How Much Does the Integral Leadership-Team Regulation Assessment Cost?

Last updated: May 2026

IHS does not publish a fixed fee for the Integral Leadership-Team Regulation Assessment. Engagement scope is driven by leadership-team size, travel requirements for in-person observation and debrief, decision-history review depth, and debrief format. Because the assessment is principal-delivered by Thomas G. Goddard, JD, PhD, CCEP, no productized rate card exists. This guide explains every cost driver, what the assessment produces, and the documented financial impact of leadership-team dysfunction — so you can build an informed business case. Based on 40+ years across U.S. healthcare regulation, policy, and organizational practice.

Why IHS Does Not Publish Fixed Pricing for Leadership-Team Assessments

No elite principal-delivered assessment publishes a rate card because scope varies in ways that directly determine the time and depth of fieldwork. Two engagements can produce the same three deliverables — the Leadership-Team Nervous-System Map, the Structural-Intervention Recommendations Document, and the Full-Team Debrief — and require materially different principal time depending on team size, travel, and decision-review scope.

The Integral Leadership-Team Regulation Assessment is not a survey instrument or a software-scored psychometric battery. It is a principal-conducted fieldwork engagement: 1:1 confidential interviews with each leader in scope, in-person or video observation of a live team meeting, structural review of the team's recent decision history, and a facilitated 90-minute full-team debrief. The principal's time is the product. Scope determines price.

IHS does not quote a price before understanding the engagement: the number of leaders, the travel requirements, the decision-review depth, and the urgency of the operating context. A post-close PE integration team in a 90-day window has different scope requirements than a health plan C-suite preparing for a CMS compliance review. Pricing follows scoping, not the reverse.

Factors That Affect Assessment Cost

Four variables determine the scope — and therefore the cost — of an Integral Leadership-Team Regulation Assessment engagement.

Leadership-Team Size

The number of senior leaders included in the confidential interview protocol is the primary fieldwork driver. Each 1:1 interview runs 1-2 hours and requires individual protocol design, synthesis, and pattern-integration work. A 5-person C-suite and a 12-person extended leadership group — C-suite plus direct-report VPs integral to board-level decision-making — require materially different interview volumes. Most engagements scope 5-10 leaders; larger groups are accommodated and priced accordingly.

Travel Requirements for In-Person Observation and Debrief

The Week 2 team-meeting observation is most valuable when conducted in person — the observation protocol tracks physiological co-regulation dynamics that are partially visible on video but fully visible in the room. Similarly, the full-team debrief in Week 3 is most effective as a live, in-person working session. Engagements requiring principal travel include travel costs in the scope. Video-delivery engagements do not. Both are available; the choice affects cost and observation depth.

Decision-History Review Depth

The structural decision-history review examines how the leadership team has made its most consequential recent decisions: what information was used, how dissent appeared or failed to appear, and what the gap was between the team's expressed rationale and the conditions the decision was actually made under. Reviewing three recent board-level decisions requires different research depth than a 12-month structural review spanning six to eight decisions. Depth is scoped per engagement based on what the CEO identifies as the most diagnostic decision sample.

Debrief Format

The canonical delivery event is a 90-minute full-team working session with the complete senior leadership group. When the full-team session is not yet appropriate — for example, in a pre-announcement M&A window — a principal-to-CEO debrief can substitute, with the full-team event scheduled as a follow-on. Format affects the principal's preparation and delivery time and is scoped accordingly.

Factors That Reduce Engagement Scope

  • Video delivery: Eliminates travel costs; reduces observation depth on co-regulation dynamics but remains substantive for most engagement objectives
  • Smaller leadership team: 4-6 person C-suites require fewer interviews and produce a faster synthesis cycle
  • Compressed decision history: Engagements where the CEO identifies 2-3 specific decisions as the diagnostic sample reduce review scope without sacrificing the map's intervention utility
  • CEO-only initial debrief: When the full-team working session is premature, a principal-to-CEO debrief can be the primary delivery event with full-team session phased to follow

What You Receive

Every engagement produces three deliverables regardless of scope.

  • Leadership-Team Nervous-System Map — a structured representation of the team's collective autonomic state, dyadic friction pattern inventory, decision-quality-under-load signature, emotional-toll distribution across the leadership group, and relational-coherence assessment. Formatted for the CEO and board, not for academic review. This is the diagnostic artifact the rest of the work builds from.
  • Structural-Intervention Recommendations Document — prioritized recommendations across team governance, meeting cadence and format, role-architecture adjustments, facilitation protocols, and leadership-development sequencing. Each recommendation names the pattern it addresses, the evidence base, the realistic time-to-effect, and the owner. Recommendations are structural, not individual coaching plans — because the team is the unit of analysis, not the individuals within it.
  • Full-Team Debrief — a 90-minute working session with the complete senior leadership group, facilitated by the principal. The debrief is the assessment's primary delivery event: the moment the team sees its own map together, surfaces what each member has been carrying in isolation, and makes collective decisions about what to change. Not a slide presentation — a structured conversation that walks the team through its own findings.

