Most Behavioral Hiring Assessments Miss The Mark. Here's What Actually Works...

Harry Lakin
Jul 3
2 min read

If you've ever hired someone who interviewed like a all-star… and then fizzled out in the role - you’re not alone.

Many companies rely on behavioral hiring assessments to avoid those misfires. But here’s the uncomfortable truth:

Most assessments on the market aren’t actually designed to predict success on the job.

They’re designed to be engaging. Easy to understand. Sometimes even entertaining. But predictive? Norm-referenced? Validated for selection use? That’s another story.

🎯 The Real Goal of Behavioral Hiring Assessments

A good behavioral assessment shouldn’t just describe someone’s personality. It should answer a more critical question:

👉 How well does this person’s natural behavior align with what the job actually demands?

The gold standard for this kind of assessment:

Benchmarks the behavioral traits of top performers in a given role
Compares each candidate to that benchmark using normative data
Predicts how someone will behave - not just how they prefer to behave
Arms managers with tools to hire better, coach smarter, and reduce regrettable churn

Unfortunately, that’s not what many of the most well-known assessments are built to do.

⚠️ The Ipsative Problem (And Why It Matters to behavioral assessments)

A huge portion of the behavioral assessments used today are ipsative in format. That means they force users to rank or choose between equally appealing options (e.g., “I am more likely to be creative OR consistent”).

These include:

DISC (and its many variants)
MBTI (Myers-Briggs Type Indicator)
Gallup StrengthsFinder
Enneagram (though not typically used in business, it’s still mentioned)
Most “color code” assessments

While these tools may offer insight into personal style or communication preferences, they aren’t designed to compare people against job requirements or against each other. That makes them problematic - if not dangerous - when used for hiring or role placement.

❗ Normative vs. Ipsative: What’s the Difference?

Ipsative tests compare a person only to themselves. Normative tests compare a person to a validated population or benchmark.

Here’s why that matters:

Feature	Ipsative Assessments	Normative Assessments
Can compare candidates?	❌ No	✅ Yes
Benchmarks job behaviors?	❌ Rarely	✅ Yes
Validated for selection?	❌ Not typically	✅ Often
Predicts job success?	❌ Not reliably	✅ When validated properly

So if you're using assessments to inform high-stakes hiring decisions, this difference is not academic. It’s foundational.

🧠 What to Look For Instead

If you're serious about aligning people with the right roles - and reducing costly hiring mistakes - look for a tool that is:

✅ Normative (NOT ipsative)
✅ Validated for workplace decisions
✅ Able to create job benchmarks for specific roles
✅ Built for both selection and development
✅ Transparent about its scientific methodology

You’re not just hiring people; you’re building teams, cultures, and reputations. It pays to use an assessment that’s built for that responsibility.

One Final Thought

The next time someone tells you they’re using a “behavioral assessment,” ask them this:

“Is it ipsative or normative?”

If they don’t know - or if it’s one of the usual suspects listed above - they might be making hiring decisions with tools better suited for team-building retreats than strategic workforce planning.

Hiring is too important to leave to guesswork - or to systems that weren’t built for the job.