All blog posts Neurofactor editorial image linking 36 B2B job roles from ten categories with four decision dimensions without classifying individuals.

Neurofactor editorial image linking 36 B2B job roles from ten categories with four decision dimensions without classifying individuals.

Who are you really selling to?

36 roles, four decision patterns: what job titles hide about B2B buyers

Martijn den Otter 26 min read10/11/2026

In short

<p>This concluding article examines thirty-six research-informed broad Neurofactor role profiles from ten categories. Its four editorial decision dimensions are risk versus opportunity, evidence versus vision, now versus later and control versus movement. BIS and BAS are separate motivational concepts on independent 0-10 scales; k is a distinct time-discounting parameter, not purchase probability or sales-cycle length. The full matrix includes BIS, BAS, k and evidence needs for every role. Under transparent illustrative thresholds, seven profiles have BAS at least 7 and k at least 0.30, and twelve have BIS at least 7 and k no more than 0.15. These are not statistically discovered buyer segments. The practical lesson is to maintain one shared value claim, support it with stakeholder-specific evidence and validate purchase-context assumptions with a product-specific target-group and association card.</p>

Key takeaways

A job title is neither an individual personality test nor a prediction of purchasing behaviour.
The source contains 36 broad function profiles across ten categories with forty fields each.
Four dimensions help organise evidence; only BIS/BAS and k are numerical card fields.
Using explicit illustrative thresholds, 7 profiles meet BAS ≥ 7 and k ≥ 0.30; 12 meet BIS ≥ 7 and k ≤ 0.15.
The useful question is which kind of proof each stakeholder needs to defend a particular purchase.
Validate the general profile through a product-specific target-group card, association card and appropriate research.

The same commercial promise can trigger very different questions from a CFO, CTO, recruiter and CMO. Those differences disappear when segmentation stops at the job title. This final Neurofactor article therefore compares 36 roles across ten functional categories using the original target-group cards and organises responsibility, evidence needs and risk into four practical decision dimensions.

Alongside the framework you will find the complete BIS/BAS/k matrix, ten category analyses, six unexpected cross-functional comparisons, an illustrative buying-group case and an actionable process. The numbers describe research-informed broad function profiles, not individual scores, measured population averages or sales predictions.

A job title tells you whom you can reach, not what makes a decision credible

You have a list of B2B contacts. One is a CFO, another a CTO and a third a recruiter. LinkedIn lets you address those roles separately, but a different targeting label does not yet explain what will make each person comfortable with a purchasing decision. The CFO asks where the financial assumptions come from. The CTO wants to examine the technical approach and alternatives. The recruiter wants evidence that a real hiring bottleneck will be removed.

A more useful picture emerges when the 36 roles across ten functional categories are compared across departmental boundaries. Colleagues in the same department may differ substantially in their responsibilities, required evidence and time horizon. Conversely, two people in unrelated functions can have similar motivational patterns but still need entirely different supporting information.

This concluding article integrates the full Neurofactor series: four decision dimensions, a source-faithful 36-role BIS/BAS/k matrix, ten category analyses, six cross-functional comparisons and a practical method for turning role insights into communications, sales conversations and research. Its purpose is not to diagnose individuals by job title. It is to ask better questions before deciding which message and evidence to present.

Why 36 role profiles reveal more than ten LinkedIn audiences

The source covers founders and owners, executive management, sales, marketing, HR and recruitment, IT and technology, finance, operations, procurement and learning and development. Every role is organised into the same forty profile fields. This consistent structure allows responsibilities, motivations, emotional concerns, objections, proof requirements, contact preferences and three numerical fields to be compared directly, rather than relying on unstructured personas written in different ways.

These are research-informed broad function profiles, grounded in recurring patterns from Neurofactor work with these and similar audiences. They are not individual psychometric scores, directly measured population averages or evidence of a causal relationship between job title and buying behaviour. Product category, sector, organisation size, current systems, decision authority and other buying-group members can change which needs become decisive in a particular purchase.

That caveat improves the analysis rather than weakening it. The CFO and procurement manager may both require careful risk management, yet their supporting evidence differs. A CTO may show strong motivation to explore possibilities while demanding rigorous technical documentation. A CHRO may strongly support learning and still need evidence of wider workforce impact. The role provides a starting hypothesis, not an answer about any named individual.

Four decision dimensions that make the differences understandable

The four dimensions in this synthesis help you examine the original cards systematically. The first uses the distinct behavioural concepts of BIS and BAS. The third draws on intertemporal valuation and the delay-discount parameter k. The second and fourth are editorial, practice-oriented syntheses of what the forty descriptive fields say. They were not separately psychometrically measured and must not be presented as four validated personality scales.

