.png)
We cannot manage people based on fads!
If you want to predict my personality based on my horoscope – Capricorn – go ahead. But then there are my December Capricorn friends who are nothing like a typical Capricorn. And if you know me and I ask, "What sign do you think I am?" you'll probably guess anything but Capricorn. When I reveal it, you'll say, "I knew it!" Sounds pretty similar to HR practices, doesn't it?
HR is riddled with bogus practices; the more you understand them, the more disengaged you become. Sometimes, I wonder if this is why HR struggles to thrive. It is a field that requires science, yet it often relies on rules of thumb borrowed from the business world. Naturally, nothing works.
Where shall we even start?
Competencies—There is no scientific evidence in any peer-reviewed journal proving that behavioural competencies determine success in a role. Moreover, HR lacks evidence to show that specific behavioural competencies are necessary for a particular person in a specific job. Competencies like "critical thinking" and "problem-solving" are more akin to wishlists than actionable criteria, and they are nearly impossible to measure—certainly not during an annual appraisal.
Recruitment—If competencies cannot reliably predict future job performance, then competency-based interviews are nothing more than another passing fad. Research already shows that past performance does not guarantee future success. Instead, repeated past performance across different environments is a better predictor of potential. The keyword here is "repeated" because performance is often dependent on the surrounding environment. A candidate who can consistently deliver the same results in varying contexts is a strong indicator of potential. However, interviewers rarely understand the variables in those environments, making their assessments little more than educated guesses.
Psychometric assessments for recruitment - Skip them—for many reasons! First, most psychometric assessments are unreliable and do nothing to predict future performance. Recruiters often use them as a safety net to avoid accountability for a bad hire. Here’s the truth: bad hires happen—accept it. Second, even if the tool itself is valid, the person administering it is often untrained in interpreting the results. It’s like handing a book to someone who can’t read and expecting them to make an informed judgment based on its content. If you don’t fully understand how to use these tools, stop relying on them—you’re doing more harm than good.
Personality assessments - Colors, animals, DISC, MBTI, and the like—please stop using them! The bare minimum you should do when someone pitches a personality or psychometric test is to ask for validity and reliability data. If they can’t provide it, politely say, “Thank you, but no.” If they do, look for reliability scores of 70% or higher. Remember, no test is ever 100% reliable, which means you should never make absolute decisions about people based solely on any assessment. Misusing these tools can cause serious harm (see the video below).
People are complex; no one can be summed up by saying, “Szilvia is blue.” Such oversimplifications demonstrate a lack of understanding. If someone tries that with me, my background in personality studies would dismantle their argument in two seconds.
If you’re determined to use personality tests, ensure that you have trained professionals who can properly interpret and debrief the results. Otherwise, you’re likely to make big mistakes. Do your research, consult field experts about the specific test, and make informed decisions. Here is a great article showing what you should be looking at.
Personally, I use the Big Five personality assessment from psychology, and I’m trained in administering and interpreting it. Even so, I always emphasize that no assessment is 100% accurate. Furthermore, the Big Five personality traits allow for nearly infinite combinations based on varying levels of each trait, making it impossible to group people neatly into boxes. So, labelling someone as “blue” is not just incorrect—it’s outright ignorant. I also use CliftonStrengths alongside the Big 5 to identify inconsistencies in either report and then discover what is really happening with the individual through conversations. I would not die for any report and would certainly never tell my clients “this is who you are”, although, the Big 5 has never let me down so far and the two reports always seem to correlate. I can predict one’s personality traits with high level of accuracy from their strengths report and vice versa.
Performance rating - We know that performance ratings don’t actually improve performance. How could they, when research shows that 63% of what goes into an annual appraisal is simply the manager’s opinion—and has little to do with actual performance? On top of that, there’s the issue of inter-rater reliability in talent calibration. Why is this a problem? Because people like Szilvia and Peter will assess their team members differently, making fair comparisons or calibrations impossible.
Performance data is riddled with bias, and the only way to address this is by focusing on clear, objective performance indicators—no fluffy behavioural criteria. For example:
Did Szilvia complete the project? Yes or No.
Did Szilvia meet the budget? Yes or No.
For leaders and managers, you can add a metric related to team happiness, but even this is fraught with challenges, such as bias, cultural differences, corruption, or measuring the wrong things altogether.
Predictive Analytics for Employee Turnover - Ah, my new favorite in Employee Experience—algorithms or predictive analytics that claim to predict when employees are about to leave. Don’t fall for this nonsense. Even if it worked, what’s your plan? Are you going to try to retain them? Studies show that employees who are trained after considering leaving typically still depart within six months.
Will you dig into why they’re leaving? You already have exit interviews for that. If you actually used that data effectively, you wouldn’t be scrambling for the next shiny tool that you won’t use properly either. Stop wasting money on gimmicks and focus on fixing the employee experience instead.
And let’s not be so obsessed with preventing people from leaving. Turnover is part of life—it’s natural. This relentless fixation on retaining employees at all costs isn’t healthy. Besides, where did this “ideal turnover rate” you’re chasing even come from? Who decided it was worth all this effort? I would have more questions on that but not before you answer these two.
Employee engagement - Your employees' needs are backed by science but your HR actions are only supported by the rules of thumb of the business community. So they fail! Read here. Read here
We could easily write a book about the "astrologers of HR" because everywhere you turn, there’s another bogus trend disguised as a “best practice.” But best for whom? Certainly not for the people or the business. I prefer the term “appropriate practices” because every decision should be tailored to the specific needs of your business. Read here.
If your choices are based on copying what everyone else is doing, you’re setting yourself up for failure. This approach creates dissatisfaction within the organization and among employees. Just because it’s popular doesn’t mean it’s right.
Here’s the thing—people know these practices are nonsense; they just don’t have the expertise to explain why. That’s where HR must come in. It’s your responsibility to understand the impact of the initiatives you impose on both the business and its people. Without this understanding, you’re no better than an astrologer—predicting outcomes based on trends rather than facts. And worse, you’re likely doing more harm than good.
HR practices are literally like horoscope and astrology, we listen but we really dont’ trust or care.
Now, enjoy the video below. Remember, the truth will set you free but before that, it will piss you off - Gloria Steinem. That’s ok.
Commenti