Rethinking Interviews: What Really Predicts Job Success?
When it comes to hiring, many businesses continue to rely heavily on interviews, especially informal ones, to assess whether a candidate will succeed. But research shows that interview performance alone is a moderate predictor of job success, and a candidate’s agreeableness, often mistaken for a sign of potential, is not the full picture.
First, let’s examine what the term agreeableness is in terms of an interview and how this can influence the hiring team’s ability to evaluate the candidate’s job skills. In psychological terms, agreeableness is one of the Big Five personality traits and reflects qualities like cooperativeness, kindness, trust, modesty, and a desire to avoid conflict. In interviews, agreeable candidates often come across as:
Warm and friendly
Respectful and deferential
Eager to connect and please
Optimistic and collaborative
Candidates can intentionally or unconsciously display agreeableness by:
Smiling frequently and maintaining eye contact
Agreeing with interviewers’ comments and appearing non-confrontational
Using inclusive and enthusiastic language
Expressing a strong desire to “be part of the team”
While this often leads to positive impressions, it may overshadow important deficits in skills, critical thinking, or reliability. While these traits can be valuable in many team-oriented roles, they do not necessarily reflect a candidate’s ability to perform the job or drive results under pressure. Interviews, especially unstructured ones, are vulnerable to cognitive biases that skew evaluations. Two of the most common are:
Halo Effect: A positive impression in one area (e.g., likability or appearance) “glows” into unrelated areas (e.g., perceived competence or work ethic).
Horn Effect: A negative trait (e.g., appearing nervous) unfairly drags down perception in other areas (e.g., leadership potential).
When a candidate is highly agreeable, the halo effect often kicks in—interviewers assume they are also organized, intelligent, motivated, and trustworthy, even without clear evidence.
Agreeableness vs. Conscientiousness: A Critical Distinction
Conscientiousness—the most consistently validated predictor of job success—refers to traits such as:
Reliability and dependability
Strong sense of duty
Goal orientation
Organizational skills
Attention to detail
In interviews, a conscientious candidate may:
Provide structured, specific answers with examples
Demonstrate preparation and clarity about responsibilities
Show accountability in discussing past work
Exhibit long-term planning and commitment to improvement
By contrast, an agreeable candidate may:
Be socially smooth but vague
Over-emphasize enthusiasm without detail
Avoid discussing challenges or failures
Prioritize making a good impression over being precise
What the Research Says
Unstructured interviews—casual, free-form conversations—have low predictive validity, with a correlation of around 0.20 with actual job performance (Schmidt & Hunter, 1998). That’s only slightly better than chance.
By contrast, structured interviews, where every candidate is asked the same set of competency-based questions and rated using consistent rubrics, fare much better. These offer a validity range of 0.44 to 0.63 (TestGorilla, 2023; Wikipedia, 2024), making them far more reliable.
“First impressions often have little correlation with long-term success on the job” (Wired, 2020).
Role of Personality Traits
Conscientiousness—a trait associated with diligence, reliability, and goal orientation—has been found to be the strongest Big Five personality predictor of job success, with correlations between 0.30 and 0.50 (Wilmot & Ones, 2019).
While agreeableness may contribute to Organizational Citizenship Behaviors (OCB) like helping colleagues, it is not a strong predictor of performance in most roles (Wikipedia, 2024). Traits like openness and extraversion may matter more depending on the job context.
Predictive Validity: Methods Compared
(Source: Schmidt & Hunter, 1998; Schmidt, 2016)
Best Practice: Combine Methods
The most effective hiring processes combine structured interviews, work sample tests, cognitive ability tests, and personality assessments. When thoughtfully integrated, these tools provide a composite predictive validity of 0.65–0.70—a dramatic improvement over any single method.
For example:
Structured Interview (0.44) + Cognitive Test (0.51)
= Composite Validity ~0.65–0.70 (assuming methods are uncorrelated)
At Allegiant Professional Resources, we help companies shift from intuition-based hiring to evidence-based talent acquisition strategies that deliver real results.
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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.124.2.262
Schmidt, F. L. (2016). The Validity and Utility of Selection Methods in Personnel Psychology: Practical and Theoretical Implications of 100 Years of Research Findings. University of Iowa.
