The Best Ways to Predict Job Success

Claire Monroe

Hey everyone, welcome back to The Science of Leading. I’m Claire Monroe—and I’m here with my co-host and resident organizational wizard, Edwin Carrington.Today we’re digging into a question that honestly just… never dies.Like—what actually works when you’re hiring?Because I’ve definitely thought I knew the answer before—and, uh, turns out… I didn’t.

Edwin Carrington

You’re not alone, Claire. It’s one of those questions that sparks a lot of strong opinions—most of them built on gut feel, not data.And that’s where the trouble usually starts.

Claire Monroe

Yeah. I mean, early in my career, I followed the “default script.”Stacks of resumes, a few glowing reference calls, and then—ta-da—the infamous unstructured interview.And if someone made eye contact and had a firm handshake? I was sold.Then fast-forward a few months... and I’d be like, “Wait—how is this person totally lost in the role?”The halo effect is brutal.

Edwin Carrington

It is. But it’s also still the norm.Most companies default to resumes, references, and open-ended interviews—because they feel comfortable. Familiar.But when you dig into the research… they just don’t hold up.Unstructured interviews? Only predict performance about 14 percent of the time.Reference checks—closer to 7.And resumes? A shocking number—up to 75 percent—have misleading or padded info.But we keep using them because they feel like we’re making smart decisions. Even when we’re not.

Claire Monroe

And there’s that weird assumption, right?Like—if someone writes a slick resume or totally crushes the interview... they must be great at the actual job.But I’ve seen people nail every step of the hiring process—then completely stall out once they’re hired.

Edwin Carrington

Exactly. What we’re really measuring is presentation, not performance.And that opens the door to bias. You end up hiring people who look the part—on paper or in person—but not necessarily those who can do the part.It filters out anyone who doesn’t fit the expected mold… even if they’d excel with the right opportunity.

Claire Monroe

So you’re not just gambling on the wrong signals—you’re shutting out some amazing people in the process.That’s a lose-lose situation.

Edwin Carrington

It is. It feels efficient—but the cost shows up later.Turnover, misalignment, underperformance...It all adds up.That’s why the comfort of traditional hiring can be so misleading.It’s fast upfront—but expensive in the long run.

Claire Monroe

Alright—let’s shift gears. Because this is getting a little bleak.What does work? I know there’s a whole body of research around better predictors.

Edwin Carrington

There is—and the contrast is pretty dramatic.Take work sample tests—where you have candidates actually do a task from the job. That can predict performance with up to 85 percent accuracy.Structured interviews—where questions are consistent and responses are rated against a rubric? Around 57 percent.And cognitive or skills assessments? You’re looking at about 65 percent.It’s not even close.

Claire Monroe

Okay but—when you say “work sample,” are we talking like, a giant test?Because I think some people hear that and imagine… 200 questions and a scantron.

Edwin Carrington

Ha—no, not at all.A good work sample is just a mini version of the job.Say you’re hiring a marketing analyst—you might give them a data set and ask for a short insights summary.If it’s a frontline support role, maybe it’s a mock customer scenario.I worked with a manufacturing company that switched to hands-on tests for machine operators—simple, role-specific tasks. Within a year, their turnover dropped by 20 percent.

Claire Monroe

Whoa—20 percent? That’s huge.And structured interviews—those are the ones where it’s not just “so tell me about yourself,” right? It’s more like, “Walk me through a time you handled XYZ.”

Edwin Carrington

Exactly.It’s about consistency—everyone gets the same questions, and you judge answers against the same standard.It reduces bias, improves fairness, and gives you something defensible if decisions are ever challenged.And cognitive assessments? They’re especially useful when you’re hiring for potential—not just experience. They help you see how someone thinks and learns.

Claire Monroe

Okay, okay—but we have to talk about AI.Last episode we went deep on automation—so I’m curious… is AI screening actually helpful? Or is it just another barrier between candidates and humans?

Edwin Carrington

It can help—if it’s done right.AI screening can speed up shortlisting by 30 percent, and it can reduce certain types of bias—especially when it focuses on skills and behaviors instead of keywords or gut feel.But here's the risk: if your AI is trained on past hiring data full of bias… it just automates that bias faster.So you have to monitor it. Audit it.AI should assist—not replace—human judgment.

Claire Monroe

So no magic wand.Just a really fast assistant who still needs oversight.

Edwin Carrington

Exactly.Used well, it saves time and adds structure.But the real gains come when you pair AI with solid assessments and structured interviews.That’s when the whole system starts to work together.

Claire Monroe

Okay—let’s say someone’s listening right now and they’re like, “Yep. That’s me. Time to rethink how we hire.”Where do they even start?

Edwin Carrington

Start with what’s most predictive.Build in assessments—work samples, role-relevant cognitive tools, even behavioral profiling.Then layer in structured interviews with clear scoring guides.Use automation to reduce admin burden, but keep humans in the loop.And finally, track your metrics: time to hire, retention, role fit. That’s your learning loop.

Claire Monroe

I love that idea of a loop.But be honest—how do you get an old-school hiring manager to even try this?Like, someone who swears they can “spot talent” in five minutes?

Edwin Carrington

You don’t start by arguing—you start by testing.Run a pilot with one team. Show them the outcomes.Better retention, smoother onboarding, fewer regrets.When people see results—real ones—they become your biggest advocates.Science beats opinion when it’s tied to ROI.

Claire Monroe

That’s the move.Don’t fight the whole system. Just prove it works—one step at a time.So if you’re listening and this all feels… big?Don’t worry about a full overhaul.Pick one place to start. Maybe it’s a work sample. Maybe it’s just standardizing your next round of interview questions.Track what happens. Learn from it.And build from there.

Edwin Carrington

Exactly.You don’t have to get it perfect—you just have to get it going.Over time, your hiring becomes sharper, fairer, and a lot less stressful for everyone involved.

Claire Monroe

And hey—if you’re wondering how to actually do this stuff?You can try OAD’s behavioral assessments for free at o-a-d-dot-a-i.They’re simple, fast, and give you a better sense of fit before someone even walks in the door.Which, like—why wouldn’t you want that?

Edwin Carrington

Couldn’t agree more.This is how you build teams that thrive—not just survive.And you don’t have to guess your way there.

Claire Monroe

Alright, that’s a wrap on this episode.Edwin, thanks as always for keeping us grounded in the science.And to all our listeners—stick with us. We’ve got more smart people stuff coming.Edwin...

Edwin Carrington

Always a pleasure, Claire.And to our listeners—take care. Keep leading with intention. And with data.We’ll see you next time.