Dimension	The buyer’s question	What you should investigate
Risk versus opportunity	What may go wrong, and what becomes possible?	Relevant exposure and credible benefits
Evidence versus vision	What would make this claim believable?	Proof format, references, strategic rationale
Now versus later	When must progress become visible?	Time horizon, milestones and delayed results
Control versus movement	What needs to be in place before we change?	Governance, reversible steps and responsibilities

These are not four mutually exclusive types of people. A decision-maker can be opportunity-oriented, require extensive control and pursue a multi-year outcome simultaneously. Use the four dimensions as distinct questions about a purchasing situation, not as permanent labels for people.

Four B2B decision dimensions: risk versus opportunity, evidence versus vision, now versus later and control versus movement.

What BIS and BAS actually add

In the behavioural science literature, BIS concerns sensitivity to potential punishment, conflict and signals of possible negative consequences. BAS concerns reward responsiveness and motivation to pursue potentially desirable outcomes. The work of Carver and White is an important reference for the scientific background. In the Neurofactor cards, both fields are reported as research-informed broad role-profile values on separate scales from 0 to 10.

A BIS score of 8 does not mean that a role will reject innovation. A BAS score of 9 does not mean that someone buys without checking the facts. BIS and BAS are not opposite ends of one axis, and an individual may show both strong opportunity motivation and strong concern about risks. The card values are not diagnoses or a way to infer psychological traits about a named LinkedIn contact.

In practice, opportunity-oriented messages should make the attractive outcome concrete, while risk-related proof should show how potential losses and implementation hazards will be addressed. Strong commercial communication can contain both. The right balance depends on the purchase, not merely the person’s title.

Pattern 1 - risk versus opportunity: look at accountability, not just the number

Compare the founder (BIS 3, BAS 9) with the CFO (BIS 8, BAS 4). The founder profile emphasises traction and momentum. The CFO must protect financial health and assess investment risk. An invitation to test a rapid growth opportunity may open the former conversation, whereas the latter calls for a traceable financial case and explicit assumptions.

However, the CTO (BIS 5, BAS 8) shows why a high BAS value should never be confused with weak evidence requirements. That profile still calls for technical documentation, open benchmarks and community or peer input. The supply chain manager (BIS 8, BAS 4) focuses more on reliable deliveries and inventory exposure. The brand manager (BIS 7, BAS 6) may welcome growth while resisting changes that could dilute brand meaning.

The point is not to intensify fear among cautious audiences. Establish what the function is responsible for protecting and test that the proposed change preserves it. Similarly, define what opportunity can realistically be tested rather than relying on exciting but unsupported claims.

Pattern 2 - evidence versus vision: relevance matters more than volume

A thick slide deck does not automatically contain the right evidence. A controller may want to see a demonstration using the organisation’s own data. A procurement manager may require savings cases, policy compliance and purchasing-system fit. An L&D manager may demand learning-transfer and impact measures. A talent manager may ask whether assessment instruments have been scientifically validated. A CMO may need to link brand measures and commercial contribution. Every one of these buyers can ask “Does it work?” and mean something substantially different.

Vision and evidence are not opposing personality traits either. A CEO may value an ambitious direction but still need an executive track record. A CTO may support an exploratory technical proof of concept while insisting on transparent benchmarks. A purchasing director may seek future supplier value and demand analysis of supply-chain risk at the same time.

Build a modular evidence library: financial value, integration, operational continuity, growth, brand impact, workforce outcomes, supply reliability and scientific validation. Keep one coherent strategic claim, then use the appropriate supporting evidence for each stakeholder. Every exhibit should specify precisely which claim it does - and does not - substantiate.

Pattern 3 - now versus later: interpreting k without predicting purchases

In the literature, delay discounting concerns how outcomes at different times are valued. The role cards contain a directional k parameter ranging from 0.08 to 0.45. Within this editorial profile system, higher k indicates relatively greater weighting of nearer benefits; lower k indicates comparatively greater attention to outcomes further ahead. It is not purchase probability, time to signature, impulsiveness of a named buyer or a predicted sales-cycle duration.

Founder and recruiter have the highest card values at 0.45, followed by sales manager at 0.40 and head of marketing at 0.35. Board member, CHRO, CIO, CFO and purchasing director share the lowest listed value, 0.08. The useful question is not “Who will sign this week?” but “Which near-term indicators and long-term results does this function need to see?” A recruiter may value a trial that demonstrates a reduction in hiring bottlenecks; a CIO also needs confidence about long-term security and maintainability.

Separate proof into an initial feasibility test, intermediate indicators and ultimate business outcomes. A fast pilot does not establish a lasting effect, and a long-term vision does not exempt a supplier from showing what happens in the first weeks.

Pattern 4 - control versus movement: make change governable

In this article control means oversight, accountable ownership, continuity and a process that can be explained. Movement means a willingness to explore a different approach when a credible opportunity emerges. The distinction is a practical reading of the cards, not an additional numerical variable or a validated psychometric measure.

A CIO may see innovation potential yet require security and architecture checks. An operations manager may welcome greater efficiency but fear disruption on the shop floor. HR development may want to try new learning methods but needs managers and employees to recognise the cultural fit. Their need for safeguards is often part of their job, not irrational resistance.

