# Corporate Value Triad Executive Presentation Notes Proposed by Jean Nickson Pijeau Version 0.1 | October 2026 | Research update October 19 2026 ## Slide 1 The Corporate Value Triad Introduce CVT as a proposal attributed to Jean Nickson Pijeau. This executive discussion concerns whether to commission a reviewed pilot. It reports no original empirical results. The five papers develop an integrated account and alternatives rather than a proven classification of employees. Status: Proposed CVT framework and pilot methods. No original results or validated CVT measures. ## Slide 2 The organizational question A project can succeed while the contribution record remains incomplete. CVT asks how evidence reaches evaluators and affects credit. Later allocations can also reflect future-role requirements, vacancies, employee preferences, and organizational resources. The framework should not treat every disappointing decision as unfair recognition. Status: Proposed CVT framework and pilot methods. No original results or validated CVT measures. ## Slide 3 Three provisional work patterns The triad is a discussion vocabulary. It is not exhaustive and does not describe natural personality types. Relationship work can be productive. The research uses continuous constructs and does not assign employees to archetypes. A lack of observed activity can reflect constrained opportunity or missing evidence. Status: Proposed CVT framework and pilot methods. No original results or validated CVT measures. ## Slide 4 The model separates six constructs The proposed temporal sequence links earlier contribution evidence, later exposure, credit judgments, explicit recognition, and subsequent reward. Influence can change the work and several allocation stages. Reverse paths exist because prior reward can improve access and future assignments. The conceptual ordering is not an established causal chain. Status: Proposed CVT framework and pilot methods. No original results or validated CVT measures. ## Slide 5 What prior research supports The source claims are deliberately narrow. The papers and references companion state study and design boundaries. CVT must show incremental usefulness beyond this existing literature. Do not claim a scientific discovery based on renaming established concepts. Status: Proposed CVT framework and pilot methods. No original results or validated CVT measures. Sources [R01] Seibert, S. E., Kraimer, M. L., & Liden, R. C. (2001). A social capital theory of career success. https://doi.org/10.5465/3069452 Use limit: The reported structural model does not establish CVT or a causal visibility premium. [R02] Burt, R. S. (2004). Structural holes and good ideas. https://doi.org/10.1086/421787 Use limit: Associations do not separate productive brokerage from all credit-allocation effects. [R04] Munyon, T. P., Summers, J. K., Thompson, K. M., & Ferris, G. R. (2015). Political skill and work outcomes: A theoretical extension, meta-analytic investigation, and agenda for the future. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12066 Use limit: Associations do not imply that all influence is productive or establish CVT causality. [R07] Benson, A., Li, D., & Shue, K. (2019). Promotions and the Peter Principle. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjz022 Use limit: A role-specific finding does not establish a universal promotion rule or a builder penalty. ## Slide 6 One outcome can have many contributors This is a fictional case from the audit. Morgan can deserve credit for project ownership and mobilization while Priya and Sam deserve credit for their actions. The audit corrects the specific unsupported design claim. It does not infer bad intent or determine who should receive a future promotion. Status: Proposed CVT framework and pilot methods. No original results or validated CVT measures. ## Slide 7 The contribution recognition gap Recognition and reward are distinct. A review may accurately credit someone while selecting another person for a role with different requirements. Contribution and recognition have different units, so subtracting survey scores does not establish a gap. Model residuals also do not establish individual unfairness. Status: Proposed CVT framework and pilot methods. No original results or validated CVT measures. Sources [R14] Edwards, J. R. (1994). The study of congruence in organizational behavior research: Critique and a proposed alternative. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1994.1029 Use limit: A statistical alternative does not itself establish a normative fairness benchmark. ## Slide 8 Attribution styles and recognition Both constructs are proposed. Collective credit can coexist with precise individual roles. Signaling and evaluator exposure are distinct because a message can be sent without being seen. Productive communication can also improve the outcome and belongs in contribution. Existing self-presentation and signaling work is related, rather than validation of CVT. Package H9 maps to update H7 and H10 maps to update H8. Status: Proposed CVT framework and pilot methods. No original results or validated CVT measures. Sources [R19] Exley, C. L., & Kessler, J. B. (2022). The gender gap in self-promotion. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjac003 Use limit: Task and gender findings do not establish a collective-attribution penalty, stable employee types, or workplace compensation effects. [R20] VanEpps, E. M., Hart, E., & Schweitzer, M. E. (2024). Dual-promotion: Bragging better by promoting peers. