Decisions under pressureDecision report
Second measurement
Ref. MF-2026-0712-014
Demonstration sample. Illustrative names and figures.
How they decide under pressure
ParticipantParticipant name
Stated roleSales leadership
CohortDigital table, 12 July 2026 · 12 participants
Who sees what. This sheet goes only to the person who played. The institution receives the cohort summary, where no one appears by name. No individual score reaches a manager without the participant’s written authorization.
Read from 259 decisions recorded across 5 games. The game is the instrument; what follows is how this person decides when the clock is running.
259decisions read
5games
3 h 10 minat the table
11 of 12variables with sample
The verdictDecides by initiative, not by risk control.
When they take the initiative, their probability of winning the table rises 12.9 points on average. That is their engine and it works. The problem is what they repeat without thinking: their most frequent decision is accumulating resources before moving, 61 of 259, nearly one in four, and it is the one that pays them least: +2.2 points.
They covered themselves 3 times in 259 decisions, 1.2%, and when they did it was late: their covers average -4.2 points. They win from the front, not from resistance.
The 12 variables, with their sample
| Variable | What was observed | Reading | Their rank | vs April | Sample |
|---|
| Recovery after a loss | Climbed back after losing ground, instead of sinking. | 88 | 2of 12 | +9 | 14 |
| Risk anticipation | Prepared cover before needing it. | 81 | 3of 12 | -2 | 22 |
| Timing of the decision | Decided inside the right window. Short sample: an indication, not a conclusion. | 77 | 4of 9 | first time | 4 |
| Closing | Closed once there was enough, instead of accumulating further. | 74 | 5of 12 | +13 | 20 |
| Negotiation with a counterpart | Closed deals where both sides gained. | 69 | 4of 11 | +3 | 12 |
| Sustained building | Produced without interruption. The largest sample in this report. | 64 | 8of 12 | +0 | 61 |
| Use of information | Used what was in plain sight before moving. | 61 | 5of 11 | +3 | 10 |
| Speed without losing judgment | Fast and also right. Fast and wrong does not score. | 57 | 7of 12 | +5 | 33 |
| Adaptation to change | Held the course longer than was useful. | 48 | 7of 12 | -7 | 45 |
| Risk appetite | Took risk below the reference value. | 35 | 9of 10 | -6 | 9 |
| Holding position | Gave up the lead under sustained pressure. | 31 | 8of 12 | -7 | 29 |
| Reading the room | Not enough sample. The house would rather stay quiet than invent. | forming | · | first time | · |
The risk this report revealsRisk anticipation scores 81: when they prepare cover, they prepare it well. But they only covered 3 times in 259 decisions. They know how to cover and hardly ever do. Against a counterpart who absorbs the first blow, this way of operating has no plan B, and that rarely shows up in outcome indicators until it has already happened.
And what must not be touched: their initiative is among the highest readings in this cohort. A corrective aimed at moderating it destroys more value than it fixes.
Three things you can do on Monday, without asking anyone
- Put a cap on preparation. One in four of your decisions was accumulating without moving, and it is your lowest-yield play. Before the next meeting, decide in advance how much you will prepare and when you stop preparing, even if you do not feel ready. Your own data says ready does not pay you more.
- Write the plan B while you are ahead. Your -4.2 does not say covering is bad: it says you cover after the blow has landed. Cover thought through while in the lead is worth something; cover thought through from behind arrives late. It is a paragraph before you walk in, not a process.
- Ask for the second round, do not avoid it. Your lowest reading is holding position when the counterpart insists. It is also the lowest point of your entire team, so it is not a flaw of yours: it is the ground where your whole house is weak and where you can gain an edge.
Scope and limits. This document is a reading of behavior observed inside a Market Fortune game, on the date of the reference number. It describes how this person decided in the game.
What it is not. It is not a psychological or psychometric test, not a diagnosis, not an evaluation of job performance and not a selection instrument. It does not infer emotions, moods or health conditions. The variables describe behaviors observed at a game table, not personality traits.