The Cost of NOT Engaging

The investment in the assessment must be weighed against the documented cost of leadership-team dysfunction. The financial impact is severe and well-researched.

M&A and Integration Failure

  • Healthcare M&A success rate: Only 14% of healthcare M&A deals reach successful integration and deliver projected value (Bain via VALUWIT)
  • Across industries: 70-90% of M&A deals fail to deliver projected value (Bain)
  • Cultural friction as primary driver: 65% of acquiring companies cite cultural issues as the primary factor hampering post-close operations (PwC)
  • PE consolidation scale: PE now represents over 90% of physician-practice M&A transactions (FOCUS Bankers). The leadership teams absorbing these integrations are the primary failure point — not deal structure.

Executive and Workforce Turnover

  • Hospital CEO turnover: 16-18% annually (ACHE), with each departure carrying replacement costs of 50-200% of annual salary
  • RN replacement cost: $37,700-$58,400 per departure (NSI National Health Care Retention Report, 2026) — driven substantially by the leadership climate the senior team creates downstream
  • Mid-level integration failure: Organizations where the senior leadership team is dysregulated produce dysregulation downstream; workforce attrition accelerates from the organizational climate the executive team creates, not only from front-line conditions

Physician Burnout and Organizational Cost

  • Annual cost to U.S. healthcare: Physician burnout costs the system more than $4.6 billion annually in turnover and reduced productivity (Han et al., Annals of Internal Medicine, 2019)
  • Organizational factors dominate: Approximately 70% of physician burnout variance is explained by organizational factors, not individual resilience (Trockel et al., JAMA Internal Medicine, 2018). The leadership team is the primary organizational factor at the institutional level.
  • Decision quality under load: Leadership teams operating from chronic sympathetic activation make structurally different decisions than regulated teams — and those decisions shape every downstream organizational outcome

PE-Specific Platform Risk

  • PE ownership penetration: PE-specific physician ownership has reached 6.5% nationally and exceeds 30% in gastroenterology, dermatology, and ophthalmology (GAO-25-107450). The leadership teams absorbing these integrations inherit the dysfunction that comes with founder-clinician grief, faction polarization, and trust-voltage drop between financial-sponsor and clinical leadership.
  • 82% of physicians employed: 82% of U.S. physicians are now employed by hospitals, PE platforms, insurers, or other corporate entities (Avalere/PAI). The employed-physician leadership team is the organizational unit where performance lives or dies.

How the Assessment Is Structured: 3-Week Phased Fieldwork

The assessment runs over three weeks. Each week produces intermediate findings that feed the next phase; the full-team debrief at the end of Week 3 is the canonical delivery event.

Week 1: Confidential Leader Interviews

The principal conducts a 1-2 hour structured, confidential interview with each member of the senior leadership team in scope. The interview protocol surfaces what individual leaders cannot say in the room together: their read on the team's collective state, the dyadic relationships they experience as most friction-generating, the decisions they regard as the team's most significant recent failures or near-misses, and the emotional weight they are carrying that is not visible to their colleagues. No individual-interview content is attributed to a named participant in any deliverable without explicit consent.

Week 2: Team-Meeting Observation and Decision-History Review

The principal observes one 90-minute leadership team meeting in its natural operating format — not a facilitated session designed for observation, but the team's actual working meeting. The observation protocol tracks who speaks in what sequence, which dyadic interactions generate visible regulation shifts in other team members, what subjects the team consistently routes around, and how the leader modulates the room's collective state. In parallel, the principal reviews the structural decision history of the last three to five board-level decisions the team made together.

Week 3: Integration and Delivery

The principal integrates interview synthesis, meeting-observation findings, and decision-history review into the Leadership-Team Nervous-System Map and the Structural-Intervention Recommendations Document. The full-team debrief is conducted as a 90-minute working session with the complete leadership group — a structured conversation that walks the team through its own map and aligns on the structural interventions the team leader will implement.

Budget Planning by Phase

While IHS does not publish fixed pricing, here is a practical framework for budgeting an Integral Leadership-Team Regulation Assessment engagement.