Wilmot, M. P., & Ones, D. S. (2019). Occupational characteristics moderate personality–job performance relationships: A meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 104(3), 432–459.
Wikipedia contributors. (2024). Personnel selection. Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personnel_selection
TestGorilla. (2023). Why structured interviews outperform unstructured ones. https://www.testgorilla.com/blog/structured-vs-unstructured-interviews
Wired. (2020). Forget job interviews: Why first impressions count for nothing. https://www.wired.com/story/forget-job-interviews-first-impressions-meaningless
Are you ready for the new GPSR regulations in the UK?
The General Product Safety Regulation (GPSR) is a legislative framework established by the European Union to ensure that consumer products within the EU market are safe for use. It replaces the previous General Product Safety Directive (GPSD) of 2001, aiming to modernize product safety rules to address advancements in technology and changes in consumer behavior, such as the rise of online shopping. farrer.co.uk
Key Drivers for the New Regulation
Several factors prompted the development of the new GPSR:
Technological Advancements: The emergence of new technologies, including smart devices and the Internet of Things (IoT), introduced complexities in product safety that the older directive did not adequately address. farrer.co.uk
E-commerce Growth: The significant increase in online shopping created challenges in monitoring and ensuring the safety of products sold through various digital platforms. farrer.co.uk
Regulatory Gaps: The previous directive, being over two decades old, had gaps that needed to be filled to ensure comprehensive consumer protection in the current market landscape. farrer.co.uk
By implementing the GPSR, the EU aims to enhance consumer protection by ensuring that all products placed on the market are safe for use, thereby addressing the challenges posed by modern technological and market developments. productcompliancesupport.co.uk
The United Kingdom is undergoing significant reforms in its product safety legislation, aiming to modernize and enhance consumer protection. These changes are particularly pertinent for businesses across various industries, as they introduce new obligations and standards to ensure product safety.
Key Reforms in the UK's Product Safety Legislation
The UK government has outlined a phased approach to implementing product safety reforms, focusing on consumer protection and business adaptation. This approach includes the development of new 'product requirements' that cover how consumer products are manufactured, the technical standards they must comply with, and how they can be marketed. These requirements are likely to impose new obligations on manufacturers, importers, and providers of online marketplaces. womblebonddickinson.com
Additionally, the reforms aim to ensure the safety of products sold through online marketplaces. The legislation references the development of product requirements relating to the marketing of products through these platforms, recognizing the growing prevalence of online shopping and the need for robust safety measures in the digital marketplace. womblebonddickinson.com
Significant Changes by Industry
Manufacturing: Manufacturers will need to adhere to new technical standards and manufacturing processes to ensure product safety. This includes rigorous testing and quality control measures to comply with the updated regulations.
E-commerce: Online retailers and marketplace providers will be required to implement stricter controls to ensure that products sold on their platforms meet the new safety standards. This may involve enhanced vetting of third-party sellers and more robust product listing requirements.
Consumer Electronics: With the increasing integration of technology in consumer products, electronics manufacturers must ensure that their products are safe for use and comply with the new regulations. This includes addressing potential risks associated with emerging technologies.
Best Practices for Compliance
To navigate these regulatory changes effectively, organizations should consider the following best practices:
Stay Informed: Regularly monitor updates from official government sources and industry bodies to stay abreast of the latest regulatory developments.
Conduct Compliance Audits: Perform thorough audits of existing products and processes to identify areas that may require adjustments to meet the new standards.
Implement Training Programs: Educate employees across all relevant departments about the new regulations and their roles in ensuring compliance.
Engage with Legal Counsel: Consult with legal experts specializing in product safety to obtain guidance tailored to your organization's specific circumstances.
Enhance Supply Chain Transparency: Work closely with suppliers and partners to ensure that all components and materials used in products comply with the new safety requirements.
By proactively adopting these best practices, organizations can not only achieve compliance with the new UK product safety regulations but also demonstrate a commitment to consumer safety and corporate responsibility.
Integrating AI with HR and the Global Risks
Integrating artificial intelligence (AI) into human resources (HR) practices offers numerous benefits, including increased efficiency, improved decision-making, and enhanced employee experiences. However, it's essential to approach AI integration thoughtfully, considering both the advantages and the associated risks.
