Want to Hire C-Suite Stars? Science Says These Methods Actually Predict Performance

In executive talent acquisition, the difference between hiring a star performer and a mediocre employee can literally translate to millions in revenue over time. 

Sadly, many organizations still rely on outdated or ineffective selection methods. Here’s what science actually tells us about predicting job performance—and how you can use these insights to improve your hiring process. 

What Doesn’t Work: Popular Methods with Little Scientific Support

Before examining what works, it’s worth noting what research shows doesn’t work. Many common practices have little to no predictive value: 

• Graphology (handwriting analysis) shows no predictive power whatsoever—it’s basically equivalent to random selection. 
• Experience requirements beyond five years add almost no predictive value for most positions—except in leadership or highly specialized roles.
• Educational credentials alone offer minimal predictive value. 
• Organizational fit measurements and value-alignment assessments show unexpectedly low validity in predicting performance, despite their popularity. 

Companies that switch to evidence-based methods instead see real returns through better executive decisions and reduced turnover. 

Your Interview Process Might Be as Effective as Flipping a Coin

While interviews remain the most common gateway to employment, not all interviews deliver equal results. The traditional unstructured interview—essentially a free-flowing conversation about a candidate’s background—offers little predictive value about future performance. 

These casual conversational interviews might feel natural, but research shows they often fall prey to unconscious biases and miss important indicators of future success. By contrast, structured interviews based on thorough job analysis and standardized evaluation criteria can improve your ability to identify top talent. 

When combined with cognitive tests, this approach achieves validity scores of .76 in predicting performance—making it one of the most practical methods for executive selection. 

The Hidden Superpower Behind Exceptional Performance (That Nobody’s Talking About)

Would it surprise you to learn that general cognitive ability (GMA)—essentially, how quickly someone learns and adapts—consistently ranks as the single strongest predictor of job performance across virtually all roles? 

A study analyzing over 100 years of personnel research, found GMA tests accurately predict both training outcomes and on-the-job performance. Even better, when paired with integrity assessments, this combination achieves a predictive validity of .78. 

Why does this matter? Many organizations underestimate or entirely overlook cognitive ability in their selection process. They focus instead on less predictive factors like years of experience or educational credentials. 

Assessment Centers: Worth the Investment?

Assessment centers have become standard practice for evaluating leadership potential in multinational corporations. But what exactly constitutes an assessment center?

At their core, effective assessment centers are evaluation systems that typically combine:

1. Cognitive ability testing (GMA)
2. Personality and integrity assessments
3. Behavioral exercises that simulate job-related tasks:
   • Group discussions that show interpersonal dynamics
   • Business case analyses demonstrating analytical thinking
   • Role-playing scenarios testing practical skills
   • Presentations measuring communication abilities

The research reveals something interesting: assessment centers don’t add much extra value beyond GMA testing (just a 2% increase). This makes sense—since comprehensive assessment centers already include GMA testing as a core component, they cannot significantly outperform what is already their strongest predictive element.

However, the true value of a well-designed assessment center lies in how it integrates multiple scientifically validated methods into a cohesive evaluation system. They provide qualitative insights that numbers alone can’t capture—particularly regarding behavioral warning signs and potential adjustment issues that might only surface under pressure.

For executive roles especially, behavioral observations often identify potential issues that typical interviews miss entirely. The direct observation of how candidates manage difficult situations offers invaluable insights into their leadership capabilities. 

The Integrity Factor: Why “Smart” Isn’t Enough (And What Actually Is)

Integrity tests might sound old-fashioned, but they remain highly predictive of workplace success. These assessments increase GMA’s predictive power by 20%, largely because they measure entirely different qualities. 

What exactly do integrity tests measure? They capture aspects of: 

• Conscientiousness (reliability and thoroughness) 
• Agreeableness (cooperation and team orientation) 
• Emotional stability (resilience under pressure) 
• Honesty-humility (ethical conduct and fairness) 

Most importantly, integrity assessments help identify candidates likely to avoid counterproductive behaviors like theft, sabotage, substance abuse, or chronic absenteeism. These issues can damage team morale and organizational performance. 

Studies have found these tests don’t just predict who avoids problematic behaviors. They actually forecast overall job performance.  

Your Million-Dollar Hiring Advantage: The Evidence-Based Formula

Based on a century of research, the ultimate evidence-based hiring formula combines:

• Cognitive ability testing (the foundation of all predictive hiring)
• Integrity assessments (adding 20% more predictive power)
• Structured interviews (focusing on job-relevant behaviors)
• Interest alignment evaluation (ensuring motivational fit)
• Conscientiousness measurement (predicting reliability and drive)

The research also shows that an assessment center approach combining GMA testing, integrity assessments, and targeted behavioral exercises offers the most predictive evaluation of executive candidates.

For executive roles, adding work sample tests provides additional predictive value. Case studies or simulated leadership challenges show how candidates approach actual business problems, exposing thinking patterns that standard interviews miss.

Implementing Science-Backed Executive Selection

Switching from traditional hiring practices to evidence-based selection requires investment. The returns are worth it. Organizations using validated selection tools report big improvements in:

• Performance outputs across all roles
• Reduced turnover and associated costs
• Faster time-to-productivity for new hires
• Better team dynamics and collaboration
• Fewer instances of counterproductive workplace behaviors

The economic impact of even small improvements in hiring accuracy compounds over time. This is especially true in leadership roles where decision quality affects entire organizations.

The science has been clear for decades. The only question is: why aren’t more companies doing it?

About the Author

Luana Cosma is a Partner at Stanton Chase Paris and Lyon, specializing in executive search, assessment, and development. With over 15 years of experience in leadership and operations management, she brings expertise across healthcare, life sciences, consumer products, and industrial sectors. She holds degrees in law and psychology, and a master’s degree in private comparative law. Certified in multiple assessment tools including Hogan and Hofstede Insights, Luana is passionate about diversity, inclusion, and fostering authentic leadership.