A useful pilot limits scope, assigns ownership, defines evaluation and stop criteria, clarifies fallback options and records what happens when the solution underperforms. This is more credible than a generic free trial. In a multi-stakeholder purchase, those safeguards can help different roles examine the same change without pretending they share identical priorities.

What a transparent scan of all 36 card values reveals

To keep phrases such as “high opportunity orientation” or “longer horizon” auditable, we use two clearly specified editorial filters. Filter A includes BAS of at least 7 with k of at least 0.30. Filter B includes BIS of at least 7 with k of no more than 0.15. On the original 36 records these yield seven and twelve profiles respectively. These thresholds were chosen to illustrate patterns, not discovered statistically through clustering.

Filter A includes founder, sales manager, CRO, head of marketing, recruiter, People & Culture and CTO. Calling all seven “fast buyers” would ignore purchase context and decision authority. Filter B includes DGA, board member, brand manager, CHRO, IT manager, CIO, CFO, finance director, COO, supply chain manager, procurement manager and purchasing director. Their scores share a pattern, but their professional responsibilities differ sharply.

Publishing thresholds and the underlying values makes the interpretation open to scrutiny. Neither group is a prediction about individuals or an empirically identified market segment. Different thresholds would produce different counts; the source remains the same.

All 36 roles: complete BIS, BAS and k matrix with evidence needs

The table reproduces all thirty-six role profiles in source order across ten categories. Evidence descriptions are concise editorial digests of the explicit proof fields from the original cards. BIS and BAS have independent 0-10 scales; k is a distinct decimal parameter. They must not be added together, displayed as a single risk percentage or interpreted as individual buyer scores.

Category	Role	BIS	BAS	k	What constitutes relevant evidence?
Founders & owners	Founder	3	9	0.45	Traction and comparable startup cases
Founders & owners	Eigenaar	6	5	0.20	Industry references and credible payback
Founders & owners	DGA	7	6	0.10	Business value, numerical evidence and owner peers
Founders & owners	Managing Director (eigenaar)	5	7	0.20	Less owner dependence and documented process gains
Executive leadership	CEO	6	7	0.10	Executive track record and board-level references
Executive leadership	Managing Director (loondienst)	6	7	0.25	Results within delegated authority and reporting lines
Executive leadership	Board / RvB-lid	8	4	0.08	Independent evidence, benchmarks and risk assessment
Sales	Sales Manager	4	8	0.40	Fast proof from comparable sales teams
Sales	Head of Sales	5	7	0.25	Forecast accuracy and scalable team outcomes
Sales	CRO	4	9	0.30	Funnel, acquisition cost and repeatable revenue
Sales	Commercial Director	6	6	0.15	Margin, retention and commercial control
Marketing	Marketing Manager	5	6	0.30	Campaign outcomes, saved time and practical peers
Marketing	CMO	6	7	0.15	Brand equity plus commercial impact and benchmarks
Marketing	Brand Manager	7	6	0.12	Brand research, market share and consistency
Marketing	Head of Marketing	4	8	0.35	Growth cases, funnel figures and delivery feasibility
HR & recruitment	HR Manager	6	5	0.20	HR references, realistic rollout and support
HR & recruitment	HR Director	6	6	0.15	Organisational impact, research and HR peers
HR & recruitment	Recruiter	4	8	0.45	Time to hire, candidate quality and a quick pilot
HR & recruitment	CHRO	7	5	0.08	Research, benchmarks and board-level HR references
HR & recruitment	People & Culture	5	7	0.30	Employee experience, culture cases and peers
IT & technology	IT Manager	7	4	0.15	Certification, safe migration and IT references
IT & technology	CIO	8	5	0.08	Architecture fit, security audits and continuity
IT & technology	CTO	5	8	0.30	Technical documentation, open benchmarks and community
IT & technology	Head of IT	6	6	0.20	Implementation plan, certification and IT references
Finance	CFO	8	4	0.08	Total cost, financial case and CFO references
Finance	Finance Director	7	5	0.15	Close times, savings and finance references
Finance	Controller	7	5	0.25	Demo using own data and proven integration
Operations	COO	7	6	0.12	Productivity, unit cost and operational ownership
Operations	Operations Manager	6	5	0.30	Shop-floor results, low disruption and support
Operations	Supply Chain Manager	8	4	0.15	Delivery reliability, inventory reduction and supply peers
Procurement	Procurement Manager	7	5	0.15	Savings cases, compliance and process fit
Procurement	Buyer	6	5	0.30	Clear quote, lead times and supplier references
Procurement	Purchasing Director	8	5	0.08	Strategic value, supply risk and executive references
Learning & development	L&D Manager	6	6	0.20	Learning transfer, impact measurement and platform fit
Learning & development	Talent Manager	6	5	0.10	Scientific validation and talent outcomes
Learning & development	HR Development	5	6	0.25	Strong intake, cultural fit and facilitation quality

Source: original Neurofactor target-group cards, September 2026. Scores describe research-informed broad function profiles, not measured population averages or individual assessments.