Pre-Engagement Scoping

  • No-obligation discovery session with IHS — assess whether the assessment is the right instrument for the leadership team's current situation
  • Scope definition: number of leaders in interview scope, travel or video delivery, decision-history depth, debrief format
  • Tailored proposal with engagement structure and fees — produced within 5 business days of the discovery session
  • Engagement letter execution before fieldwork begins — 2-3 weeks from proposal to kickoff, calibrated to the principal's calendar

Fieldwork Phase (Weeks 1-2)

  • Principal time: 1:1 confidential interviews (1-2 hours per leader in scope)
  • Principal time: team-meeting observation (90 minutes in-person or by video)
  • Principal time: structural decision-history review (depth per scope agreement)
  • Travel costs: included in proposal when in-person delivery is scoped
  • Internal coordination: leadership team scheduling for the Week 2 observation (the primary calendar constraint)

Integration and Delivery Phase (Week 3)

  • Principal time: map integration, recommendations document development
  • Full-team debrief: 90-minute working session, in-person or by video
  • Deliverable package: Leadership-Team Nervous-System Map + Structural-Intervention Recommendations Document

Optional Follow-On

  • At the leadership team's election, a bespoke follow-on engagement may be scoped to implement the structural-intervention recommendations — for example, a leadership-team cohort, a governance redesign, or a facilitated trust-repair process
  • The assessment stands on its own deliverables; a follow-on engagement is not a default component and is scoped separately

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the typical budget range for a leadership-team assessment?

IHS does not publish a fixed fee schedule. The assessment is principal-delivered by Thomas G. Goddard, JD, PhD, CCEP — not a consulting team, not a scaled methodology. Scope is set per engagement based on leadership-team size, travel requirements, and decision-history depth. Contact IHS for a tailored proposal. The reference point is not a benchmark fee; it is the documented cost of leadership-team dysfunction in the M&A, burnout, and executive-turnover literature above.

How does this compare in cost to executive coaching or 360-degree feedback?

Executive coaching typically runs at a per-session or monthly retainer rate for one individual. A 360-degree feedback process generates individual-leader development data. Neither instrument addresses the team as the unit of analysis, identifies dyadic friction patterns at the group level, or produces structural-intervention recommendations the team leader can implement to change the team's operating conditions. The assessment occupies a measurement space those instruments do not reach — the comparison is not directly analogous.

Can the investment be phased across two fiscal quarters?

Yes. Because the assessment runs over three weeks, the engagement can be structured to span two budget periods. IHS accommodates milestone-based billing aligned to the three-week phase structure: fieldwork and integration in one period, delivery and follow-on scoping in the next. This is addressed in the engagement letter before fieldwork begins.

What organizations are the right fit for this investment?

The assessment is calibrated to healthcare organizations where the quality of senior leadership-team decision-making is a binding constraint on organizational performance. Primary buyers are CEOs whose leadership teams are experiencing decision latency, faction polarization, post-M&A integration friction, regulatory-deadline accumulation, or post-incident recovery. Secondary buyers are CHROs and boards conducting leadership-effectiveness reviews. Organizations whose leadership teams function well under normal conditions and face no structural load — rare in 2026 healthcare — are not the target buyer.

Does the assessment lead to a follow-on engagement?

It may, at the leadership team's election. The assessment produces a structural-intervention recommendations document. If the leadership team chooses to implement those recommendations through a bespoke follow-on engagement — a leadership-team cohort, a governance redesign, or a facilitated trust-repair process — IHS scopes that work separately. The assessment is not a sales gate; it stands on its own deliverables.

How does the assessment handle confidential interview content?

Individual interview content is confidential to IHS and is reported at the pattern level — dyadic friction patterns, collective state indicators, decision-history themes — not attributed to named individuals. Confidentiality terms are documented in the engagement letter before fieldwork begins. The full-team debrief is structured to surface the team's collective map in a way that allows the group to recognize patterns without identifying the source of specific findings.

Can a PE-portfolio company use this assessment in the 0-90 day post-close window?

Yes. The 0-90 day post-close window is among the most consequential and cost-effective windows for the assessment. Mapping the leadership team's starting state — its dyadic friction patterns, collective autonomic regulation baseline, and decision-quality-under-load signature — before integration decisions are made from dysregulated ground is the most consequential use of the instrument. Pre-close engagement requires appropriate NDA and information-access structure, which IHS accommodates as part of the engagement letter.

Are the assessment fees tax-deductible?

Consulting engagement fees for organizational diagnostics are typically deductible as ordinary business expenses. Consult your tax advisor for guidance specific to your organization's structure and jurisdiction.

Related Resources

Ready to Scope an Engagement?

Schedule a no-obligation discovery session with IHS. We will assess how your leadership team is operating under current conditions, discuss whether the Integral Leadership-Team Regulation Assessment is the right instrument, and provide a scoped proposal with engagement structure and fees within 5 business days.

Schedule a Free Discovery Session