Why good hiring data still leads to bad decisions
This whitepaper explores why organisations collect better hiring data than ever before yet still make inconsistent, low-confidence hiring decisions.
Whats Inside?
In this whitepaper, we examine why improved assessments, richer reports, and more hiring data have not led to better decisions. Despite access to detailed insights on skills, behaviours, and potential, many organisations still default to intuition, seniority, or familiarity at the final decision stage.
You’ll learn:
Why more data can increase decision risk without clear priorities
How hiring panels misinterpret assessment results
Where intuition re-enters the process despite strong evidence
Why decision frameworks matter more than dashboards
How to design assessment outputs that guide choices
What it takes to close the gap between insight and action
The Importance of turning insights into decisions
Good hiring data only creates value if it changes decisions.
When assessment results are delivered as information rather than decision guidance, hiring managers struggle to interpret what matters most. Conflicting signals are left unresolved, panels disagree, and final choices revert to opinion rather than evidence.
Get it wrong, and you risk:
Strong assessment insight being ignored
Inconsistent decisions across teams and regions
Hiring panels relying on confidence and seniority
Decisions that are difficult to explain or defend
Better data does not reduce subjectivity unless decision design changes with it.
The Data on hiring decisions
From our research:
Hiring teams frequently override assessment insight at the final decision stage
Decision confidence drops when too many signals are presented without hierarchy
Panels without shared criteria show higher disagreement and inconsistency
Clear prioritisation of role-critical skills improves decision confidence and outcomes
With the right decision design, hiring data becomes a driver of better outcomes rather than additional complexity.