Complete 36-role table with original BIS, BAS and k values across ten categories and separate BIS and BAS scales.

Category 1 - Founders and owners: acceleration, value protection and independence

A founder often wants proof that a new opportunity will accelerate traction. The owner of an established business expects relevant sector references and a realistic payback. The DGA, who both directs and owns the company, must also consider its value and the financial implications of the decision. An owner-manager building a leadership structure wants to reduce dependence on one person. Four people can respond very differently to an apparently identical growth proposal. Ask whether the principal outcome is momentum, economic security, enterprise value or a company that can operate without constant owner intervention. Then show examples and proof appropriate to that outcome. This is not a simplistic divide between emotional entrepreneurs and rational managers: each is protecting a different stake.

Role	BIS	BAS	k	Evidence route
Founder	3	9	0.45	Traction and comparable startup cases
Eigenaar	6	5	0.2	Industry references and credible payback
DGA	7	6	0.1	Business value, numerical evidence and owner peers
Managing Director (eigenaar)	5	7	0.2	Less owner dependence and documented process gains

Category 2 - Executive leadership: ultimate accountability does not imply identical authority

A CEO is answerable for strategy and organisational results at the executive level. A salaried managing director often operates under delegated authority and must deliver results without surprising owners. A board member works through collective governance and supervision. These differences explain why executive references, results from similar divisions and independent risk analyses are not interchangeable forms of evidence. Before presenting the highest title as the final buyer, identify who owns the problem, can commit resources, must review risk and needs to defend the decision internally. A proposal may be strategically attractive and still fail because the wrong approval route was assumed.

Role	BIS	BAS	k	Evidence route
CEO	6	7	0.1	Executive track record and board-level references
Managing Director (loondienst)	6	7	0.25	Results within delegated authority and reporting lines
Board / RvB-lid	8	4	0.08	Independent evidence, benchmarks and risk assessment

Category 3 - Sales: targets, repeatability and margins are different outcomes

The sales manager sits close to this month’s team target. The head of sales must build a repeatable and predictable organisation. The CRO works across revenue, funnel performance and acquisition economics. The commercial director protects margins, major customer relationships and commercial stability as well as growth. A software demo promising more leads can appeal to one function while another asks how lead quality, cost and margin are affected. Define whether you mean activity, qualified pipeline, forecast accuracy, realised revenue, retained accounts or contribution margin. A single lead-generation metric cannot answer all four buying questions.

Role	BIS	BAS	k	Evidence route
Sales Manager	4	8	0.4	Fast proof from comparable sales teams
Head of Sales	5	7	0.25	Forecast accuracy and scalable team outcomes
CRO	4	9	0.3	Funnel, acquisition cost and repeatable revenue
Commercial Director	6	6	0.15	Margin, retention and commercial control

Category 4 - Marketing: execution pressure, brand stewardship and commercial contribution

The marketing manager must deliver campaigns under time and capacity constraints. A CMO needs to justify the strategic value of marketing to peers in sales and finance. A brand manager is accountable for consistent meaning and long-term brand strength. A head of marketing may be building the team and growth engine simultaneously. This matters for innovations that promise immediate volume but could disrupt brand consistency. One role may require practical campaign cases; another demands brand research, benchmarks or a credible link with commercial performance. Reach is not brand preference, and brand preference is not automatically realised sales.

Role	BIS	BAS	k	Evidence route
Marketing Manager	5	6	0.3	Campaign outcomes, saved time and practical peers
CMO	6	7	0.15	Brand equity plus commercial impact and benchmarks
Brand Manager	7	6	0.12	Brand research, market share and consistency
Head of Marketing	4	8	0.35	Growth cases, funnel figures and delivery feasibility

Read the related article: Selling to marketing: who is actually buying?

Category 5 - HR and recruitment: filling roles is not the same as strengthening the workforce

Recruiters focus on quality and speed in filling vacancies. People & Culture functions may emphasise employee experience and culture during growth. HR managers need workable daily solutions, while HR directors and CHROs must defend broader organisational impacts. A recruitment platform might demonstrate shorter time to hire. That does not automatically establish improved retention, diversity, candidate fairness or organisational culture. A CHRO will reasonably ask about those wider implications while the recruiter evaluates immediate workflow bottlenecks. Keep the evidence for process speed and the evidence for long-term workforce outcomes separate.

Role	BIS	BAS	k	Evidence route
HR Manager	6	5	0.2	HR references, realistic rollout and support
HR Director	6	6	0.15	Organisational impact, research and HR peers
Recruiter	4	8	0.45	Time to hire, candidate quality and a quick pilot
CHRO	7	5	0.08	Research, benchmarks and board-level HR references
People & Culture	5	7	0.3	Employee experience, culture cases and peers

Category 6 - IT and technology: technical opportunity still needs technical evidence

An IT manager protects daily reliability and operational security. A CIO takes a wider view of architecture, dependencies and continuity. A CTO may be especially attracted to technical opportunities, but expects documentation, open benchmarks and the ability to inspect or test the approach. A head of IT needs an implementation that a growing team can sustain. The CTO has BAS 8 and k 0.30, compared with BAS 5 and k 0.08 for the CIO. This should not be translated into a careless-versus-careful stereotype. An exploratory proof of concept, an architecture review and a resilience reference answer distinct, equally legitimate questions.

