Can a single test capture the complexities of human potential? It’s time to rethink how we measure talent for real-world success.
Bridging Science and Strategy in Talent Selection
Recruitment is often torn between two seemingly irreconcilable worlds: the scientific idealism of cognitive testing and the practical realities of human resource management. On one hand, scientists present compelling data that general intelligence, or “G,” stands as the most reliable predictor of job performance across roles and contexts [1], [2]. On the other, HR-practitioners, entrenched in the complex realities of hiring, often find such claims simplistic, unable to account for the multifaceted nature of job success [3], [4]. While general intelligence does indeed transfer across contexts [2], [5]–[7], helping bright minds succeed in various domains, the broader truth is far more nuanced. Intelligence, for all its predictive power, explains far less of the variation in job performance than one might hope [8].
Too some, it may seem comforting and convenient to rely on a single test to predict future success, but in practice, the one-test-fits-all approach mediates only a fraction of the risks involved in making hiring decisions. After all, what is the point of a measure that offers only vague insights into potential when what we really need is a precise understanding of how a candidate will thrive within the specific demands of our organizational environment?
One-Size-Doesn’t-Fit-All: Rethinking Standardized Testing
Test companies, aligned with the scientific consensus, offer tools that –allegedly– have undergone rigorous validation processes. These standardized assessments, somewhat supported by empirical research, are often marketed as comprehensive solutions for data-driven recruitment. Yet, there is an inherent overreach in these claims. Test producers too often push the idea that a single measure of general intelligence is sufficient for every hiring decision, perpetuating the illusion that this general validity applies universally.
The crux of the problem lies here: while a test may be valid in a particular context, assuming its conclusions hold true across all environments is both misleading and dangerous. The “one-size-fits-all” approach to cognitive testing falls short because it fails to capture the complexities of real-world performance across varied roles and settings. This reliance on general intelligence not only oversimplifies the hiring process but also introduces unnecessary risk—risk that could easily be mitigated by a more refined approach.
Today’s advances in cognitive neuroscience make this overreliance even more puzzling. We now have the tools to probe deeper into human cognition and explore a wide array of specific abilities [9]—working memory, attention control, problem-solving—each offering insights far more relevant to the unique demands of individual roles [10]. It’s not that standardized tests are without merit, but relying on a singular, overarching measure of general intelligence seems increasingly crude when compared to the richness of what we now know about the brain.
The solution lies in recalibrating our focus. We could shift from measuring broad intelligence to investigating narrower cognitive abilities that better predict success in specific contexts. The relevance of each cognitive ability can differ significantly depending on the task.
From Generic to Genious: Targeted Insights for Tomorrow’s Talent
The challenge, then, is not simply one of measurement but of context. Different roles, industries, and organizational cultures demand different cognitive strengths. The question is no longer just whether someone is “intelligent” in a general sense, but which cognitive abilities are most crucial for success in a particular environment. By adopting a more refined, context-specific approach, businesses can reduce the risks of erroneous recruitments and ensure a tighter alignment between cognitive skills and the specific demands of the job. This requires moving beyond the notion that one test can predict all outcomes, toward a more sophisticated understanding of human potential, when and where she is – hopefully – performing.
In doing so, we not only dispel the illusion of general validity but also shift toward a smarter, more context-driven approach to recruitment. This approach acknowledges not only the complexity of cognitive abilities but, more importantly, the specific demands of each organization. Rather than fixating on the tests themselves or their supposed general applicability, the key lies in understanding the unique predictors of success within each company’s particular environment. By studying what truly drives performance in a given role businesses can adopt a more insightful, tailored method of hiring. This focus on what really matters in specific contexts allows companies to make more informed, data-driven decisions, reducing uncertainty and significantly increasing the likelihood that selected candidates will thrive and contribute meaningfully to the organization.
Alexander Klaréus
Head of Insight
References
[1] J. E. Hunter, “Cognitive ability, cognitive aptitudes, job knowledge, and job performance,” J. Vocat. Behav., vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 340–362, Dec. 1986, doi: 10.1016/0001-8791(86)90013-8.
[2] F. L. Schmidt, “The role of general cognitive ability and job performance: why there cannot be a debate,” HHUP, vol. 15, no. 1–2, pp. 187–210, Apr. 2002, doi: 10.1080/08959285.2002.9668091.
[3] C. Gill, “Don’t know, don’t care: An exploration of evidence based knowledge and practice in human resource management,” Human Resource Management Review, Jun. 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.hrmr.2017.06.001.
[4] S. D. Risavy, C. Robie, P. A. Fisher, J. Komar, and A. Perossa, “Selection tool use in Canadian tech companies: Assessing and explaining the research–practice gap.,” Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science / Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement, vol. 53, no. 4, pp. 445–455, Oct. 2021, doi: 10.1037/cbs0000263.
[5] F. L. Schmidt and J. E. Hunter, “The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings.,” Psychol. Bull., vol. 124, no. 2, pp. 262–274, 1998, doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.124.2.262.
[6] J. E. Hunter, “Test validation for 12, 000 jobs: An application of synthetic validity and validity generalization to the GATB,” US Employment Service, US Department of Labor, 1983, 1983.
[7] F. L. Schmidt and J. Hunter, “General mental ability in the world of work: occupational attainment and job performance.,” J. Pers. Soc. Psychol., vol. 86, no. 1, pp. 162–173, Jan. 2004, doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.86.1.162.
[8] P. R. Sackett, S. Demeke, I. M. Bazian, A. M. Griebie, R. Priest, and N. R. Kuncel, “A contemporary look at the relationship between general cognitive ability and job performance.,” J. Appl. Psychol., vol. 109, no. 5, pp. 687–713, May 2024, doi: 10.1037/apl0001159.
[9] A. Diamond, “Executive functions.,” Annu. Rev. Psychol., vol. 64, pp. 135–168, 2013, doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143750.
[10] C. D. Nye, J. Ma, and S. Wee, “Cognitive Ability and Job Performance: Meta-analytic Evidence for the Validity of Narrow Cognitive Abilities,” J. Bus. Psychol., vol. 37, no. 6, pp. 1119–1139, Dec. 2022, doi: 10.1007/s10869-022-09796-1.
