Understanding Conative Tests: Beyond Personality to Hardwired Drives

The gap between what leaders think they know about their teams and what actually drives performance has never been wider. Remote work exposed it. Hybrid models amplified it. And the cost of getting it wrong keeps climbing.

A ValiantCEO Magazine feature on Jason P. Carroll, founder and CEO of Aptive Index, walks through the moment that changed how he thought about teams, conflict, and growth.

The Breaking Point

In 2016, Carroll was scaling Champion National Security—800 to 2,500 employees in seven years. The growth was real. So was the friction.

He and the company's COO were stuck in constant tension. Carroll pushed for change. The COO prioritized stability. To each other, they were roadblocks.

Then the team introduced psychometric assessments.

What emerged wasn't a personality quiz. It was clarity about motivational wiring—the drives that shaped how each leader approached decisions, risk, and execution.

The conflict didn't disappear. But the context did.

They stopped fighting over who was right and started leveraging why they were different. Stronger partnership. Faster decisions. Company positioned for acquisition.

That experience became Aptive Index. Not because it felt good. Because it worked.

Why the Old Playbooks Don't Work Anymore

The ValiantCEO interview highlights what many leaders are quietly confronting:

• Gen Z prioritizes purpose over paychecks
• Remote work fragmented communication
• Engagement and results feel increasingly at odds

Carroll's insight: most leadership breakdowns aren't about strategy or skill. They're about misalignment.

Misalignment between how leaders think people work and how they're actually wired. Between role demands and individual drives. Between culture and what people need to thrive.

The leaders solving for this aren't guessing. They're measuring.

What Gets Measured

Aptive Index surfaces the motivational patterns that determine how people show up under pressure:

• Influence needs — Lead by directing or supporting?
• Connection drives — Recharge through collaboration or independent work?
• Structure preferences — Thrive in predictability or ambiguity?
• Speed orientation — Prioritize accuracy or momentum?

Understanding how these interact reveals why two equally talented people perform completely differently in the same role.

This creates a framework for:

• Hiring that matches wiring to role demands
• Development that builds on natural strengths
• Team composition that turns friction into productive tension

The DEI Shift

One of the more direct points in the interview: DEI fails when it focuses on optics instead of alignment.

Aptive Index shifts the focus from culture fit (which reinforces sameness) to role fit and motivational alignment.

The question isn't "Do they fit our mold?"

It's "Does their wiring match what this role actually requires?"

Diversity without alignment creates friction, not strength. Inclusion without understanding creates presence without value.

Stop hiring for likeness. Start hiring for complementary drives.

What This Means

If you're leading a team, the lesson is straightforward:

You can't optimize what you don't understand.

The invisible layer—motivational wiring, stress response, decision-making patterns—determines outcomes more than resumes or gut instinct.

Leaders who integrate behavioral science aren't doing it for trends. They're doing it because the cost of misalignment is measurable.

This applies to hiring, team dynamics, development, and culture design.

The Work

Carroll's background—scaling to $80 million in revenue, leading through acquisition, certifying as an executive coach under Brené Brown—reflects one principle:

Leadership is about creating conditions for others to succeed.

Aptive Index operationalizes that. It gives leaders tools to see clearly, decide confidently, and build teams that perform under real conditions.

The future of work isn't about office vs. remote. It's about understanding the humans doing the work—and designing systems that align with how they're actually wired.

That's not a platitude. It's the work.

Read the full interview here.

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.

You’ve heard it a thousand times in hiring conversations:

“They’re a great culture fit.”

And its quieter counterpart:

“They’re just not a culture fit.”

But here’s the uncomfortable question most leaders never ask:

What does that actually mean?

Because if you can’t define culture fit with precision, you can’t hire for it with confidence.

And if you can’t hire with confidence, you’re not making strategic decisions.

You’re making expensive guesses.

The Problem Hiding in Plain Sight

“Culture fit” may be the most commonly used — and least clearly defined — concept in modern hiring.

Organizations invest enormous energy crafting culture decks, defining values, and communicating their mission. Yet nearly half of new hires fail within 18 months, and most of that failure has nothing to do with competence.

It comes down to fit.

So why does the culture conversation still break down?

Because most organizations are measuring the wrong layer of fit.