Role	BIS	BAS	k	Evidence route
IT Manager	7	4	0.15	Certification, safe migration and IT references
CIO	8	5	0.08	Architecture fit, security audits and continuity
CTO	5	8	0.3	Technical documentation, open benchmarks and community
Head of IT	6	6	0.2	Implementation plan, certification and IT references

Category 7 - Finance: numbers are necessary but not sufficient

The CFO is accountable for financial health, returns and executive-level exposure. The finance director needs dependable processes, credible savings and reporting performance. The controller must often assess data quality, close procedures and integrations hands-on. A controller may be convinced by a working demonstration using actual organisational data while the CFO still questions total ownership cost and risk. Conversely, a polished ROI slide cannot resolve missing system functionality. Show which cost components really disappear, which new costs arise, what happens under poor performance and how the organisation will verify results.

Role	BIS	BAS	k	Evidence route
CFO	8	4	0.08	Total cost, financial case and CFO references
Finance Director	7	5	0.15	Close times, savings and finance references
Controller	7	5	0.25	Demo using own data and proven integration

Category 8 - Operations: predictability at three different levels

The COO considers scale, quality, productivity and continuity across the operation. The operations manager focuses on daily disruption and workload. The supply chain manager safeguards deliveries, inventory and resilience between organisations and processes. A scheduling system that improves local productivity might create new inventory exposure or dependencies elsewhere. Therefore the central question is not simply whether a process is faster. Buyers need to know how the change behaves during exceptions, periods of stress and later scale-up. Use floor-level pilot data alongside supply reliability and continuity measures.

Role	BIS	BAS	k	Evidence route
COO	7	6	0.12	Productivity, unit cost and operational ownership
Operations Manager	6	5	0.3	Shop-floor results, low disruption and support
Supply Chain Manager	8	4	0.15	Delivery reliability, inventory reduction and supply peers

Category 9 - Procurement: the lowest quote is not the whole decision

A buyer needs clear prices, lead times and a reliable supplier. The procurement manager must demonstrate savings and procedural compliance. The purchasing director is responsible for strategic supplier value and supply-chain resilience. All three have BAS 5, but k ranges from 0.30 for the buyer to 0.08 for the purchasing director. The difference is not that one likes opportunities and the other does not. The questions being defended are different. Lower unit prices do not prove better total supply reliability; a signed framework agreement does not establish a strategically suitable long-term relationship.

Role	BIS	BAS	k	Evidence route
Procurement Manager	7	5	0.15	Savings cases, compliance and process fit
Buyer	6	5	0.3	Clear quote, lead times and supplier references
Purchasing Director	8	5	0.08	Strategic value, supply risk and executive references

Category 10 - Learning and development: programme impact, talent value and cultural fit

An L&D manager wants people to use learning programmes and apply skills at work. A talent manager needs credible identification, development and succession outcomes. HR development seeks interventions that fit the people, management practices and organisational culture. Positive learner reactions do not prove transfer into behaviour. Even transfer data does not by itself demonstrate lower attrition or better succession. Distinguish participation, learning, transfer, job outcomes, talent decisions and organisational effects. The programme sponsor, user and budget holder may also be different stakeholders.

Role	BIS	BAS	k	Evidence route
L&D Manager	6	6	0.2	Learning transfer, impact measurement and platform fit
Talent Manager	6	5	0.1	Scientific validation and talent outcomes
HR Development	5	6	0.25	Strong intake, cultural fit and facilitation quality

Cross-functional comparison 1 - CFO and procurement manager - two definitions of risk and accountability

The CFO (BIS 8, BAS 4, k 0.08) needs total cost, investment returns, transparent assumptions and manageable cash flow. The procurement manager (7/5/0.15) examines demonstrable savings, process requirements, compliance and supplier selection. A financially attractive calculation does not replace vendor due diligence, while a compliant purchasing process does not prove a positive return. One joint decision file can contain financial and procurement evidence tracks. Ask each stakeholder exactly what they must be able to defend.

Cross-functional comparison 2 - CMO and CRO - growth is not one measurement

The CMO (6/7/0.15) must defend brand value and marketing’s commercial contribution. The CRO (4/9/0.30) focuses on funnel performance, acquisition economics and repeatable revenue. Stronger brand associations do not automatically cause near-term sales increases; more leads do not establish healthier brand equity. Agree on intermediate measures, ultimate outcomes, attribution assumptions and what the analysis is not capable of showing before celebrating a headline result.

Read the related article: CMO vs CRO: both own growth, but what does growth mean?

