Claremont research reveals how physiological traits influence executive decision quality, emphasizing human judgment and context over artificial intelligence.
On September 10, 2026, Claremont Graduate University published findings on executive decision quality. The report examines leadership demands as artificial intelligence changes the volume of available information. Authored by Paul J. Zak, PhD, a university professor and founding director of the Center for Neuroeconomics Studies, the paper argues that the abundance of automated analysis actually increases the value of human judgment. The core premise is that while technology can generate options rapidly, it cannot determine which organizational problems actually require attention.
According to the report, systems can summarize markets, profile competitors, model scenarios and write code in minutes. However, they cannot determine whether an apparently plausible answer is correct. Zak argues that executives must distinguish evidence from assertion, correlation from causation and attractive explanations from explanations that withstand empirical scrutiny. The effective executive today must interrogate data rather than simply consume it.
The Claremont report details a 2024 laboratory study conducted by Zak’s research group. Researchers evaluated 75 participants across seven different types of decisions. The methodology captured nine physiological measures and 15 psychological factors to build a behavior profile. The primary finding was that the profile of a capable decision maker is entirely context-dependent rather than fixed across situations.
The study observed specific associations between biological traits and decision behaviors. For instance, higher cognitive ability was associated with greater patience but lower cooperation in the study described by Zak. The research also measured physiological markers, reporting that men with higher testosterone took greater risks to obtain rewards. However, these same men were less altruistic, generous and cooperative during the laboratory exercises.
Crucially, these findings do not establish that specific traits universally improve leadership or cognitive capacity. A characteristic that drives success in one scenario might hinder progress in another. The research suggests that a trait can produce different behavioral effects depending on the decision context and the outcome being measured. Zak notes that participants would not necessarily have been able to report these influences themselves because much of decision-making occurs outside conscious awareness.
For operators and founders, these findings highlight the limits of applying a rigid leadership style to every problem. Sustained energy and mental clarity are finite resources during demanding workdays. Executives must direct their cognitive capacity toward defining the parameters of a decision rather than just consuming information. Zak emphasizes that plausible answers from automated systems are not always correct answers.
Leaders should implement adversarial review protocols for major choices by asking systems to argue against their own recommendations. A human must then evaluate the underlying assumptions, causal claims and missing information. In our experience, complexity is often the enemy of execution. I spent a week at a popular health optimization conference and left completely exhausted by the complexity.
Everyone was pushing a new supplement protocol, a complicated gadget, or a rigid daily routine. It struck me that true high performers do not have time to make health a full time job. They need maximum return on minimum viable effort. That same filter applies to how executives should manage information processing today.
Instead of reviewing endless scenarios, operators should build a reliable analytical structure to quickly identify flawed assumptions. By separating the generation of ideas from the final decision, leaders can preserve their energy for high-stakes judgment calls. Zak connects this disciplined approach to Peter Drucker’s five management questions. Executives must clearly define their organization’s mission and its customer.
They must also identify what the customer values, the desired results and the strategic plan. You can support cognitive performance and mental clarity by reducing decision fatigue through these structured frameworks. The article presents Drucker’s method as an active inquiry process. Executives must find the answers and continuously revisit them when operating conditions change.
Zak argues that no system can answer questions for which the necessary organizational data does not yet exist. An organization must first generate appropriate evidence before any software can analyze it meaningfully.
The practical value of structured human judgment is already appearing in corporate investments and early-career expectations. The Claremont article cites a July 2026 KPMG survey of 906 summer interns. In that group, 76 percent stated that future career success would require both human skills and the ability to direct artificial intelligence effectively. Meanwhile, 43 percent identified the erosion of critical thinking and an over-reliance on technology as a leading concern.
The survey also highlighted a clear preference for human interaction in professional development. The Claremont article says 57 percent of KPMG interns identified direct coaching from another person as their most educational experience. By contrast, only 3 percent selected AI-assisted learning for their professional growth. Major professional-services firms are actively treating human adaptability and technology as complementary capabilities rather than substitutes.
EY has reportedly committed $100 million to reward United States employees who demonstrate future-focused skills. These valued capabilities include business acumen, judgment, adaptability and technology-enabled innovation. Reported awards include spot bonuses of up to $500 and individual or team awards of up to $25,000 for work that makes a material difference to the firm. These financial incentives illustrate a tangible business demand for independent thinking.
Zak also details an earlier police-department intervention designed to improve organizational culture and communication. That specific program increased organizational trust by 8 percent and improved job retention by 10.5 percent. Zak frames these outcomes as modest but useful examples of practical significance. Establishing a foundation for executive performance requires measuring tangible operational changes rather than just statistical anomalies.
While the research provides a useful framework, we must clearly define its limitations. The 2024 laboratory study involved only 75 participants and tested seven specific decision types. These parameters mean the findings should not automatically be generalized to every executive, industry, culture or business decision. The associations between traits and behaviors do not prove that cognitive ability or testosterone directly causes a particular leadership outcome in real-world organizations.
The reported findings on testosterone were limited to men in the study. These physiological associations should not be treated as a universal biological theory of leadership or as a basis for assigning people to roles. Furthermore, a laboratory measure of risk-taking is fundamentally different from managing investment returns, employee health or long-term organizational resilience. Context dictates value, and a trait like patience may be required today but detrimental tomorrow.
The corporate data also carries clear constraints regarding broader application. The KPMG figures represent the views of surveyed summer interns rather than the entire workforce, and the survey was conducted internally. The EY initiative highlights a corporate reward strategy rather than definitive proof that monetary incentives for human skills improve decision quality across all organizations. Finally, the police-department intervention summary lacks the detailed methodology required to guarantee similar retention improvements elsewhere.
Organizations are rapidly attempting to accelerate their workflows without allowing automated recommendations to replace human accountability. The coming months will likely reveal a shift toward redesigning decision systems around better questions, deliberate challenge and strict human oversight. Automated tools will continue to assist with evidence synthesis and scenario analysis. However, leaders will remain solely responsible for validating inputs, defining objectives and accepting the consequences of their choices.
We promise clear, research-led guidance that respects your time, makes uncertainty visible and helps you support sustained performance over the long term. Future field studies will need to evaluate how physiological stress impacts decision-making in actual corporate environments. Until then, operators should focus on building complementary teams that balance patience, risk tolerance and critical thinking. Maintaining stress resilience and sustainable performance requires knowing when to slow down a high-risk decision and when to move quickly.
By treating major decisions as structured experiments, executives can adapt to new information while maintaining clear operational control. The highest performing leaders will be those who master the human discipline of asking the right questions before deploying technology to find the answers.
Stay connected for research and practical guidance on executive performance, energy, focus, sleep, recovery and longevity. Ideas built for people who want to stay sharp, capable and effective for the long run.
Build habits and systems that support clear thinking, steady energy and long term capacity throughout a demanding career.
explore the Blog