The Growing Adoption of AI in HR
AI is increasingly becoming a staple in HR operations. A survey by the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) found that approximately 25% of organizations utilize automation or AI to assist with HR-related tasks. shrm.org
Larger organizations are leading this trend, with 42% of employers with 5,000 or more employees implementing AI solutions, compared to 16% of employers with fewer than 100 workers. businessdasher.com
Best Practices for Effective AI Integration in HR
Identify Clear Objectives: Determine specific HR processes where AI can add value, such as talent acquisition, performance management, or employee engagement.
Ensure Data Quality: AI systems rely on high-quality data. Ensure that your HR data is accurate, up-to-date, and free from biases that could affect AI outcomes.
Promote Transparency: Clearly communicate to employees how AI tools are used in HR processes. Transparency fosters trust and helps mitigate concerns about privacy and fairness.
Provide Training: Equip HR professionals with the necessary skills to work effectively with AI tools. This includes understanding AI capabilities and limitations.
Monitor and Evaluate: Continuously assess AI systems to ensure they are functioning as intended and delivering the desired outcomes. Be prepared to make adjustments as needed.
Upcoming Regulations and Risks Associated with AI in HR
As AI becomes more prevalent in HR, regulatory bodies are introducing laws to govern its use. For instance, the European Union's AI Act classifies AI systems used in employment as high-risk, subjecting them to strict requirements. shrm.org However, this adoption comes with regulatory challenges and risks that vary across different regions.
Europe
The European Union (EU) is at the forefront of AI regulation with its Artificial Intelligence Act (AI Act), enacted in May 2024. This comprehensive legislation classifies AI systems used in employment as high-risk, imposing stringent requirements on transparency, accountability, and bias mitigation. Organizations must conduct thorough risk assessments and ensure compliance to avoid substantial penalties. taylorwessing.com
By proactively addressing these considerations, organizations can effectively integrate AI into their HR practices while minimizing associated risks and adhering to global regulatory standards.
Privacy is the most critical concern for most AI regulation so make sure your privacy practices are updated.
United States
In the United States, several jurisdictions, including Illinois, Maryland, and New York City, have enacted laws regulating the use of AI in hiring processes. hrdive.com AI regulation is evolving at both federal and state levels. States like Illinois, Maryland, and New York City have implemented laws regulating AI in hiring processes, focusing on transparency and fairness. The absence of a unified federal framework results in a complex regulatory environment, necessitating that organizations stay informed about varying state laws to ensure compliance. hrexecutive.com
Asia
Countries in Asia are also addressing AI in HR. For instance, China's Personal Information Protection Law (PIPL) regulates the use of AI, emphasizing data privacy and security. Organizations must navigate these regulations carefully to avoid legal pitfalls.
Key Risks to Consider
Bias and Discrimination: AI systems can inadvertently perpetuate existing biases present in the data they are trained on, leading to unfair outcomes in hiring or promotions.
Privacy Concerns: The use of AI in HR often involves processing sensitive employee data, raising concerns about data protection and compliance with privacy laws.
Transparency Issues: AI decision-making processes can be opaque, making it challenging to explain decisions to employees or regulators.
Mitigation Strategies
Conduct Regular Audits: Regularly review AI systems for biased outcomes and implement corrective measures as needed.
Ensure Compliance: Stay informed about relevant laws and regulations governing AI use in HR to ensure compliance.
Foster Ethical Use: Develop and enforce policies that promote the ethical use of AI, prioritizing fairness, accountability, and respect for employee rights.
By thoughtfully integrating AI into HR practices and proactively addressing associated risks, organizations can harness the benefits of AI while maintaining compliance and fostering a fair and transparent workplace.
The Actual Cost of Parental Leave Policies: A Closer Look
In today’s competitive job market, offering generous parental leave policies has become an important factor for attracting and retaining top talent. But how much does this type of policy actually cost a company, and is it worth the investment? The answer isn’t always straightforward, but by looking at a hypothetical scenario and using industry statistics, we can begin to understand the financial implications and long-term benefits of a comprehensive parental leave policy.
Statistics on Parental Leave Usage and its Impact on Companies
According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, around 56% of private-sector workers have access to paid family leave, but only about 25% of those workers take advantage of it. Despite these relatively low participation rates, several studies show that companies that provide paid parental leave enjoy significant benefits in terms of productivity, employee satisfaction, and retention.
