When I speak with leaders, they often tell me they make decisions about people based on experience. They rely on what has worked before, what they see in an interview, or how someone feels in the moment. Sometimes it works. Other times it does not. A new hire looks great on paper but leaves within months. A manager is promoted for performance but struggles to lead. A team works hard but cannot move the strategy forward.
Experience has value, but it can only take you so far. Leaders want decisions about people they can stand by, not decisions that leave them explaining what went wrong. This is why People Optimisers use data. We take what leaders already know and combine it with behavioural science to guide decisions that last.
Relying on instinct feels natural because it has always been part of leadership. You back your judgement, trust your gut, and use your experience to read a situation. The problem is that instinct only shows part of the picture.
Research on hiring methods shows just how unreliable some of the most common approaches are on on-the-job performance:
These are the methods leaders fall back on when they do not have anything else, and it explains why results are often hit or miss.
The reality is that CVs tell you what someone has done, not how they will work. Interviews reward confidence more than capability. Managers who lead as they were managed often miss what their own people need. Teams that look balanced on paper can still pull in different directions.
The result is decisions that are harder to defend. A hire leaves too soon. A manager loses the trust of their team. A strategy stalls because the people delivering it are not aligned. Leaders are left carrying the cost, both in results and in reputation.
Once the data was clear, the real test was how the leader used it in practice. The first moment came at the start of the next hiring process. In the past, candidates had been judged on CVs, interviews, and instinct. This time, the role itself was defined first, with data showing what success would require. Each applicant was assessed against those demands, which shaped not only who advanced but also what questions were asked in interview. By the time the leader reached the shortlist, they had far more than a good impression to go on. They had evidence that showed how each candidate’s natural style matched the job and the team around it. The final decision was no longer a gamble. It was a choice the leader could explain with confidence to the board and to their managers.
The next challenge was what happened after the hire. New starters had often been left to find their feet, which was one reason so many left early. With the new approach, each person began with a plan built around how they worked best. One needed detail and structure, another thrived when given more freedom. Managers now had the tools to adapt from day one. The leader could see the difference as new hires settled faster and started contributing sooner.
Supporting managers also became a priority. A high-performing employee had recently been promoted, but the data showed their natural style might create pressure in certain situations. Rather than waiting for problems to surface, the leader stepped in with targeted support. The manager understood where they might struggle, and the leader could back their promotion with a plan to help them succeed.
These were the kinds of decisions that had previously relied on instinct. With People Optimisation, the leader now had insight and structure to guide them. Each choice carried weight, but it no longer carried the same risk.
The shift was clear. Hiring decisions that had once felt like a gamble now had a standard to measure against. Candidates were chosen for how they would work day to day, not just how they looked on paper. Onboarding was no longer generic, and managers felt equipped to support people in ways that mattered. The outcome was fewer exits, faster performance, and a leadership team that could explain every decision.
the average cost of a mis-hire
of team engagement comes down to the manager
more likely to achieve goals
This isn’t an isolated result. Research shows the average cost of a mis-hire is around 30 percent of annual salary. By using data early in the process, leaders reduce that risk and protect their reputation. Gallup has found that managers account for 70 percent of the variance in team engagement. When leaders give managers the right tools, they not only protect those in leadership roles but also strengthen the performance of every team they lead.
The wider impact shows up in strategy. Companies that align their teams to business goals are 2.5 times more likely to achieve them. For the HR leader in this story, that alignment was visible in the boardroom. Instead of explaining another failed hire, they could point to evidence of why decisions were made and how those choices linked to results. The conversation was no longer about problems. It was about progress.
Every leader carries the weight of decisions about people. Some decisions accelerate progress. Others slow it down. What People Optimisers do is help leaders make those calls with evidence they can stand by.
The Predictive Index® (PI) provides the science to see how people work best. People Optimisation turns that science into action. It connects insight to the choices leaders face when hiring, promoting, or building teams.
For the HR leader in this story, the change was not about reports or theory. It was about having a system that made decisions stronger, protected results, and restored credibility in front of the board. That is what People Optimisers provide: a way for leaders to act with certainty when it matters most.
Every leader faces these choices. With the right insight, they don’t have to face them alone.
Dave Crumby, People Optimiser
Certified Predictive Index® Practitioner
Certified Talent Optimisation Consultant
Certified Leadership and Management Consultant
Certified Team Performance Consultant
