We like to think we’re good judges of character and that we can size someone up in an interview and know if they’ll be the right fit. But psychology tells us our instincts aren’t always as sharp as we believe.
When the stakes are high, which they often are in hiring, relying purely on gut feel can result in missed potential, poor fit, and inconsistent decisions. That’s where structured tools like psychometric assessments come in. Done well, they offer a more objective and consistent way to understand how someone is likely to perform in a role — beyond just what we see on the CV or in an interview.
The problem with gut feel
Gut instinct has a strong appeal. It feels quick, confident, and personal. But it can also be misleading. Decades of research show that humans are not especially good at making complex decisions based on instinct alone.
Cognitive biases play a significant role in hiring errors. Affinity bias draws us to people who share our background, values, or communication style, often at the expense of diversity and fresh thinking. Confirmation bias leads us to seek out information that supports our initial impressions and ignore red flags. The halo effect lets a single positive trait (such as appearance or confidence) sway our overall judgement.
Unstructured interviews, where conversation flows more like a chat than a consistent evaluation, are particularly vulnerable to these effects. As a result, hiring decisions can end up being more about likeability or familiarity than capability or potential. According to a meta-analysis by Schmidt and Hunter (1998, updated 2016), unstructured interviews are among the least predictive tools for job performance.
What structured assessment adds
Structured hiring processes, including psychometric assessments, are designed to reduce bias and improve decision quality. The same research by Schmidt and Hunter found that the combination of cognitive ability testing and structured interviews provides the strongest prediction of job performance across roles and industries.
Psychometric assessments are not about “passing” or “failing.” When chosen well, they offer insight into how someone prefers to think, work, solve problems, and relate to others. For example:
- Cognitive ability tests measure a person’s capacity to reason, learn, and solve unfamiliar problems — skills that are often essential in complex or changing roles.
- Personality assessments help identify behavioural tendencies, such as whether someone is likely to be more methodical or spontaneous, reserved or outgoing, focused on detail or big picture.
These assessments bring structure and consistency to the hiring process. They help organisations look beyond the CV and the interview performance, and focus on what really matters for the role.
Recent updates in the research confirm this. Sackett et al. (2023) revisited the validity of various selection methods and found that job-specific tools such as structured interviews and work sample tests still outperform less structured approaches. Their findings reinforce the value of combining multiple evidence-based methods when assessing candidates.
To truly make the most of any assessment tool, the process must begin with a rigorous job analysis. Without clearly identifying the key requirements, behaviours, and capabilities needed for success in a specific role, it’s difficult to choose the right assessment methods or interpret the results meaningfully. A thorough job analysis ensures alignment between the role, the person specification, and the tools used, providing a solid foundation for fair and effective decision making.
Getting the balance right
This is not to say that human judgement has no place in hiring. Interviews, reference checks, and real-world work samples still play a critical role. But when those are combined with objective, validated assessments, decisions become more robust.
Used thoughtfully, psychometric testing also contributes to a fairer candidate experience. Everyone is evaluated against the same criteria, and hidden potential has a better chance of being recognised. It can also prompt better conversations about fit, development needs, and long-term success in the role.
As an organisational psychologist, I often work with clients who want to reduce hiring risk without losing the human side of recruitment. The goal isn’t to replace intuition entirely, but to sense-check it — to make sure our decisions are backed by more than just a feeling.
A more confident way forward
In a job market flooded with applicants, making the right hiring decisions matters more than ever. With so many candidates to consider, structured, evidence-based tools like psychometric assessments help organisations identify the best fit more accurately and fairly.
Trusting your gut might feel natural, but combining solid data with other methods means you get both confidence and reliable evidence.
References
- CIPD (2015). A head for hiring: The behavioural science of recruitment and selection. Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development.
- Harvard Business Review (2019). Why we keep hiring the wrong people.
- Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. Penguin.
- McKinsey & Company (2023). Why hiring is hard — and what to do about it.
- Sackett, P. R., Putka, D. J., & McCloy, R. A. (2023). Psychometric meta-analyses in personnel selection. Journal of Applied Psychology.
- Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998, 2016). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology. Psychological Bulletin.