Press Release: New Validation Study Shows Reveals Aptive Index Exceeds EEOC Standards for Reducing Hiring Bias

Finding Common Ground

Across the political spectrum, there's broad agreement on these fundamental principles:

• The best person for the role should get the job
• Talent and potential exist in every community
• Hiring decisions should be based on objective criteria
• Unfair advantages or disadvantages shouldn't determine outcomes
• Organizations perform better when they hire the right people

The challenge isn't in these shared values – it's in how to achieve them in practice.

The Power of Data-Driven Hiring

‍This is where the science of psychometric assessment offers a path forward. By focusing on measurable, innate attributes that predict job success, we can help organizations:

1. Define Success Objectively

‍Instead of relying on subjective impressions or traditional proxies like education and experience, we can identify the specific cognitive and behavioral traits that drive success in each role. These attributes don't care about demographics – they care about how someone is naturally wired to work.

2. Standardize Evaluation

‍When every candidate completes the same scientifically validated assessment, measuring the same job-relevant attributes, we create a level playing field. The assessment doesn't know or care about a candidate's background – it measures their innate capabilities.

3. Remove Human Bias

‍By providing objective data about job-relevant attributes, we reduce reliance on individual opinions or unconscious biases. The numbers don't play favorites – they simply show how well someone's natural drives align with role requirements.

4. Focus on Potential

‍Rather than overemphasizing past experience or credentials, attribute-based assessment helps identify candidates with high potential who might be overlooked by traditional screening methods. This naturally expands the talent pool while maintaining focus on merit.

Real Results Through Scientific Rigor

‍Our validation studies demonstrate that focusing on innate attributes leads to:

• Higher performance ratings
• Increased retention
• Greater job satisfaction
• Improved team dynamics

Importantly, these results hold true across all demographic groups because we're measuring fundamental aspects of how people are wired to work – attributes that exist independent of background or circumstance.‍

Moving Forward Together

‍Rather than debating abstract concepts or political positions, we can focus on the practical goal we all share: getting the right people into the right roles. By using objective, scientifically validated data to identify and match talent with opportunity, we create better outcomes for:

• Organizations that want high performers
• Candidates who want fair consideration
• Teams that want capable colleagues
• Leaders who want strong results

This approach transcends political debates because it focuses on what actually predicts success in the role. It's not about quotas or preferences – it's about using better tools to identify and select talent based on merit and potential.

The Path Forward

‍As we move into 2025 and beyond, organizations have an opportunity to rise above political divisions and focus on what works. By adopting scientifically validated, attribute-based assessment tools, we can:

• Make better hiring decisions
• Reduce reliance on biased processes
• Expand access to opportunity
• Drive better business results

This isn't about politics – it's about performance. It's about using the best available tools to identify and select talent based on what actually matters for success in the role.

The future of hiring isn't about picking sides in political debates. It's about leveraging science and data to make better decisions that benefit everyone involved. That's something we should all be able to get behind.

What if those advantages are deliberately more favorable than what's offered to those already at the top? What if we created entire systems designed to give extra support, resources, and opportunities to those who are behind?

If you felt a visceral "no" just now, I get it. Such suggestions often trigger immediate pushback about merit, fairness, and earning your way.

But what if I told you that some of America's most beloved and profitable institutions have been doing exactly this for decades? And not only do we accept it - we enthusiastically tune in every week to watch it work?

Welcome to the NFL draft.

Every year, we watch a system that deliberately advantages struggling teams. The Browns don't get told to "pull themselves up by their bootstraps." The Giants aren’t accused of cheating when they get early picks of top talent. Instead, we've built entire structures to ensure that those at the bottom get extra help, additional resources, and preferential access to new opportunities.

And here's the kicker: Look at the Kansas City Chiefs heading into Super Bowl 2025 this Sunday. Despite a system that deliberately gives advantages to struggling teams, the Chiefs are appearing in their fourth Super Bowl in five years. Having systematically lower draft picks hasn't destroyed their ability to excel. They've simply had to continue working hard and making the most of their opportunities - just like everyone else.

Giving advantages to those who are behind doesn't automatically diminish those at the top. The Chiefs aren't losing because other teams get better draft picks. Excellence, merit, and hard work still matter – we've just created a system that gives everyone a better shot at achieving them.

Why? Because we understand something fundamental about sports that we seem to struggle with in other contexts: Sometimes, helping those who are behind lifts up the entire game.