What it is used for. Conversation, development and training of judgment. What it is not used for. Any employment decision. Neither alone nor combined with other information may it be used as a criterion, total or partial, to hire, select, promote, compensate, reassign, sanction or dismiss anyone, or to feed any automated system that makes or assists those decisions. The receiving company is responsible for the use it makes of it.
Sample. A variable with a low sample is marked as such and is not interpreted. What was not measured is stated.
Personal data. Controller: Market Fortune LLC, Albuquerque, New Mexico, United States. Each participant gave prior, express and informed authorization for this reading and for the delivery of this document. They may request access, correction, update or deletion, and withdraw their authorization going forward, at [email protected]. Law 1581 of 2012 for data subjects in Colombia. GDPR and UK GDPR for the European Union, the EEA and the United Kingdom.
Confidentiality. Confidential document. It circulates between the participant, whoever booked the session and the people that company designates in writing. It is not published, does not leave the organization and is not filed in anyone’s CV or employment record.
Document issued by Market Fortune LLCMarket Fortune LLC · Albuquerque, New Mexico · Cartagena, Colombiamarket-fortune.com
Decisions under pressure Cohort summary
Second measurement
Ref. MF-2026-0712-COH
Demonstration sample. Illustrative names and figures.
How your team decides, together
AreaSales leadership
Participants12
MeasurementsApril and July
Who sees what. This is the institution’s sheet. There are no proper names here and there never will be: references are by role. Each participant received their individual sheet privately, and only they decide whether to share it.
What a person-by-person reading cannot show: where the whole team agrees. A shared blind spot is not the sum of twelve weaknesses, it is a risk of the organization.
The most consistent observation of the sessionHolding position: 9 of the 12 landed in the lower half.
It is the variable where the team sits furthest from the reference value (team mean 36 against 50) and the lowest of the 3 that fall below it. Your people open well and close well; what they do not sustain is the second round, when the counterpart insists. It is a pattern that is rarely discussed, because the moment someone gives way is not recorded anywhere.
It moved, and that is the news. In April the mean was 29. Today it is 36. Seven points in a quarter, without working the variable on purpose. It is still the team’s lowest point.
Where it is worth checking: in long negotiations, buying committees with several rounds, and renewals where the client asks again. If your figures show strong initial conversion and a drop at renegotiation, there is a hypothesis here you can test against your own data. You set the amount: we do not know your ticket.
The team, variable by variable
Condition of delivery for this summaryIt is delivered under a single condition, which the company accepts on receipt: it is not used for any employment decision. It is not a criterion, total or partial, to hire, select, promote, compensate, reassign, sanction or dismiss anyone, nor for any formal performance evaluation, nor to feed an automated system that makes or assists those decisions.
Whoever leads a variable appears by role, never by name. Whoever is below the mean does not appear: not named, not counted, not made identifiable. Using this summary outside the condition above transfers responsibility to the receiving company and ends the license to use it.
| Variable | Mean | vs ref. | vs April | Read in | Leads |
|---|
| Recovery after a loss | 64 | +14 | +7 | 12 of 12 | Regional management (91) |
| Risk anticipation | 57 | +7 | -1 | 12 of 12 | New business (86) |
| Timing of the decision | 52 | +2 | +2 | 9 of 12 | New business (80) |
| Closing | 68 | +18 | +8 | 12 of 12 | Key accounts (84) |
| Negotiation with a counterpart | 54 | +4 | +5 | 11 of 12 | Key accounts (79) |
| Sustained building | 71 | +21 | +3 | 12 of 12 | Channel management (89) |
| Use of information | 55 | +5 | +4 | 11 of 12 | Regional management (72) |
| Speed without losing judgment | 59 | +9 | +4 | 12 of 12 | Channel management (77) |
| Adaptation to change | 49 | -1 | -3 | 12 of 12 | Channel management (68) |
| Risk appetite | 44 | -6 | -2 | 10 of 12 | New business (70) |
| Holding position | 36 | -14 | +7 | 12 of 12 | Key accounts (58) |
The three decisions this team has open
- Set how far each person may concede, and who authorizes going beyond it. Nine of twelve give way in the second round. That is not fixed with individual training: today each person is making that decision alone and under pressure, which is exactly when decisions are worst.Owner: sales leadership · Within: 30 days
- Review who is carrying the second rounds. The team does not have a single profile: whoever opens best and whoever holds best are not the same person. Whoever leads key accounts tops the cohort in both holding position and negotiation, and today is not in those rooms. It is a change of agenda, not of budget, and it costs nothing.Owner: sales leadership · Within: the next account above threshold
- Decide whether the low risk appetite (44 against 50) is policy or inertia. In a commercial team it usually means the safe account is preferred. If your pipeline is predictable but without large new accounts, you already have the answer, and it is a leadership decision, not a people one.Owner: executive leadership · Within: next quarter planning
The third measurementWe come back in October to read this same cohort on these same variables. It is not a new session: it is 48 minutes on the digital table, remote, no logistics.
