Understanding Conative Tests: Beyond Personality to Hardwired Drives

I'm still processing what just happened.

We built Aptive Index to fix hiring, build better teams, level up leaders, and more. To help CEOs stop gambling hundreds of thousands of dollars on "great interviews" that turn into disasters. To give teams a common language for understanding each other's hardwiring.

But over the past few weeks, Aria, our AI coach, has been doing something we never programmed her to do.

She's been predicting what football positions people played. Not just position. What their strengths were. What drove their coaches absolutely nuts. And she's currently batting 1.000.

The D1 Linebacker

First guy comes through the assessment. Aria analyzes his behavioral profile and says: "This person was likely a linebacker. Probably outside linebacker specifically. Excellent technique. Studied film religiously. But struggled to direct traffic on the field – that's why there was always a middle linebacker calling the plays."

The guy stares at his screen.

That's exactly what happened. Every word of it.

The Defensive End

Next one. Aria sees the profile and immediately calls it: "Defensive end. Natural dominance and strategic thinking. Absolute beast on the field. But your coaches probably spent hours trying to fix your hand placement and footwork, didn't they?"

Spot. On.

The guy had the raw power and instinct to dominate, but the technical refinement never came naturally. His coaches would pull their hair out trying to get him to perfect the fundamentals.

Then Aria does something that stopped me cold.

She switches into coach-advisor mode and shows exactly how to reframe those "weaknesses" as strategic advantages:

Don't say: "You need better technique"

Reframe as: "Elite pass rushers have 3-4 moves they can execute without thinking – that's when you become unblockable. Right now, tackles can predict you. Let's add weapons so they can't game-plan you."

The insight: His low Precision means drills feel tedious. Make technique about variety and unpredictability, not perfection.

The coaching move: Give him 2-3 signature moves to master. Let him name them. Say: "Pick your top 3. Own them. That's how you become unstoppable."

Because ownership matters to someone with high Influence.

The Martial Artist

Then someone asks Aria to predict what type of sports or athletics he gravitated toward based purely on his behavioral profile.

No context. No hints.

Top guess: Martial arts.

Nailed it.

What the Hell Just Happened?

Here's what I'm realizing: Behavioral patterns don't just predict how you'll perform in a role. They predict how you've always performed—in every environment that required specific attributes.

Football positions aren't arbitrary. They're hardwired.

• Outside linebackers need strategic thinking and technical precision, but not necessarily the dominant personality to command the defensive front
• Defensive ends need raw dominance and strategic instinct, but technical refinement can be secondary
• Martial artists need internal discipline, precision, and independent mastery

Aria isn't magic. She's just reading the same behavioral patterns that determined these guys' success in sports and applying them to everything else.

Why This Changes Everything

We're already in talks with athletics departments across the country.

Not because we're pivoting away from business. But because the same science that predicts who'll excel in sales, who'll thrive in leadership, and who'll destroy your team culture also predicts athletic performance.

Think about what this means:

For Coaches:

• Identify natural strengths and build systems around them
• Reframe "weaknesses" as strategic advantages
• Get more from each player by aligning them with their natural drives
• Know all of this before a player ever walks into the locker room

For Recruiters:

• See beyond highlight reels to understand behavioral fit
• Predict how players will respond to different coaching styles
• Build teams with complementary attributes, not just complementary skills
• Reduce transfers and decommitments by getting the fit right from day one

For Athletes:

• Understand why certain aspects of your game come naturally while others feel like swimming upstream
• Learn how to work with your hardwiring instead of against it
• Find the positions and systems where your natural drives become competitive advantages
• Get coaching that actually fits how you're wired to learn

The Bigger Picture

I keep coming back to that defensive end.

How many hours did his coaches waste yelling, "technique, technique, technique," trying to drill perfect hand placement into someone whose brain just doesn't prioritize consistency or precision? How much frustration could've been avoided if they'd understood his hardwiring and said: "Forget perfecting five techniques. Master three. Own them. Become unblockable."

That's not lowering standards. That's understanding how different people reach excellence through different paths.

We see this everywhere:

• The salesperson with killer instincts who makes quota but never updates the CRM (don't make them administrators, build systems that automate it)
• The strategist who sees ten moves ahead but struggles with execution details (don't put them in operations, give them big problems to solve)
• The detail-oriented specialist who delivers flawless work but avoids the spotlight (don't force them into presentations, let their work speak for itself)

Same principle. Different application.

What We're Building

Right now, none of our marketing speaks to sports at all. We're focused on helping CEOs hire better, build stronger teams, and stop losing sleep over people decisions.

But this sports discovery opens something massive.

Imagine:

• College recruiters using behavioral data to predict athletic fit before offering scholarships
• Coaches getting AI-powered guidance on how to develop each player based on their hardwiring
• Athletic departments reducing transfers by getting position alignment right from the start
• Professional scouts seeing beyond physical talent to identify behavioral patterns that predict long-term success

We're not there yet. But Aria just showed us the proof of concept, and it ain't going to take that long before teams realize how much of a competitive advantage this is.