Benefits of Paid Parental Leave:
Increased Employee Retention: A study from The Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) found that employees who receive paid parental leave are 25% more likely to return to their job after the leave ends. Conversely, companies without such policies experience higher turnover, which can cost up to 33% of an employee’s salary to replace them.
Higher Job Satisfaction and Productivity: According to research by McKinsey & Company, companies that offer paid parental leave see higher employee satisfaction levels, which in turn leads to improved morale and productivity. Employees feel more supported and are more likely to stay with the company, reducing overall absenteeism and increasing engagement.
Cost of High Turnover and Low Productivity: A 2020 study by Gallup found that companies with high employee turnover experience an annual cost of up to $1 trillion, due to recruitment and training costs, as well as lost productivity. By offering paid parental leave, a company can offset this cost by boosting retention and improving employee loyalty, thus reducing turnover.
Cost of Parental Leave vs. Cost of High Turnover and Low Productivity:
Now let’s compare the costs associated with offering paid parental leave to the costs of turnover and low productivity:
Cost of High Turnover:
In our scenario, if an employee leaves and must be replaced, the cost of turnover (including recruitment, training, and lost productivity) can amount to roughly 33% of their annual salary. For an employee with a $50,000 salary, this would mean a turnover cost of $18,975 per employee.
For a company with 50 employees, if just 10% of employees leave in a year, that’s 5 employees.
The total turnover cost for 5 employees would be: $18,975 x 5 = $94,875.
Cost of Low Productivity:
Research from Gallup suggests that disengaged employees can cost a company up to $3,400 for every $10,000 of salary. For an employee earning $50,000, this translates to a potential loss of $17,000 in productivity per year if they’re not engaged.
For a company of 50 employees, if 20% of employees are disengaged, that could result in a total productivity loss of: $17,000 x 10 = $170,000 annually.
Sample Scenario: A Company with 50 Employees
Let’s consider a company based in the United States with 50 employees. The company has an average salary of $50,000 per employee, and total monthly salary costs amount to $230,000. The company’s current short-term disability (STD) policy includes a 7-day waiting period, and the insurance contributes 60% of the employee’s salary during parental leave, while the company contributes 40% from the company for the duration of six weeks STD. After six weeks, the birthing parent continues to receive 100% of their salary.
We can break down the costs of this generous parental leave policy as follows:
Monthly Salary Costs: $230,000 (average salary of $50,000 across 50 employees)
Short-Term Disability Premium: The cost of the short-term disability policy is $0.24 per $10 of salary. For each employee making $50,000 per year, their monthly salary is $4,166.67, which results in a disability premium of:
$4,166.67 x 0.24 = $1,000 per employee per month for short-term disability insurance.
Total for 50 employees: $1,000 x 50 = $50,000 per month.
Parental Leave Policy (for a birthing parent): Let’s calculate the cost of offering 6 weeks of paid parental leave at 60% via STD for the first six weeks and 100% for the remaining six weeks to total out 3 months or 12 weeks of parental leave.
For 6 weeks at 40% salary:
Each employee receives 60% of their salary for 6 weeks of parental leave. For an employee earning $50,000 per year, their weekly salary is approximately $961.54.
40% of $961.54 = $384.62 per week.
Total cost for 6 weeks = $384.62 x 6 = $2,307.70 per employee on parental leave.
For the remaining 6 weeks at 100% salary:
The total cost of paying the employee their full salary for the next 6 weeks is $961.54 x 6 = $5,769.23 per employee.
Total parental leave cost per employee:
$2,307.70 (40% salary for 6 weeks) + $5,769.23 (100% salary for 6 weeks) = $9,236.75 per employee on parental for 3 months or $3078.92 per month. while on leave.
This is 26% less than their regular monthly salary
Thus, the total additional cost for implementing the parental leave policy would be $115,459.38 per year for a company of 50 employees, on top of the $230,000 monthly salary costs and the short-term disability premium of $50,000. Compared to the potential $170,000 loss in productivity and the $94,875 in potential turnover costs, totaling $264,875 this proves a worthy investment for any organization.
