Are We Too Obsessed with Predicting Job Performance Directly?

Author: Kleinjan Redelinghuys

In talent assessment, one question dominates hiring conversations:

“How well does this test predict job performance?”

It's a fair question. After all, every organisation wants to hire and develop people who deliver results. However, in our quest to identify direct predictors of performance, we may need to dwell on the following:

Does our fixation on finding the most predictive tools result in a narrow view of performance, one that overlooks the traits that shape how people adapt, behave, and sustain their performance over time?

To answer that, it's worth understanding why direct predictors are so widely relied upon in the first place.

The Appeal of Direct Predictors

Cognitive ability tests, structured interviews, and job knowledge tests are often hailed as the gold standard, as they tend to be strong predictors of work performance. Personality assessments, especially those capturing Conscientiousness, are also frequently relied on for their added predictive value.

However, once these boxes are ticked, we often stop here. This is risky because performance in the real world is rarely that linear. Although the tests outlined above should give us a good sense of how someone might perform, much remains beneath the surface. Consequently, by narrowing our focus too much, we could miss traits that don’t surface as strong direct predictors but still play a prominent role in day-to-day work.

Let’s explore some valuable indirect drivers of performance.

The Hidden Power of Indirect Drivers

Some of the costliest workplace behaviours (e.g. absenteeism, rule-defiance, disengagement, manipulative tendencies, interpersonal friction) don’t always surface in direct-performance assessments.

That’s where indirect measures come in. These tools help reveal traits and tendencies that may not directly predict performance from the get-go but strongly shape long-term success, risk, and culture fit. These include measures that assess:

• Integrity

• Emotional Intelligence

• Values

• Interpersonal Style

• Motivation

• Impulse Control

• Risk Tolerance

• Resilience

• Conflict-Handling Style

• Adaptability

Although these aren’t always strong or direct predictors of task performance or other types of performance in the traditional sense, they can profoundly enable or undermine it. For example, consider the following:

A brilliant coder delivers high-quality work at scale but erodes team trust through manipulation and defiance of process. Traditional assessments might not flag the risk, but a deeper look at integrity or interpersonal style should.

Similarly, a goal-oriented manager might push their team hard to hit targets, unaware that their approach is breeding resentment. Their drive delivers short-term results, but without self-awareness, it risks long-term disengagement.

Why Indirect Predictors Matter

A helpful distinction to keep in mind is that:

• Direct assessments measure what people can do.

• Indirect assessments explore what people are likely to do under pressure, over time, or when no one’s watching.

This distinction matters, especially for roles that involve autonomy, ethical decision-making, leadership, or safety. So, how can we balance the two?

How to Balance Your Assessment Approach

To get a fuller picture of workplace potential and risk, consider layering your assessment strategy to include:

• Core Predictors: Relevant predictors closely tied to the role’s key requirements.

• Personality and Interpersonal Style: To gather how someone engages, communicates, and reacts.

• Risk and Integrity Measures: To assess counterproductive behaviours.

• Contextual Factors: To understand factors like culture fit, values alignment, and adaptability.

This approach doesn’t mean overwhelming candidates with tests or inflating assessment costs. It means selecting the right combination of tools based on the role’s risks and realities. Through this approach, predictive validity and practical insight are balanced.

Final Thoughts

It’s time to shift the conversation from “What predicts performance best?” to “What shapes performance most meaningfully over time?”

Direct predictors are powerful, but they’re not enough. If we care about long-term success, safety, ethics, and cohesion, we need to value assessments that pick up the subtle, often unseen traits that influence how people really show up at work.

Want to dig deeper than the usual performance predictors? Contact us to explore assessment tools that surface hidden risks and drivers to build a more complete view of workplace potential.