Now, let's be clear - the challenges faced by struggling NFL teams aren't directly comparable to the systemic barriers and historical disadvantages faced by marginalized communities in our society. Professional sports franchises worth billions aren't the same as generations of families who've been denied access to education, housing, or career advancement opportunities. The parallel isn't perfect.

But the principle illuminates something important about how we think about advantage and opportunity. If we can understand that giving struggling teams extra support makes the whole league stronger, why do we resist programs designed to give historically disadvantaged groups better access to opportunity? If we celebrate systematic advantage every Sunday, why do we question it on Monday morning?

I don't claim to have the perfect policy solutions for addressing generations of systemic inequality. These are complex challenges that require thoughtful, nuanced approaches. But what I do know is this: There are people and communities who need us, as a society, to create better pathways to opportunity - not handouts, but real chances to compete and excel. Just as we've done in sports, we can create systems that both maintain high standards and ensure everyone has a fair shot at meeting them.

The timing couldn't be more relevant. As we debate dismantling DEI programs in 2025, millions will gather this Sunday to watch our most profitable sports league showcase a system built on the principle that those with the longest distance to cover need extra support to compete. So perhaps before we rush to declare victory over "unfair" corporate DEI initiatives, we should ask ourselves: If we can cheer for equity on the field, why not in the workplace?

By afternoon, I discovered I had made a significant mistake. One that taught me a fundamental truth about trust in the workplace: it's not about what we do right, but about the expectations we don't even know we're failing to meet.

What Trust Really Means

At its simplest, trust is the belief that someone will meet your expectations. But here's what makes it complex: these expectations are often invisible, shaped by our natural drives and motivations that run far deeper than our conscious awareness.

When trust breaks down in professional relationships, it typically stems from misalignment in three key areas: character, competence, and compassion. Each person brings their own set of expectations to these components, often without realizing it.

The Three Components of Trust

Character: The Foundation

Character expectations form the bedrock of trust. While we often think of character as a universal standard - either someone has integrity or they don't - the reality is more nuanced. What one person considers a breach of integrity, another might view as practical flexibility. These differences in expectations about character and values can create invisible friction in teams.

Competence: Not Just About Being "Good"

Here's where expectations get particularly interesting. Consider this scenario from my own experience: I once had a team member deliver a project that met all our core requirements. They completed it ahead of schedule, hit all the major objectives, and felt proud of their work. Yet their manager was deeply disappointed. Why?

The manager had a natural drive for precision and detail. To them, competence meant thorough, meticulous work where every detail was perfect. The team member, however, was wired to prioritize speed and big-picture impact. Their definition of competence centered on rapid delivery of functional solutions.

Neither was wrong - they simply had different expectations about what "good work" meant. This misalignment eroded trust on both sides: the manager began to doubt the team member's capabilities, while the team member felt their contributions weren't valued.

Compassion: The Hidden Expectation

Remember Sarah? Her situation revealed something crucial about trust and compassion. By not asking about her weekend - something I wouldn't typically expect or need myself - I had inadvertently violated her expectation of leadership support and connection.

What makes this particularly challenging is that Sarah herself might not have consciously known she had this expectation until it went unmet. Her natural drive for social connection and personal acknowledgment meant that my standard "get down to business" approach felt like a betrayal of the supportive relationship she expected from leadership.

Building Better Trust Through Understanding

These stories highlight a crucial truth: trust isn't something that's simply earned through consistent good behavior. It's actively given when we meet others' expectations - expectations that are deeply rooted in their natural drives and motivations.

So how do we build better trust in our teams? Here are three key steps:

1. Recognize That Expectations Vary
   
   • Understand that different team members will have different expectations about what constitutes good character, competence, and compassion
   • Accept that these differences stem from natural drives, not personal shortcomings
2. Make Expectations Explicit
   
   • Create open dialogue about working preferences and expectations
   • Discuss what trust means to different team members
   • Define what success looks like from multiple perspectives
3. Adapt Your Approach
   
   • Adjust your leadership style based on individual team member needs
   • Build systems that accommodate different working styles
   • Create flexibility in how goals can be achieved

The Path Forward

‍Understanding these natural differences in trust expectations can transform how we build and maintain professional relationships. Instead of assuming everyone shares our definition of trustworthy behavior, we can create environments that acknowledge and respect different working styles and expectations.The key isn't to change who we are or force others to change - it's to understand these natural differences and build bridges across them. When we do this, we create stronger, more resilient teams where trust can flourish.