Conclusion: Is Generous Parental Leave Worth the Cost?
The short answer is yes. Although offering paid parental leave comes with significant upfront costs, it is a long-term investment in the well-being and retention of employees. Companies that offer comprehensive parental leave policies typically see higher retention rates, improved productivity, and more engaged employees—all of which contribute to the overall success and profitability of the business.
In conclusion, while it’s essential to understand the financial implications of offering paid parental leave, the positive outcomes in terms of job satisfaction, employee loyalty, and productivity can more than justify the cost. By investing in their employees’ well-being, companies can build a more resilient and motivated workforce—one that’s likely to stay, thrive, and grow with the business.
Does your internship Program pass the US Beneficiary test? Read to find more.
Does your company’s internship program pass the Primary Beneficiary test?
Internships can provide invaluable experience for students and young professionals, but they also present legal and ethical considerations for employers. Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the Primary Beneficiary Test helps determine whether an intern should be classified as an employee entitled to minimum wage and overtime protections, or if the internship can be unpaid. Understanding this test is crucial for businesses to ensure compliance with U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) regulations.
Why the Primary Beneficiary Test Matters
The Primary Beneficiary Test is a framework used by courts and the DOL to assess whether an intern benefits more from the arrangement than the employer. If the employer is the primary beneficiary, the intern is considered an employee and must be compensated. Conversely, if the intern is the primary beneficiary, the internship may be unpaid.
Noncompliance with FLSA regulations can result in significant legal risks, including lawsuits, back pay requirements, and penalties. Therefore, companies must carefully evaluate internship programs to ensure they align with federal and state labor laws.
3 individuals laughing at a table sitting in front of laptops doing work
Conditions for an Unpaid Internship
The DOL has outlined seven factors to determine whether an internship may legally be unpaid. No single factor is determinative; rather, the test is applied holistically:
Expectation of Compensation – The intern understands that the internship is unpaid.
Educational Environment – The internship provides training similar to what would be given in an educational environment.
Ties to Academic Program – The internship is tied to the intern’s formal education through coursework or academic credit.
Accommodation of Academic Commitments – The internship aligns with the intern’s academic calendar and commitments.
Limited Duration – The internship lasts only as long as is beneficial for the intern’s learning experience.
Job Displacement – The intern’s work complements, rather than displaces, the work of paid employees while providing significant educational benefits.
No Entitlement to Employment – The intern is not promised a job at the conclusion of the internship.
If an internship meets these criteria, it can be unpaid. However, if an intern is performing work that primarily benefits the employer, the company must pay at least the minimum wage and adhere to overtime rules.
Paid vs. Unpaid Internships: Pros and Cons for Employers
Companies must weigh the benefits and drawbacks of offering paid versus unpaid internships.
Pros of Paid Internships
Attracts Top Talent – Compensation can make the position more appealing to highly qualified candidates.
Improves Diversity & Inclusion – Paid opportunities ensure that students from all economic backgrounds can participate.
Boosts Productivity – Paid interns may be more motivated and engaged in meaningful work.
Reduces Legal Risk – Paying interns eliminates concerns about FLSA compliance.
Cons of Paid Internships
Higher Costs – Paying interns adds to payroll expenses.
Potential Administrative Burden – Employers must manage tax and benefits considerations for paid interns.
Pros of Unpaid Internships
Lower Costs – Employers can allocate resources elsewhere without direct payroll expenses.
Focus on Learning – Programs structured correctly ensure interns receive training rather than performing substantive work.
Cons of Unpaid Internships
Legal and Compliance Risks – Misclassifying interns can result in legal action and financial penalties.
Limited Talent Pool – Many students cannot afford to work without pay, potentially reducing the diversity of applicants.
Lower Engagement – Unpaid interns may not be as motivated or committed to the company’s success.
Final Thoughts
For employers, offering a well-structured internship program is a great way to attract emerging talent, provide meaningful learning experiences, and potentially identify future full-time employees. However, compliance with FLSA regulations is essential. Employers should evaluate internship roles using the Primary Beneficiary Test to determine whether interns must be paid and consider the broader implications of offering paid versus unpaid internships.
By carefully structuring internship programs to align with legal requirements and best practices, companies can foster positive experiences for both interns and their organizations.