Cross-functional comparison 3 - CEO and DGA - similar authority, different personal exposure

The CEO (6/7/0.10) must defend strategy, performance and institutional reputation. The DGA (7/6/0.10), as owner and director, also protects company value and their ownership position. Crucially, the original cards give both roles the same k value; do not claim a difference in decision speed. Executive track records matter for the CEO, while the DGA also needs concrete value and downside analysis tied to the business they own.

Cross-functional comparison 4 - CIO and CMO - innovation needs both technical and commercial validity

The CIO (8/5/0.08) examines security, architecture, dependencies and continuity. The CMO (6/7/0.15) looks for customer relevance, brand value and commercial impact. An AI marketing product may look attractive on a marketing roadmap while raising legitimate data-governance questions. A vendor security certificate cannot guarantee a safe implementation, and a marketing pilot without a suitable design cannot prove causation. Agree on data flows, decision gates, technical owners and commercial measurement.

Cross-functional comparison 5 - CHRO and L&D manager - learning outcomes are not the whole HR investment

The CHRO (7/5/0.08) connects learning to the wider workforce strategy, culture and organisational outcomes. The L&D manager (6/6/0.20) demands transfer, uptake and a programme that can scale. Demonstrated skill use is valuable, but does not automatically prove lower attrition or better succession planning. Develop two connected levels of evidence: programme-level effects and the longer-term strategic HR questions that still need evaluation.

Cross-functional comparison 6 - COO and CFO - operational progress is not automatically a financial return

The COO (7/6/0.12) wants reliable and scalable operations; the CFO (8/4/0.08) requires a financially sound investment. Saving two hours of work per employee does not automatically reduce payroll costs by two hours. Describe the chain from time saved to available capacity, actual utilisation and a verifiable financial outcome. Define implementation exposure, assumptions, downside cases and responsibilities so both executives can assess the same proposal.

Three cross-functional evidence comparisons: CFO and procurement manager, CTO and CIO, CMO and CRO.

Four recurring buying contexts - not four types of people

A practical synthesis can group questions into four buying contexts. These are not statistical clusters, measured personality types or prevalence estimates. One person may move between contexts depending on the product, financial pressure and stakeholder responsibilities.

Context	Initial question	Useful first evidence	Common mistake
Exploring opportunity	What new result might become possible?	Bounded pilot with agreed success criteria	Promising growth without a measurement design
Managing exposure	What must continue to work reliably?	Audit, benchmark, fallback and peer reference	Calling legitimate safeguards resistance
Defending a decision	Can the rationale withstand scrutiny?	Assumptions, alternatives and decision record	Impressive but untraceable ROI
Making change stick	Will implementation work in our organisation?	Named owner, fit, rollout and stop criteria	A trial with no accountability

A CMO might explore a promising opportunity today but need a risk-control case when budgets contract. A line manager could first focus on disruption and later require an investment file for finance. Do not turn these contexts into hidden targeting labels assigned to individuals.

A buying group needs one consistent story and different evidence

The person who sees your ad is rarely the entire purchasing system. A user may notice the problem, IT may validate an integration, procurement may run the supplier process, finance may approve a budget and management may own the strategic consequence. These are possible roles in a buying group, not a universal sequence. In smaller businesses several can be held by one person.

Instead of only asking who signs the contract, establish who experiences the pain, who benefits, who bears the downside and who has formal authority. Map sponsors, users, technical assessors, finance, procurement and executive accountability. Then present one central claim with specialised supporting evidence rather than unrelated or contradictory sales stories.

A proposal becomes more defensible when remaining uncertainty is made visible. Do not hide trade-offs or claim that a favourable pilot removes implementation risk. The aim is to help the buying group make a considered joint decision.

Extended illustrative case - an AI platform spanning customer and operational processes

Illustrative scenario, not measured results: a mid-sized company considers an AI platform that categorises customer requests, supports workflows and surfaces commercial opportunities. A vendor demonstrates functionality and discusses possible time savings. That is the starting point, not proof of investment return. The buying group in this hypothetical case includes CMO, CRO, CIO, COO, CFO and procurement manager.

Stakeholder	Critical question	Appropriate test
CMO	Does the platform improve customer relevance and brand experience?	Customer and brand measurement with a valid design
CRO	Does funnel quality and repeatable revenue improve?	Baseline, conversion, CAC and qualified revenue
CIO	Are data, security and integrations controlled?	Architecture review, privacy, security and fallback
COO	Does work become more reliable with fewer handovers?	Process measures, exceptions, capacity and error rates
CFO	What is the plausible financial outcome and downside?	Total cost, assumptions, scenarios and cash flow
Procurement manager	Can this supplier meet our procedural requirements?	Vendor checks, contracts, SLAs and compliance

The vendor proposes a phased evaluation with separate measurement tracks, explicit owners and stop criteria. Shorter handling time does not establish higher revenue. A security audit is not a universal guarantee. Positive early feedback does not demonstrate enduring adoption. Each distinction matters when the decision crosses multiple functional responsibilities.

