People Centricity case study

Choose Candidate Assessment by Role, Not by Country

32assessment tools found in use across the company
4hub countries validating the new approach
6steps in one selection guide, from intake to case study
5job family groups, each with its own mix of tools

The situation

The question behind the question.

This company hires hundreds of people a year across many countries, and early departures among new hires were already on its watch list. Its new talent acquisition strategy promised hiring managers fit-for-purpose talent, and one of its first initiatives went to the heart of that promise: how candidates are assessed. Each country had built its own answer over the years. Nobody knew how many tools were in use, how old they were, or whether 2 candidates for the same role would meet the same test in 2 countries.

As it was asked

“Give us an inventory of our assessment tools.”

As we reframed it

The company did not lack assessment; it lacked a rule for choosing it. Take stock, keep what the evidence supports, and let the role, not the country or the recruiter’s habit, decide how each candidate is assessed.

How we worked

How the work unfolded.

01

Take stock

We started by counting. Every interview guide, test, evaluation form, screening template and case study we could find went into one repository: 32 tools. 17 were interview guides. Almost half carried no date, and more than a third dated from 2018 or earlier. In one region, every tool was an interview; in another, nearly 4 in 5. The only documented case study was 20 years old, and few tools were tailored to a business, a function or a grade.

02

Hear how it is used

A tool on a shared drive is not a tool in use. Calls with 6 recruiters in the 4 hub countries went through each tool: used or not, how often, for which roles, mandatory or optional. The answers explained the gaps: some countries had dropped psychometric tests because nobody was certified to run them; one had no assessment centres because candidate numbers were too low; another already ran a structured process the others could learn from.

03

Let evidence decide

Then the research, not the inventory, set the order. The 2022 re-analysis of decades of selection studies had reshuffled the classic ranking: structured interviews came out as the strongest single predictor of job performance, ahead of general ability tests. So structured interviews, job-relevant tests and work samples became the selective core. Personality and motivation questionnaires stayed as input to probe at interview, never a pass or fail: on their own they predict too little to reject anyone. The 6-step guide, from intake form to case study, gave every candidate to the same kind of role the same steps, and each interviewer scored alone before any discussion, so the loudest voice in the room does not decide.

04

Fit it to the role

The guide said what good looks like; the matrix said what applies. 5 job family groups, internal or external candidate, individual contributor or people manager, and grade: each combination got its recommended tools, in a sheet recruiters maintain themselves. Every tool now carries an owner and a review date, so the library cannot quietly age again. A working-group workshop tested it and 4 validation calls closed it country by country. The readiness check held a surprise: the country with the most structured process scored lowest, because it had the most to unlearn. Whether better assessment means better hires would be read through new-hire attrition, one of the talent acquisition indicators built in parallel.

The instrument

A matrix that chooses the test

The role. 5 job family groups, from research and development to technical operations, each with the tools that test what the work demands.

The candidate. Internal or external, individual contributor or people manager: what is already known, and what the role adds.

The level. Grade decides the depth, from reasoning tests to leadership reports and case studies.

The recruiter no longer picks the test from habit or from what the country happens to have. The role does.

What moved

What changed, and what didn't.

32local assessment tools consolidated into one guide and one matrix, live in 4 hub countries
Evidence Decision taken Adopted in practice Measured impact
What moved

The working group validated the guide and the matrix in November, and both went live in the 4 hub countries in December 2022, with interviewer training alongside. 32 local tools gave way to one approach: the same steps for the same roles, evidence-based methods at the core, and a matrix recruiters use to choose. Other countries could join when they chose: adoption by pull, not by decree.

What didn't move

Certification for psychometric tests was still missing in some countries, and making the interview feedback form mandatory awaited a legal view, as did building it into the HR system. One country in the original scope stayed outside the first wave. Quality of hire would be read through new-hire attrition, not yet against performance in the role.

What we'd say to a peer

Most companies do not lack assessment; they lack a rule for choosing it. Count the tools you already have before you buy another. Let the evidence decide what selects and what only informs, and let the role decide which tools apply. Then give every tool an owner and a date, and decide at the start how you will know whether hires got better.

Let's talk Discover People Centricity Read more cases
Method note:

Own approach in 4 steps; inventory of 32 tools; calls with 6 recruiters in 4 hub countries; 2022 validity re-analysis applied; 6-step selection guide with independent interview scoring; role-based matrix; owner and review date per tool; working-group workshop and 4 validation calls; readiness check.

WeAreHuman@Work

One piece of evidence on sustainable work, every Sunday. Free, and one click to leave.

Get the weekly edition