The Real Insight

Here's what matters: Whether you're hiring a VP of Sales, building a leadership team, or recruiting a defensive line – you're trying to predict performance based on limited information.

Resumes lie. Interviews mislead. Highlight reels only tell you so much.

But hardwiring doesn't change.

The same attributes that made someone an effective outside linebacker make them effective in certain business roles. The same drives that led someone to martial arts lead them toward independent, precision-focused work environments.

You can't coach hardwiring. But you can align roles with it.

That's what we've been doing in business.

Now we're realizing it applies everywhere humans perform.

Want to see what Aria reveals about your own behavioral patterns? Take the assessment at aptiveindex.com – even if you never played sports, you'll be surprised what she sees.

And if you're in athletics and this makes you curious about what behavioral science could do for your program, let's talk. Because Aria's just getting started.

You find the candidate.
Flawless resume.
Impressive credentials.
References that sound like fan mail.

You hire them.
Ninety days later, they’re gone.
Or worse, still there, but underperforming.

Sound familiar?

We’ve all been sold the same illusion: that the “perfect hire” exists, and you can find them by skimming for the right buzzwords, schools, and job titles.

Here’s the truth: The perfect hire is a myth. And chasing it is costing you more than you think.

1. The Resume Tells You What They've Done, Not How They'll Work

We've built entire hiring processes around a flawed assumption: that past success in one environment predicts future success in yours.

It doesn't work that way.

A resume shows you what someone has done. It lists skills they've learned and companies they've worked for. But it can't tell you how they're naturally wired to work, which matters far more for long-term success.

‍

Take two candidates with nearly identical backgrounds, same degree, similar experience, comparable skills. Put them in the same role, and their performance will likely be dramatically different.

Why? Because one might be energized by independent problem-solving while the role needs constant collaboration. The other might thrive on structure when your environment demands comfort with ambiguity.

The credentials match perfectly. The natural fit doesn't. And that gap is where 46% of new hires fail within 18 months.

The Better Question:

Instead of "Can they do this job?" The real question is "Will they thrive doing it?"

Skills can be taught. Your systems can be learned. But you can't train someone to be energized by work that drains them.

2. Experience Can't Compensate for Misalignment

We assume experience solves everything. Hire someone with enough years under their belt, and they'll figure it out.

Except they often don't.

Working against your natural wiring is exhausting. It's like being right-handed but forced to use your left hand for everything. You can do it, but it requires constant effort and never feels natural.

When someone's natural drives match what a role requires, something different happens. They don't just work harder, they work more naturally. Tasks that would drain someone else energize them. Problems that would frustrate others engage them.

Organizations tracking this see real differences:

• 40% fewer people leave when natural drives match role requirements
• 3x better productivity compared to misaligned placements
• 67% higher engagement when people work in naturally fitting roles

Experience still matters for knowledge and expertise. But alignment determines whether someone will sustain high performance, or burn out trying.

3. The Real Cost Isn't the Salary. It's the Momentum Lost

HR often cites the cost of a bad hire as 1.5 to 3x the annual salary. SHRM estimates it's closer to 500% of annual salary for mid-level roles once you factor in recruiting, onboarding, lost productivity, and team disruption.

But even that number misses something bigger: opportunity cost.

Every day someone is misaligned in a role, you're not just losing money. You're losing momentum. You're losing the compounding gains that come from having someone naturally wired to excel.

Think about the projects that don’t launch. The clients who never close. The innovation that stalls. The team morale that drifts.

The cost isn't just what you're spending, it's what you're missing.

4. “Culture Fit” Isn’t a Personality Match, It’s a Drive Match

Everyone talks about hiring for culture fit. But too often, that gets confused with hiring people who seem familiar or agreeable.

Real culture fit means alignment between how someone is naturally driven to work and what your environment actually demands.

Common Misalignments:

• A brilliant analyst in a relationship-first role
• A structure-driven thinker in a fast-paced, chaotic environment
• A natural collaborator placed in solo project work

None of these are skill issues. They’re energy mismatches. And those mismatches compound over time.

The best organizations don’t guess. They get specific about what drives success in each role, and they assess whether candidates are wired for those dynamics.

5. Building Teams That Actually Work

The perfect hire is a myth. Perfect implies someone who excels across all roles, in all environments, under all conditions. That person doesn’t exist.

But the right hire? That’s real.

That’s someone whose natural drives align with what the role truly demands. Someone who doesn’t have to fight their wiring to succeed. Someone who fits, not just on paper, but in practice.

This Isn’t About Lowering Standards

It’s about getting sharper. More precise. More honest about what truly predicts success in your organization, not what reads well on a resume.

Extraordinary teams aren’t made by collecting top credentials. They’re built by aligning the right people with the right roles and letting their strengths do the work.

The Shift Forward

It starts by redefining what success looks like in each role.
Then it takes the right tools to uncover how candidates are naturally wired—not just what they say in interviews.
And finally, it requires the courage to hire for alignment over familiarity.

The question isn’t whether alignment matters, the data confirms it does.The real question is: Are you ready to stop chasing “perfect” and start hiring for what actually works?

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?