A six-step process for moving from job titles to evidence-based communication

Start by combining the broad card with the exact purchase context. A generic role profile is not a ready-made persuasion script. Define the alternative choices, map the actual buying group and test which of the card’s suggested needs really applies to the product.

Step	Question	Deliverable
1. Define the choice	What is being bought and compared?	Decision context and alternatives
2. Map stakeholders	Who uses, pays, assesses risk and signs?	Role and authority map
3. Select profiles	Which function cards offer useful hypotheses?	Initial role-based hypotheses
4. Test associations	What meanings does the offer evoke in this audience?	Product-specific target-group and association cards
5. Design proof	Which claims are supported and which are uncertain?	Evidence matrix and pilot or research plan
6. Learn and revise	Who finds what persuasive, and why?	Validated messaging, content and sales variants

The final output should not be an allegedly universal buyer personality. It should be a documented account of what did and did not hold for a specific product, category, sector and decision process. Record exceptions and changes as carefully as successful matches.

Six-step framework from professional role selection and stakeholder mapping to association research, evidence design and tested messages.

One offering, multiple entry points, no contradictory promises

Keep the shared product proposition constant and vary the supporting question. For the hypothetical AI platform the core claim could be reduced unnecessary handovers and better access to information, subject to verified safety and quality. Each role needs a different first line and a different supporting document.

Role	Opening angle	Necessary evidence
CRO	Show where qualified opportunities leak from the funnel.	Conversion and acquisition economics against a baseline
CIO	Explore innovation within defined security and architecture boundaries.	Data flows, integrations, audit and ownership
COO	Identify bottlenecks without sacrificing operational continuity.	Exceptions, process KPIs and rollout plan
CFO	Make the investment assumptions and downside explicit.	Total cost, scenarios and financial mechanism
Procurement manager	Compare supplier value and contractual risk.	Policy fit, savings evidence and references

This approach does not require inferring private psychological characteristics from social profiles. Start with professional responsibilities and invite the individual to confirm or correct the presumed need.

LinkedIn, discovery calls and research each play a different role

LinkedIn can help reach professional roles and test whether a topic resonates. It cannot tell you the actual private decision style of every individual with that title. Thoughtful posts articulate a known professional problem; longer articles explain the rationale and evidence; a conversation reveals the organisation’s real constraints and decision authority. A product-specific association study can then explore the meanings and connections the proposition activates among the intended audience.

Appropriately designed neuroscience methods can add information about responses to controlled stimuli, but they do not replace financial proof, technical safety checks or operational outcomes. Choose research methods for the question they can actually answer. Data collection, targeting and profiling must also be transparent and compliant with the applicable privacy and fairness requirements.

The goal is a coherent progression from recognition to credible evidence and an informed conversation, rather than filling every channel with an identical generic message.

Measure the stated claim instead of the easiest dashboard metric

Strong click-through does not guarantee the right understanding. More meetings do not establish better revenue. A learning programme that participants enjoy may not change work behaviour. A successful IT proof of concept may still encounter operational risks when deployed. Each claim needs a corresponding outcome definition, comparison, observation period and explicit limitations.

Distinguish attention, associations, intention, actual behaviour and organisational results. These are not automatically proven causal steps. If your business case assumes a chain of effects, state and test those assumptions. Credibility grows when suppliers know precisely what their evidence does not establish.

Across the series, the recurring behavioural principle is that a job-title label cannot create relevance on its own. The value claim must fit the real decision context and withstand the type of scrutiny for which the buyer is responsible.

Research boundaries: what these thirty-six cards do and do not establish

Neurofactor’s source set contains thirty-six consistently structured broad function profiles with forty fields each, informed by recurring findings from research with these and comparable audiences. It is not a public representative dataset containing individual scale scores, standard errors or a statistical distribution of all B2B buyers. Therefore none of the BIS/BAS/k values should be described as an empirically measured population mean for all holders of a job title.

The four dimensions are an editorial framework. The seven-profile and twelve-profile examples result from transparent thresholds chosen for this article, not from a statistical cluster analysis. BIS and BAS are distinct motivational concepts, while k is a separate time-discounting parameter. No combined score, purchasing probability or sales-cycle prediction should be derived from them.

Do not diagnose prospects from their title or secretly assign sensitive inferred personal traits. Use transparent, proportionate segmentation around professional problems, and test product-specific assumptions with appropriate research, a defined sample and known measurement conditions. The target-group card and association card are the next methodological step, not an optional embellishment.

Want to know what evidence the roles in your buying group need? Contact Neurofactor and have the broad profiles translated into your product and situation.

What thirty-nine articles ultimately show: a title is the beginning of the research

The lesson from thirty-six roles is not that one function always avoids risk and another always seeks immediate rewards. Professional responsibilities shape the consequences people must anticipate and the proof they must be able to defend. Some cross-functional roles consequently share useful motivational patterns, while people with similar BIS/BAS values may need radically different evidence.