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000431 Use limit: Impressions and behavioral intentions are not actual workplace pay or promotion. The result does not validate CVT or imply that collective and individual credit are opposites. [R23] Connelly, B. L., Certo, S. T., Ireland, R. D., & Reutzel, C. R. (2011). Signaling theory: A review and assessment. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310388419 Use limit: Using the word signaling does not establish a formal signaling equilibrium, credibility, or a recognition effect. ## Slide 9 Contribution histories during adoption This is a proposed effect without direct validation in the package. Later contributors can legitimately create most of the current value. The test follows acknowledgment of fixed corroborated originating actions, accounting for elapsed time, record purpose, evaluator changes, later contributions, and adoption selection. Package H11 maps to update H9. H12 tests documentation and H13 examines norms. Memory and structured scholarly contributorship offer related precedents, not workplace validation. Status: Proposed CVT framework and pilot methods. No original results or validated CVT measures. Sources [R21] Ross, M., & Sicoly, F. (1979). Egocentric biases in availability and attribution. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.37.3.322 Use limit: Memory and responsibility findings do not show intentional appropriation or validate recognition loss during organizational adoption. [R22] National Information Standards Organization (2022). ANSI/NISO Z39.104-2022 CRediT Contributor Roles Taxonomy. https://doi.org/10.3789/ansi.niso.z39.104-2022 Use limit: A scholarly metadata standard does not validate an employment assessment, a CVT score, or a documentation intervention. ## Slide 10 A reported episode raises a question This generalized participant-reported account is not a completed qualitative case study or independently verified dataset. It suggests possible differences in communication exposure. It does not establish actual unequal recognition, omitted credit, appropriation, unfair promotion, or compensation disparity. Explicit credit to the creator is part of the account. Employee names, screenshots, employer and product details, exact functions, and distinctive backgrounds are excluded. Before external use, obtain required company confidentiality clearance and appropriate participant permission, or omit the episode. No clearance or consent is claimed. Status: Proposed CVT framework and pilot methods. No original results or validated CVT measures. ## Slide 11 The Contribution Attribution Assessment The kit separates employee communication, manager identification of actions, and preservation of origin and later improvements. Collect the manager account before sharing the employee account. Managers never receive individual item responses. Unavailable history is not an omission. Report item distributions and action-specific discrepancies with denominators and source limits. The original 24-item scoring convention does not extend to the eight new items. Construct and coding validation must precede confirmatory use. Status: Proposed CVT framework and pilot methods. No original results or validated CVT measures. ## Slide 12 The proposed builders paradox This is a narrower hypothesis than saying technical excellence prevents advancement. Dependence needs evidence such as critical work without demonstrated backup coverage. H4 tests the conditional access association, and H5 tests a package of protected capacity and capability transfer. Specialist progression remains a legitimate choice. Status: Proposed CVT framework and pilot methods. No original results or validated CVT measures. ## Slide 13 The builder leader transition Leadership development can involve individual and interpersonal processes. The CVT curriculum is an experimental application. Its 90 day duration is a planning convention. Completion supplies no certification, and adopting a leader identity is not evidence of improved team performance. Status: Proposed CVT framework and pilot methods. No original results or validated CVT measures. Sources [R10] Day, D. V., Fleenor, J. W., Atwater, L. E., Sturm, R. E., & McKee, R. A. (2014). Advances in leader and leadership development: A review of 25 years of research and theory. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.11.004 Use limit: The review does not establish the effectiveness of the CVT 90 day curriculum. [R11] DeRue, D. S., & Ashford, S. J. (2010). Who will lead and who will follow? A social process of leadership identity construction in organizations. https://www.up.ac.za/media/shared/78/ZP_Files/2020/derue_ashford-2010.zp195280.pdf Use limit: This is a theory, not proof of CVT training effectiveness. DOI aliases were not independently reconciled, so no DOI is supplied. ## Slide 14 The diagnostic is a pilot item pool Six provisional domains contain four items each. Eight new attribution items remain separate and have no subscale means or combined score. Item distributions are the default report. Optional domain means use an arbitrary 3-of-4 numeric-response rule and require sensitivity checks. NA, no opportunity, do not know, and skipped remain distinct. Reliability alone does not validate interpretation or employment use. Status: Proposed CVT framework and pilot methods. No original results or validated CVT measures. Sources [R12] Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040957 Use limit: A reference to this framework does not validate a new scale. [R13] Flake, J. K., Pek, J., & Hehman, E. (2017). Construct validation in social and personality research: Current practice and recommendations. