The writer Phillip K. Dick said “Human beings are essentially unstable, changing things. The mind is not a perfect computer. Its programming is not permanent. Its memory banks are not permanent. It forgets, it erases, it overlays, and it plays tricks on itself. It lies to itself. It sees what it wants to see and doesn’t see what it doesn’t want to see. It is easily confused.”
But Dick missed the key point. If humans are all like that – and we are – then as a species we are all the same in our fallibility and foibles, and thus ironically consistent.
1: People are Highly Predictable.
On the inside we tend to think of ourselves as complex beings with rich motivations, yet we have no trouble discerning repeating patterns in other people’s behavior. Your partner or spouse is very talkative and sociable; your cousin is very introverted and shy. Your co-worker is thoughtful and kind; your boss is selfish and claims credit for your work.
Research agrees. People who rush tasks and don’t follow plans at work do the same thing at home. People who are blunt to strangers are blunt with loved ones too. Large scale studies show the personality traits we display as infants are quite effective predictors of our career achievements, relationship success, and even our mortality decades later. Personality traits predict workplace engagement, performance, relationships outcomes and even team performance.
2. Probability is Better Than Judgement.
If that sounds deterministic, then consider that differences in human potential remain even after we take important factors like education, upbringing, and opportunities into account. Two people who grow up in the same neighborhood, go to the same schools, and have similar opportunities, yet end up with very different life courses. The differences in their personalities – how they typically act, react, and think – contribute greatly to these diverse outcomes.
The most common ways to evaluate potential when hiring are intuitive and unscientific: the interview. And all interviews end in the same place: a feeling that “she will be a better fit”. All interviews begin in the same place too – a dance between the candidate presenting themselves as best they can, and the interviewer making judgements from a biased sample of behavior.
The evidence is in fact that interviewers are highly susceptible to using unconscious biases like similarity impressions and the halo effect (“wow, an Oxford graduate!”) to make decisions. And those who believe they are expert judges perform no better than chance.
Because modern & scientific personality tools look at millions and millions of people who share similar personality traits (ambition, sensitivity, curiosity etc) personality testing improves hiring by quantifying the probability of behaviors based on measurable trait patterns. By comparing candidates’ probabilities for success-related behaviors, organizations can make informed, data-rational choices.
3. Potential is better than past performance.
Every interview relies on the belief that past achievements will predict future performance. There are three things wrong with this idea, entrenched as it is:
- Obsolescence: Rapid technological advancements render once-crucial skills outdated, making past accomplishments less relevant to future success.
- Role mismatch: Past performance in one role doesn’t guarantee success in another, especially when transitioning to positions requiring different skill sets.
- Limited talent pool: This approach overlooks promising candidates without extensive track records, such as recent graduates or career-changers, potentially perpetuating biases and hindering diversity.
Potential, instead requires only three essential indicators which are better measured by good personality tools: ability, social skills, and drive. In other words, can they do the job, play nice with others, and are prepared to work hard?
The business world remains stubbornly, surprisingly reliant on gut instinct when it comes to hiring which is akin to a hedge fund manager making investment calls based on horoscopes rather than market analytics.
Just as actuaries use statistical models to predict insurance risks and epidemiologists use data and evidence to forecast disease, human resource professionals should leverage scientifically validated tools to evaluate potential hires.
The alternative—a workplace where subjective judgments and unconscious biases dictate talent acquisition—is inefficient, unfair and bad for business