Does an assessment make sense?
As a hiring manager, you probably ask that question not out of enthusiasm but out of doubt. And that doubt, in that, you are not alone.
Finally, an assessment is a snapshot in time. Someone may have slept badly, be under pressure privately, or just have an off-day. Are you then measuring potential, stress, or perhaps a combination?
Personality questionnaires also raise questions. We all know how social desirability works. Who voluntarily ticks off bad handling of deadlines or difficulty with criticism?
On top of that, some assessments can be culturally colored. Many instruments are developed within a Western, highly educated frame of reference. This can affect how questions are interpreted or how situations are understood. Not because personality is different, but because context, job criteria, and norm groups differ.
And then there are the modern game-like assessments with algorithms that are so opaque that it is hard to explain why someone would or would not be suitable.
In short: skepticism is not unwillingness. It is a matter of critical thinking.
At the same time, another fact remains: talent decisions, and certainly selection decisions, always involve risk. You can translate the question “Does an assessment make sense?” into: “What risk am I willing to take in making a talent decision?”
Or in other words, how much uncertainty do you accept in a decision that could impact you for months or years.
What does a good assessment actually measure?
A professional assessment looks beyond experience. It examines cognitive abilities, personality, motivations, frustration tolerance, and behavior under pressure, among other things. In practice, such a program often consists of ability tests, personality questionnaires, role plays, and an in-depth interview.
Cognitive tests measure verbal, numerical, and abstract reasoning, for example. They provide insight into how quickly a person analyzes complex information and separates the main from the secondary issues. This is not a theoretical luxury. In many jobs, this ability directly determines the quality of decisions.
In addition, practical exercises show how a person actually acts. For example, role-playing reveals decision-making, negotiation, and steering under pressure. It is precisely there that you see the difference between someone who can tell the story well and someone who carries it out.
What does science say?
The discussion of the question “Does assessment make sense?” is not new. Schmidt & Hunter (1998) showed in their famous meta-analysis that cognitive ability is one of the strongest predictors of job performance. The combination of cognitive tests and structured interviews significantly increases the predictability. Their update (Schmidt & Oh, 2016) confirms this picture based on nearly 100 years of research.
More importantly, valid selection has demonstrable economic value. Several studies have calculated that organizations with valid selection procedures realize substantial productivity gains (e.g., Schmidt, Hunter & Pearlman, 1982; Schmidt et al., 1979). In large organizations, this can amount to hundreds of millions of additional output per year (Schmidt et al., 1986).
The bottom line is simple: valid predictions lead to better performance. And better performance delivers measurable financial value.
But people change, don’t they?
A common objection is: people develop, don’t they? What does an assessment today say about someone one or two years from now?
That question is justified. People gain experience, learn, and grow in their roles. At the same time, certain underlying capabilities change much more slowly than we often think.
This is because an assessment measures not only current behavior, but also underlying abilities: analytical ability, abstract thinking, information processing, self-regulation under pressure, and learning ability. These are relatively stable characteristics. They form the bandwidth within which a person develops.
Development almost always takes place within that potential.
For example, a person can learn to work more structured. But if the underlying ability to analyze complex information quickly is limited, that remains a concern in jobs where high cognitive load is structural. The reverse is also true: someone with strong conceptual and analytical abilities may still be inexperienced in practice but usually adapts more quickly to new complexity.
Especially at a time when AI is automating tasks and shifting job content, this difference becomes more important. Routine tasks are disappearing. What remains requires problem structuring, judgment, and the ability to switch between abstraction and execution. The question then is not just whether someone can do the work now, but whether someone is cognitively and personally equipped to grow with that shift.
An assessment does not predict an exact outcome in two years. It does provide insight into:
- How quickly a person can process new information
- How a person continues to reason under pressure
- Whether someone can structure complexity
- How great learning and adaptability is likely to be
So the problem is not that people change. The problem is that without objective measurement, we often overestimate how much and how fast a person can change.
A good assessment is not a snapshot, but shows a stable pattern. It provides insight into the foundation on which future development rests. And that very foundation determines, to a large extent, how someone will function in one or two years.
What if there is only one candidate?
A common response is: we only have one candidate, so does an assessment make sense?
This is precisely when the function of the assessment changes.
When there are multiple candidates, an assessment helps to compare. When only one candidate is available, the focus shifts to risk assessment and conditions for success. The question then becomes not, “Is this the best?” but, “Under what conditions can this candidate be successful?”
That distinction is crucial.
Even with one candidate, you want to know:
- Can this person handle the complexity of the role?
- How does he or she respond under pressure?
- Where are development or guidance needs?
- How likely is underperformance?
The lack of alternatives does not reduce the risk. In key roles, limited analytical acuity can lead to delayed decision-making or insufficient execution power. In commercial or strategic roles, a lack of conceptual breadth or rapid synthesis can directly impact results.
Especially in a job market where AI is changing roles, learning ability is more important than ever. The resume proves experience. An assessment gives evidence about potential.
This does not mean that an assessment is always necessary. For temporary or low-risk positions, or when someone has already proven internally for a long time to successfully fulfill the same role, the added value may be limited.
But for strategic or high-impact positions, even with one candidate, it remains a tool to reduce uncertainty.
What will it cost if you don’t?
Selection errors are costly. Not only financially, but also culturally. Utility analyses (e.g., Burke et al., 1992; Cascio & Boudreau, 2008/2011) show that even small improvements in selection validity have large financial effects. These often use an SDy of about 40% of annual salary as a measure of performance differentiation.
In other words, the variation in individual performance is great. Good selection exploits that variation. Poor selection increases the risk.
As such, an assessment is not a cost, but a risk management tool.
When is an assessment nonsense?
An assessment makes little sense when:
- It is generic and not linked to job requirements.
- The outcomes not translated into concrete advice.
- The decision is already fixed and no longer dependent on eligibility.
- It is used exclusively as a formal check-off step.
The value is in the integration: bringing together cognitive data, behavioral observations, and context into a clear decision recommendation.
So: does an assessment make sense?
Yes, provided it is properly deployed.
Not as a bureaucratic hurdle, but as a decision accelerator. Not to judge candidates, but to make risks visible. And not just to select, but to enable targeted development.
In a stable world, experience could suffice. In a world where roles are constantly shifting, potential becomes decisive. And potential is better measured than guessed.
For skeptical hiring managers, therefore, the real question is not whether an assessment makes sense.
The real question is: How much uncertainty do you want to leave in your decision?