Use the title to understand the professional setting, the four dimensions to structure your questions and the forty card fields to uncover specific concerns. Before making strong claims about a product, brand or purchasing decision, deepen the profile with research on that particular audience and its associations. The outcome may not be the shortest possible message, but it can be a more relevant and defensible one.

Key terms

B2B audience: Business buyers or influencers in a specified purchasing and product context.
Role profile: Research-informed broad description of responsibilities and decision questions that can recur in a role.
Target-group card: Structured view of motivations, concerns, desired outcomes, evidence needs and communication context.
Association card: Research-based account of meanings and connections an audience makes around a brand, offer or topic.
BIS: Behavioral Inhibition System, a motivational concept related to sensitivity to potential negative outcomes and conflict.
BAS: Behavioral Activation System, a motivational concept related to reward sensitivity and pursuing opportunities.
Delay-discount rate (k): Parameter describing relative valuation of later and nearer outcomes; not purchase probability or sales speed.
Evidence requirement: The kind of verifiable information needed to support a specific claim or decision.
Buying group: People who initiate, use, influence, evaluate, fund or approve a business purchase.
Buying context: A purchase with specific alternatives, budgets, constraints, systems, authority and timing.
Learning transfer: Application of knowledge or skills beyond training in real work.
Business case: Transparent account of costs, benefits, assumptions, risk, alternatives and decision criteria.
Total cost of ownership (TCO): Total costs over a relevant life cycle, including purchase, deployment, running and exit costs.
Proof of concept: Bounded evaluation of specific functional or technical feasibility.
Pilot: Limited, controlled application with predefined responsibilities and success or stop criteria.
Association research: Research into the meanings and links an audience makes around a specific stimulus or proposition.
Causal effect: Change demonstrably attributable to an intervention rather than mere correlation.
Editorial filter: Transparent, chosen threshold for illustration, not a statistically discovered cluster.
Cross-functional comparison: Comparison of roles from different departments using consistent criteria.
Evidence matrix: Map of claims, stakeholders, decisions and the evidence available or still required.

Frequently asked questions

What are the four B2B decision dimensions?

Risk versus opportunity, evidence versus vision, now versus later and control versus movement. They are four practical analytical questions; only BIS/BAS and k are numerical fields in the cards.

Are the 36 profiles measured population averages?

No. They are research-informed broad function profiles drawing on recurring Neurofactor findings, not a representative dataset with individual scores and sampling error estimates.

What do BIS and BAS mean here?

BIS concerns sensitivity to potential negative consequences and conflict; BAS concerns reward responsiveness and approach motivation. Each has a separate 0-10 scale in the cards.

Does a higher k predict faster purchases?

No. It is a directional time-discounting profile parameter, not purchase probability, actual decision time or contract duration.

Why can a CFO resemble a procurement manager more than a controller?

CFO and procurement manager may share risk-oriented concerns, yet their evidence differs. The CFO needs financial justification, procurement needs supplier and procedural assurance, and a controller may need proof using actual data.

Is a CTO necessarily less cautious than a CIO?

No. The CTO has higher BAS and k in the cards but still needs technical documentation and benchmarks. The CIO emphasises architecture, security and continuity.

Which profiles have the highest k?

Founder and recruiter: 0.45 each; sales manager: 0.40; head of marketing: 0.35. These are not measured average purchasing speeds.

Which profiles have the lowest k?

Board member, CHRO, CIO, CFO and purchasing director: 0.08 each. That is not proof that a named buyer will take longer to decide.

What are the groups of seven and twelve profiles?

They are illustrative selections using disclosed thresholds: BAS at least 7 with k at least 0.30 yields seven; BIS at least 7 with k at most 0.15 yields twelve. They are not statistical clusters.

How can a role profile inform LinkedIn content?

Start from a genuine professional responsibility, make a testable promise, provide relevant proof and learn from responses and discussions. Do not infer private psychometric traits from job titles.

What belongs in a shared B2B business case?

A single value proposition, a stakeholder map, function-specific proof, assumptions, alternatives, risks, implementation responsibilities and an evaluation plan.

Why is the generic role card not enough for a real offer?

It cannot by itself establish the associations customers make with your exact brand, product, price or context. Product-specific target-group and association research is required.

Can these cards be used for hidden psychological targeting?

They should not be used to infer individual psychological traits or to covertly profile people. Use transparent proportionate professional segmentation in line with applicable rules.

How can 39 articles cover 36 roles?

The series combines an introductory article, category syntheses, targeted comparisons and this final synthesis. The 36 functions are the underlying role set, not 36 separate experiments.

Sources

1.>5 years of Neurofactor target group research - Neurofactor
2.Carver & White (1994), Behavioral Inhibition, Behavioral Activation, and Affective Responses to Impending Reward and Punishment - Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (1994)
3.Frederick, Loewenstein & O'Donoghue (2002), Time Discounting and Time Preference: A Critical Review - Journal of Economic Literature (2002)

This series