built around availability, seniority, or shared history, cognitive narrowing is the predictable result.
What REDinc did — making the invisible visible, then building a practice around it — is precisely what effective organisations do.
See how your organisation's decision room is structured →