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617693063 Use limit: No reported reliability or validity result exists for CVT items. ## Slide 15 Examples of falsifiable predictions These are proposed hypotheses rather than established findings. H1 and H4 are observational associations. H2 concerns a randomized vignette. The protocol includes H3 attribution to recognition, H5 capacity and transfer, H6 protected practice, H7 influence moderation, and H8 policy transparency. H9 to H13 preserve the five new tests under stable package identifiers. The crosswalk maps update H7 to H11 onto package H9 to H13. All need appropriate measures, precision plans, and registration. Status: Proposed CVT framework and pilot methods. No original results or validated CVT measures. ## Slide 16 A staged research program Study A uses baseline, months 1, 2, 3, 6, and 12 for ordered measurement. Study B holds contribution facts constant while manipulating prominence and format. C and D are optional team trials with independent review. Simulate sample size and precision using the actual model and cluster structure. Study E follows contribution histories and randomizes truthful framing, evaluator receipt, and documentation format. Its interaction contrasts require separate power simulations. No adequate sample size has yet been demonstrated. Status: Proposed CVT framework and pilot methods. No original results or validated CVT measures. Sources [R17] Lakens, D. (2022). Sample size justification. https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.33267 Use limit: No sample size or power claim for CVT follows from citing this article. ## Slide 17 Evidence that would change the framework A wide interval around a null result is inconclusive. Equivalence claims need justified bounds fixed in advance and enough precision. The theory should also change if its constructs cannot be separated or if existing models explain the outcomes equally well. Publish contradictory evidence and revise the framework version. Status: Proposed CVT framework and pilot methods. No original results or validated CVT measures. ## Slide 18 The leadership kit Seven worksheets cover an agreement, episode reconstruction, decision brief, dependency record, delegation, feedback, and a final review. A weekly log supports reflection. Use role-relevant evidence and consider colleagues receiving transferred work. The kit provides no promotion guarantee or validated leadership score. Status: Proposed CVT framework and pilot methods. No original results or validated CVT measures. ## Slide 19 The management audit The audit does not score employee worth or prove discrimination from a residual. It distinguishes recognition from role selection and tests alternative explanations. A complaint-enriched sample cannot estimate workforce prevalence. Formal employment decisions follow established authorized procedures after any factual correction. Status: Proposed CVT framework and pilot methods. No original results or validated CVT measures. ## Slide 20 Research protections Obtain a local independent ethics determination and appropriate permissions before recruitment. Linked studies are pseudonymous, not anonymous. Proposed small-cell suppression is only an operational starting rule and does not guarantee anonymity. Complete local contacts, retention dates, withdrawal cutoff, workload guardrails, and data-access roles. Belmont supplies ethical principles, not an approval. Status: Proposed CVT framework and pilot methods. No original results or validated CVT measures. Sources [R18] National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research (1979). The Belmont Report: Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/read-the-belmont-report/index.html Use limit: Ethical principles do not constitute local research approval or establish universal regulatory applicability. ## Slide 21 Publication and validation pathway The package is a starting publication set, not peer-reviewed evidence. Human author review and a broader novelty review precede submission. Preregistration distinguishes planned tests from exploration but cannot fix invalid measures. Sponsorship must not prevent publication of unfavorable results. Status: Proposed CVT framework and pilot methods. No original results or validated CVT measures. Sources [R16] Nosek, B. A., Ebersole, C. R., DeHaven, A. C., & Mellor, D. T. (2018). The preregistration revolution. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1708274114 Use limit: Registration does not repair a weak design, invalid measurement, or inadequate ethics. ## Slide 22 Decision for an executive sponsor The decision is whether to support an appropriately reviewed pilot, not whether to adopt CVT as an employee rating system. The README indexes all deliverables. Complete the activation record in the protocol before recruitment. Maintain version 0.1 attribution and the October 19 research update date. The reported episode requires confidentiality clearance and appropriate permissions before external use or must be omitted. Status: Proposed CVT framework and pilot methods. No original results or validated CVT measures.