Kylee Ingram is the co-founder and CEO of Wizer, a decision intelligence platform that maps how decisions get made inside organizations. Before decision science, Kylee Ingram spent years in documentary filmmaking, television production, and six years as head of production at a startup accelerator, giving her both a human and a systems view of organizational problems. Her core concept is cognitive drift: as companies scale, decision-making narrows toward sameness because the top leadership's thinking style — 75% of Western CEOs are outcomes- or options-focused — gets replicated down through middle management, eroding the cognitive diversity that existed at founding.

For a company between 100 and 1,500 employees, this drift is the quiet friction point. The informal alignment of the founding team disappears, teams clump into two or three decision archetypes each, and leaders can no longer oversee every call directly. Kylee Ingram argues the fix is not restructuring — it is designing who is in the room for each decision.

• Cognitive drift in scaling orgs: Kylee Ingram explains that as a scaleup grows, teams homogenize into two or three decision styles out of seven, replicating leadership's dominant style and shrinking the range of thinking applied to each decision.
• Three structural biases: Wizer's approach targets social bias (which voices dominate, causing groupthink), information bias (which data is overweighted or ignored), and capacity bias (teams oversimplify when cognitive load is too high).
• Overlooked internal talent: Wizer's data shows 40–60% of the people its recommendation engine surfaces have never previously been asked into a decision room, meaning existing talent goes unused.

1. Map your decision archetypes before restructuring: Identify where teams over-index — Wizer's framework covers Achiever (outcomes), Collaborator (perspectives), Analyzer (evidence), Deliverer (process), Explorer (options), Guardian (risk), and Visionary. You can pull missing styles in from other teams without changing the org chart.
2. Design the decision room, not just the org: Shift from a permanent advisory board to pop-up decision teams matched to the decision type. One board Kylee Ingram cites found it was skewed to Analyzers and Achievers, then went one layer down for the styles it lacked.
3. Match communication to the recipient's decision style: Kylee Ingram notes a process-driven person needs a different message than an outcomes-driven one. Rewriting messages to fit the recipient's decision profile helps them land and reduces friction.

• Why do decisions get worse as my company scales? Kylee Ingram calls it cognitive drift: leadership's dominant style spreads down through middle management, so the cognitive diversity present at founding erodes. Teams settle into two or three archetypes, narrowing the perspectives applied to each decision.
• How do I add cognitive diversity without a reorg? According to Kylee Ingram, you map decision profiles, find where you are over- and under-indexed, and pull people with missing styles in from other teams for specific decisions. No restructuring is required — you just need to know where the talent sits.
• Should I use AI to make decisions? Kylee Ingram's position is that AI supports analysis but cannot replicate deep human interrogation over time, and it homogenizes language. Use AI only where the problem it solves is clear, and keep the right humans in the room.

Links & Resources Mentioned:

• Connect with Kylee Ingram on LinkedIn
• Wizer (free decision profiles): wizer.business