What you receive then is not another portrait. It is a line: holding position went from 29 to 36 to X. That line is the answer to the one question they will ask you when you request next year’s budget.
What was measured and what was not
About 3,100 decisions were read from 12 participants across 3 h 10 min at the table. Reading the room is left without a conclusion: four participants did not reach sufficient sample and we would rather not publish a mean built on eight. Timing of the decision is published with a short sample and marked as such. In the third measurement we adjust the session script to force those situations. What was not measured is stated, and corrected.
What the 50 is. It is the house’s neutral reference value, not a market average and not this cohort’s mean. Comparing against it says whether a behavior appears above or below what would be expected, not whether someone is better than their industry. When we have enough cohorts to publish a sector comparison, we will state it with its denominator in plain view.
Which format this is. This reading corresponds to the digital table, which publishes 12 variables. The facilitated in-person evening adds three further layers, observable only with a facilitator in the room.
Scope and limits. This document is a reading of behavior observed inside a Market Fortune game, on the date of the reference number. It describes how this person decided in the game.
What it is not. It is not a psychological or psychometric test, not a diagnosis, not an evaluation of job performance and not a selection instrument. It does not infer emotions, moods or health conditions. The variables describe behaviors observed at a game table, not personality traits.
What it is used for. Conversation, development and training of judgment. What it is not used for. Any employment decision. Neither alone nor combined with other information may it be used as a criterion, total or partial, to hire, select, promote, compensate, reassign, sanction or dismiss anyone, or to feed any automated system that makes or assists those decisions. The receiving company is responsible for the use it makes of it.
Sample. A variable with a low sample is marked as such and is not interpreted. What was not measured is stated.
Personal data. Controller: Market Fortune LLC, Albuquerque, New Mexico, United States. Each participant gave prior, express and informed authorization for this reading and for the delivery of this document. They may request access, correction, update or deletion, and withdraw their authorization going forward, at [email protected]. Law 1581 of 2012 for data subjects in Colombia. GDPR and UK GDPR for the European Union, the EEA and the United Kingdom.
Confidentiality. Confidential document. It circulates between the participant, whoever booked the session and the people that company designates in writing. It is not published, does not leave the organization and is not filed in anyone’s CV or employment record.
Document issued by Market Fortune LLC Market Fortune LLC · Albuquerque, New Mexico · Cartagena, Colombiamarket-fortune.com
Decisions under pressure Organization summary
Second measurement
Ref. MF-2026-0712-ORG
Demonstration sample. Illustrative names and figures.
How your areas decide, compared
OrganizationFour areas
Participants35
Areas with a reading3 of 4
Who sees what. This is the institution’s sheet. There are no proper names here and there never will be: references are by role. Each participant received their individual sheet privately, and only they decide whether to share it.
An average of the whole company hides exactly what you need: two areas can post the same number and be deciding in opposite ways. Here they are not averaged.
Where the friction isSales decides 25 points faster than Finance, and takes 13 points more risk.
It is not a flaw in either. Sales is built to move, Finance is built not to lose, and both do their job well. What costs money is the distance between them when they have to decide together.
The hypothesis you can test today: look at how long an approval takes when it needs both signatures versus one. If the gap is large, this table explains it. You hold that data, not us.
