Personality Assessments vs. Structured Interviews: Which is better for leadership selection?

Question

Tyler Smith · Accepted Answer

Buyers often ponder the most effective method for identifying top leadership talent, frequently comparing the merits of personality assessments against traditional structured interviews. While both tools are valuable, their efficacy for leadership selection differs significantly, and for optimal results, they are best used in conjunction.

**Structured Interviews** excel at evaluating specific competencies and past behaviors. They can gauge a candidate's experience, technical knowledge, and how they handled predefined situations. This is crucial for understanding a leader's foundational capabilities. However, interviews are susceptible to bias, 'faking good,' and may not fully reveal underlying personality traits that dictate leadership style, resilience under pressure, or adaptability.

**Personality Assessments**, on the other hand, delve into the core behavioral patterns, motivations, and natural inclinations that underpin a leader's effectiveness. They provide data on traits like *emotional intelligence*, *strategic thinking*, *influence*, and *decision-making style* — aspects that are harder to uncover in an interview. For instance, an assessment might reveal a candidate's natural inclination towards collaboration over authoritarianism, or their comfort level with ambiguity, which are critical for modern leadership.

Based on thousands of verified purchases, companies find that structured interviews provide the 'what' (experience and past actions), while personality assessments provide the 'why' and 'how' (underlying drivers and behavioral tendencies). When combined, they offer a holistic view, predicting job performance and cultural fit for leadership roles more accurately than either method alone, mitigating risks of poor hires and fostering a more effective leadership pipeline.