Choosing the Right Candidate: Seeing Potential More Clearly
6 min read
In hiring processes, how candidates express themselves often takes up a significant part of the evaluation. Candidates who focus on presenting themselves well, choosing the right words, and telling a compelling story are often quite successful.
However, within this narrative, actual capability can sometimes remain in the background. Because in real work, value is created not only by what is said, but by how that knowledge is applied.
Interviews are, by nature, narrative-driven. Candidates are asked questions, they share past experiences, and decisions are often made based on these stories. In some cases, this structure highlights communication skills more than actual performance.
Candidates who speak more fluently or present themselves confidently may leave a stronger impression. Yet these qualities do not always translate directly into job performance. As a result, more thoughtful, quieter candidates, who may be strong problem-solvers, can be overlooked.
This leads to a critical risk; selecting the best storyteller instead of the most suitable candidate.
Research supports this. Unstructured interviews, where questions are asked informally, have relatively low predictive validity for job performance, typically ranging between 0.15 and 0.38 . In other words, hiring decisions based solely on conversation are not far from chance. In addition, around 60% of interviewers form their opinions within the first 15 minutes, which increases the influence of biases such as the halo effect and similarity bias.
Intuition will always have a place in hiring. It is a natural outcome of experience. However, in today’s complex and fast-changing work environment, intuition alone is not always sufficient.
This has led to a growing interest in more structured and observable methods.
According to SHRM’s 2023 data, 76% of companies with more than 100 employees use assessment tools in external hiring. These processes create space to observe not just what candidates say, but how they think and behave.
When candidates are given scenarios close to real work situations, it becomes easier to understand how they approach problems, deal with uncertainty, and apply their knowledge.
Different hiring methods vary significantly in their ability to predict job performance:
Work sample tests: 0.54
Cognitive ability tests: 0.51
Structured interviews: 0.40 – 0.51
Personality / integrity tests: 0.41
Unstructured interviews: 0.15 – 0.38
Years of experience: 0.18
Education level: 0.10
(Source: Schmidt & Hunter, 1998; Sackett et al., 2022 )
Combining methods increases accuracy. For example, using cognitive ability tests together with structured interviews raises predictive validity to 0.63, and adding personality measures increases it further.
In skill assessments, assumptions are replaced by observable performance. There is a clear difference between saying “I know this” and actually applying that knowledge to solve a problem.
A striking finding from a 2024 study by Harvard Business School and the Burning Glass Institute shows that while 85% of companies claim to practice skills-based hiring, only 0.14% of job postings without degree requirements truly reflect this approach . This gap highlights that good intentions alone are not enough; the process needs to be supported by the right tools.
Operational data shows similar patterns. According to Toggl Hire’s 2025 report, companies using skills-based hiring reduce time-to-hire by up to 86% and report 93% confidence in their hiring decisions . Retention rates are also higher.
The logic is simple. Saying “I am advanced in Excel” measures confidence. Asking someone to analyze a dataset in 30 minutes measures capability. And capability is what drives performance.
Structured assessment methods also contribute to a more balanced and transparent hiring process. They help reduce bias and create a more equal evaluation environment for candidates.
When candidates are assessed using different questions and criteria, trust in the fairness of the process weakens. Standardized methods, on the other hand, make comparisons more consistent and decisions easier to explain both internally and externally.
This is especially important in rejection scenarios. Feedback based on clear criteria and observable performance provides closure and supports candidate development. Employer brand is shaped not only by those who are hired, but also by how rejected candidates feel.
The cost of a bad hire is also significant. According to the U.S. Department of Labor, it can cost at least 30% of the employee’s first-year salary, and for senior roles, this can exceed 200% .
Assessment methods are diverse and evolving: structured interviews, situational judgment tests, work samples, case studies, role-play simulations, personality inventories, cognitive ability tests, and gamified assessments.
Not every method fits every role. However, even small, practical steps can make a meaningful difference. Regardless of the method used, three principles remain consistent:
What you measure should reflect real work
All candidates should be evaluated under the same conditions
Decisions should rely on multiple data points, not a single source
Hiring is changing. More organizations are moving beyond narratives and focusing on observable performance.
Choosing the right candidate is not always about who speaks the most, but about who demonstrates real capability.
This does not mean replacing intuition, but strengthening it with structure, data, and observable evidence.
Because the best candidate is not always the most vocal one. But when given the right space to demonstrate their abilities, their potential becomes visible.
[1] Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124(2), 262–274.
[2] Sackett, P. R., Zhang, C., Berry, C. M., & Lievens, F. (2022). Revisiting meta-analytic estimates of validity in personnel selection: Updating and extension. Journal of Applied Psychology, 107(11), 2040–2073.
[3] Frieder, R. E., Van Iddekinge, C. H., & Raymark, P. H. (2016). How quickly do interviewers reach decisions? An examination of interviewers' decision-making time across applicants. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 89(2), 223–248.
[4] Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM). (2023). Talent Assessment Practices Survey.
[5] Fuller, J., & Sigelman, M. (2024). Skills-Based Hiring: The Long Road from Pronouncements to Practice. Harvard Business School & The Burning Glass Institute.
[6] Toggl Hire. (2025). Skills Hiring Report.
[7] U.S. Department of Labor. (n.d.). The Cost of a Bad Hire.