And what they share: all three areas read fall below the reference value on risk (44, 38 and 31 against 50). That is not a trait of one area, it is the house. In a commercial company it usually means the safe account is preferred, and that is a leadership decision, not a people one.
The five questions, area by area
| Area | People | SpeedWho decides fastest | RiskWho takes more risk | NegotiationWho negotiates best | RecoveryWho recovers from a blow | ClosingWho converts what they build |
|---|
| Sales leadership | 12 | 68 | 44 | 54 | 64 | 70 |
| Operations | 11 | 51 | 38 | 47 | 58 | 66 |
| Finance | 8 | 43 | 31 | 52 | 61 | 59 |
| Technology | 4 | insufficient sample |
Why Technology carries no figures. Four people. The floor to publish an area’s number is five, for two distinct reasons: below that, four people deciding differently on a Tuesday are not the character of an area, and you could also work out who is who by elimination. The area appears because it took part. The number does not appear because we do not know it.
The 12 variables, aggregated across the organization
The table above compares areas and therefore uses five axes: comparing groups on a variable many teams never get to show would invent a difference no one measured. An aggregate is a different thing. Here no one sits above or below anyone, so all twelve are included, which is what you contracted.
| Variable | The house | vs reference | Read in |
|---|
| Recovery after a loss | 61 | +11 | 33 of 35 |
| Risk anticipation | 55 | +5 | 31 of 35 |
| Timing of the decision | 51 | +1 | 24 of 35 |
| Closing | 65 | +15 | 34 of 35 |
| Negotiation with a counterpart | 52 | +2 | 30 of 35 |
| Sustained building | 69 | +19 | 35 of 35 |
| Use of information | 54 | +4 | 29 of 35 |
| Speed without losing judgment | 56 | +6 | 33 of 35 |
| Adaptation to change | 50 | +0 | 34 of 35 |
| Risk appetite | 39 | -11 | 28 of 35 |
| Holding position | 38 | -12 | 32 of 35 |
| Reading the room | forming | · | 11 |
Reading the room was read in 11 of the 35 people and still carries no number: below our floor we do not publish a mean, even when the average can be computed. What was not measured on a sufficient base is stated as such.
How this sheet is used, and how it is not
- Yes: to decide who sits in which conversation. If a long negotiation is carried alone by the fastest and least patient area, you now know why it falls apart in the second round.
- Yes: to put on the agenda the conversation between two areas that do not understand each other, with data on the table instead of a complaint.
- No: to evaluate an area or anyone in it. This describes how each group behaved at a game table, not the job performance of its members, and it is not a basis for personnel decisions.
Scope and limits. This document is a reading of behavior observed inside a Market Fortune game, on the date of the reference number. It describes how this person decided in the game.
What it is not. It is not a psychological or psychometric test, not a diagnosis, not an evaluation of job performance and not a selection instrument. It does not infer emotions, moods or health conditions. The variables describe behaviors observed at a game table, not personality traits.
What it is used for. Conversation, development and training of judgment. What it is not used for. Any employment decision. Neither alone nor combined with other information may it be used as a criterion, total or partial, to hire, select, promote, compensate, reassign, sanction or dismiss anyone, or to feed any automated system that makes or assists those decisions. The receiving company is responsible for the use it makes of it.
Sample. A variable with a low sample is marked as such and is not interpreted. What was not measured is stated.
Personal data. Controller: Market Fortune LLC, Albuquerque, New Mexico, United States. Each participant gave prior, express and informed authorization for this reading and for the delivery of this document. They may request access, correction, update or deletion, and withdraw their authorization going forward, at [email protected]. Law 1581 of 2012 for data subjects in Colombia. GDPR and UK GDPR for the European Union, the EEA and the United Kingdom.
Confidentiality. Confidential document. It circulates between the participant, whoever booked the session and the people that company designates in writing. It is not published, does not leave the organization and is not filed in anyone’s CV or employment record.
Document issued by Market Fortune LLC Market Fortune LLC · Albuquerque, New Mexico · Cartagena, Colombiamarket-fortune.com