When hiring managers say “culture fit,” they’re usually reacting to subtle interpersonal cues:

Did the conversation feel easy?
Did the candidate laugh at the right moments?
Did they remind me of people I enjoy working with?

None of those signals measure culture.

They measure familiarity.

And familiarity is where bias quietly enters the process.

The Affinity Bias Trap

Humans have a natural tendency to trust people who think, communicate, and behave like they do.

Psychologists call this affinity bias.

It rarely feels like bias. It feels like intuition.

A hiring manager walks out of an interview and says:

“Something felt off.”

But often something much simpler happened.

A high-Sociability leader just interviewed a thoughtful, low-Sociability candidate. The candidate was measured, deliberate, and careful with words — excellent traits for the analytical role being filled.

But the conversation didn’t feel energetic.

So the candidate doesn’t move forward.

Not because of a values mismatch.

Because of a behavioral style mismatch with the interviewer.

This is how organizations quietly build monocultures — teams that feel comfortable but lack the diversity of thinking required to solve complex problems.

Why Values Interviews Aren’t Enough

Many organizations recognize the subjectivity of culture fit and try to solve it with values-based interview questions.

Candidates are asked to share stories demonstrating company values. Panels score responses. Hiring committees compare notes.

It’s more structured than gut instinct.

But it still misses the deeper issue.

Because values alignment is largely learnable.

A thoughtful candidate can read your values page the night before an interview and articulate them fluently the next day.

But culture isn’t just about what people believe.

It’s about how they’re naturally wired to work.

And that’s where most hiring processes stop short.

The Layer Beneath Behavior

Beneath every employee is a set of stable, measurable drives that shape how they approach work.

How they make decisions.
How they handle change.
How they interact with people.
How they balance speed with accuracy.

These drives don’t fluctuate based on mood or interview preparation. They remain relatively stable across contexts.

At Aptive Index, we measure four of the most predictive drivers through the ISCP framework:

Influence – the drive to shape people, decisions, and direction.
Sociability – the need for connection, belonging, and interaction.
Consistency – the preference for stability versus rapid change.
Precision – the need for accuracy, rules, and standards.

These attributes aren’t personality labels.

They’re motivational drivers — the underlying architecture of how someone naturally operates at work.

When leaders understand these patterns across their teams, culture stops being abstract.

It becomes observable.

Culture Isn’t What You Say. It’s What Thrives.

Here’s the insight many organizations miss:

Your culture isn’t defined by your values statement.

Your culture is defined by the behavioral patterns of the people who succeed in your environment.

Take a fast-growing startup that prides itself on speed and experimentation.

When you analyze the drive patterns of their top performers, a clear pattern emerges:

Low Consistency – they thrive in constant change.
High Influence – they naturally drive decisions.
Low Precision – they move quickly and iterate.

That pattern is the organization’s real culture.

Now imagine hiring someone who prefers structure, detailed planning, and clearly defined processes.

They might believe deeply in the mission.

They might align perfectly with the company’s values.

But the day-to-day environment will drain their energy.

Eventually they disengage, struggle, or leave — and everyone wonders why a promising hire didn’t work out.

Nothing was wrong with the person.

The drives didn’t match the environment.

Redefining Culture Fit

If culture fit is going to be meaningful, it has to move beyond vague impressions.

It needs to become behaviorally defined.

That starts with a few simple steps.

First, analyze the drive patterns of your highest performers. Those patterns reveal the real demands of the environment.

Second, define behavioral targets for key roles — not just skills, but the drives that predict success.

Third, separate values alignment from drive alignment in your hiring process. Values can be discussed in interviews. Drives should be measured with validated psychometrics.

Finally, help hiring managers recognize the difference between true misalignment and style differences that strengthen the team.

When organizations move from instinct to insight, culture fit stops being subjective.

It becomes strategic.

The Advantage Most Leaders Miss

The most effective leaders eventually realize something important:

Culture fit isn’t about hiring people who feel familiar.

It’s about understanding the behavioral architecture of your organization well enough to know what it actually needs next.

When leaders distinguish between values alignment and behavioral drive alignment, they make better hires, build stronger teams, and avoid filtering out the very people who could expand their team’s capabilities.

Culture fit, done right, isn’t about similarity.

It’s about intentional design.

And in a world where talent decisions increasingly determine competitive advantage, that clarity becomes a strategic advantage.

‍