By Jeff Fierstein
Is Talent Selection in America Truly a “Science”?
In the modern world of talent acquisition, we’ve seemingly left no stone unturned in our quest to perfect the art of selecting the right people for the job. But despite the vast number of tools and methods at our disposal—personality tests, aptitude assessments, behavioral analysis, achievement tracking, and more—it often feels like we’re still struggling to make the right choices.
From decision-making frameworks and algorithms that rank and compare candidates, to reference checks (which rarely offer insights into predicting successful job performance), and keyword-based resume searches, we’ve invested heavily in developing data-driven tools. Even practices like handwriting analysis (yes, you read that right—some employers still use it!) are employed in the hiring process. Let’s not forget the traditional job interview, and its highly popular variation: the behavioral interview. Yet, despite this extensive toolkit, selecting the best candidate remains a challenging task.
But here’s the question: Is talent selection in America truly a science? I have my doubts. And let me explain why.
A Lesson in Cultural Perspective: An HR Practice in Hong Kong
In my time teaching HR managers in Hong Kong, I was struck by how cultural differences influence talent selection. While Hong Kong is a highly Westernized city, its deep-rooted Chinese cultural influences are still very much present, even in the business world. One of the HR managers, whom I’ll refer to as Victoria, offered an alternative perspective on talent selection that caught me off guard.
Victoria worked for a traditional Chinese shipping company. When I presented my belief that American hiring practices—rooted in science—were the most effective, she immediately challenged my assumptions. “We have our own way,” she said confidently. I was intrigued and asked her to elaborate.
Her explanation of the selection process was quite different from what you might expect in an American or Western company:
- Personal Connections Matter: The candidate must be referred to the company’s owner by a mutual connection, often a family member.
- Character Comes First: The company owner conducts an interview, specifically looking for signs of “character” that indicate the candidate’s potential.
- Tests, but Not the Usual Ones: If the candidate passes the initial interview, they undergo a battery of assessment tests—not of the psychological or skills-based variety, but more esoteric ones, including palm reading, tea leaf reading, and other methods of prophecy.
- Passing the Tests: If the candidate “passes” these unconventional tests, they are seriously considered for a role in the company.
Victoria shared that this approach had proven effective for their organization. Most candidates who made it through these steps were hired and remained with the company for years. While the methodology might seem unusual or even absurd by Western standards, her account made me rethink the idea of talent selection. Could it be that what we consider “scientific” might not be any more effective than traditional practices that we might dismiss as “fortune telling”?
Rethinking the Effectiveness of Science-Based Selection Methods
What does this tell us about our current methods in talent selection? Are they truly as effective as we believe, or are we simply relying on a set of tools because they feel scientifically valid?
When I taught HR graduate students at the university, I asked them to identify the most effective selection method. Almost unanimously, they agreed that the interview process was the most effective. When probed further, their rationale was that interviews allowed them to “get to know the person” in a way that a resume or assessment test could not. This subjective, “gut feeling” approach is still prevalent in many hiring decisions today.
However, research shows that conversational interviews—despite their widespread use—are among the least effective predictors of job fit or future performance. They are riddled with biases and lack the consistency required to ensure valid and reliable decision-making. This realization can be disheartening for those of us who rely heavily on interviews as the cornerstone of our hiring strategy.
So, What Works?
The key takeaway from these diverse perspectives is that there’s no one-size-fits-all approach to talent selection. The most effective methods are those that are closest to actual job tasks and real-world situations. These methods—whether they are skills-based assessments, realistic job previews, or simulations—are far more reliable than any test of character or subjective judgment.
As we move forward in talent acquisition, it’s crucial that we embrace a more holistic approach that blends science with human insight. By considering the nuances of culture, context, and job-specific competencies, we can refine our methods to not only select the right candidates but also ensure a more successful and long-term fit.
Ultimately, the effectiveness of our multiple selection methods may not be determined by their “scientific” nature but by their ability to accurately predict real-world job success – whether we rely on palm reading, personality tests, or skills assessment.
Adapted from the book “Leadership Whack-A-Mole: Actionable Strategies for Leadership Challenges” by Ric Shriver and Jeff Fierstein (c)2024. Click on banner above to learn more about the book.
