Looking for red flags? Start with behavioral insight
Early turnover is one of the most frustrating challenges organizations face. Imagine a candidate who interviews well, brings relevant experience, and gets off to a great start—only to be gone months later.
This is a common occurrence I often hear from human resources (HR) leaders and talent acquisition teams. They always ask some version of the same question: “What did we miss?” More specifically, is there a central theme among the individuals who leave, or “red flags” we could identify in the behavioral data that could have signaled risk earlier?
With increasing competition for talent and evolving workforce demands, organizations are looking for more structure and clarity in their hiring decisions. Behavioral assessments play an important role in that process. It’s important to note that no behavioral assessment is meant to serve as a silver bullet, but rather as a valuable tool in hiring teams’ tool belts. When done right, behavioral assessments can help surface patterns and reduce blind spots.
When a new hire exits earlier than expected, it’s natural to look backward for warning signs. At Infor™ Talent Science—our predictive behavioral insights platform—we use the same assessment for everyone, so shouldn’t there be a consistent signal among those who struggle or leave? For example, are they lower on emotional consistency? Is there a shared tendency that suggests misalignment with the demands of the role?
The answer is rarely as simple as one trait in isolation. Behavioral characteristics are not inherently “good” or “bad.” Their impact depends entirely on context. High urgency may be critical in one role and counterproductive in another. Emotional consistency may be essential in customer-facing environments but less central in others.
Effective behavioral assessments provide value when they are used to understand alignment and are not intended to label or automatically eliminate candidates. By offering an objective view of natural preferences and tendencies, assessments strengthen hiring conversations and create more consistency across decision-makers. They complement interviews and experience rather than replace them.
At the organizational level, behavioral data becomes especially powerful when examined across groups. Reviewing high performers and tenured employees can reveal trends that individual cases alone cannot. These insights help organizations refine how success is defined and clarify the true demands of the role.
At the individual level, assessments also deepen evaluation. Rather than assuming flight risk based on a score, hiring teams can ask more targeted questions. If a candidate scores lower on emotional consistency, for example, the conversation can focus on how they’ve handled emotionally-charged situations in the past. This approach replaces assumption with structured questions and reduces decisions made on gut instinct.
Importantly, assessment data is only as valuable as the framework it supports. If organizations have not clearly defined what success requires, then the data will not provide meaningful guidance. But when expectations are aligned and assessments are used consistently, they can surface early signals that improve decision quality.
As with any tool, behavioral assessments cannot eliminate hiring risk entirely; people are complex, and roles evolve. There will always be red flags, whether a candidate completed the full process, showed up prepared, or even did something slightly questionable along the way. Instead of focusing on what we might have missed, what if we focused more intentionally on the green lights?
By leveraging structured behavioral insight, organizations can shift from hindsight questions like “What did we miss?” to proactive strategies aimed at identifying success in a role. For HR leaders and talent acquisition teams, that shift can lead to a stronger foundation for long-term retention.
This is a common occurrence I often hear from human resources (HR) leaders and talent acquisition teams. They always ask some version of the same question: “What did we miss?” More specifically, is there a central theme among the individuals who leave, or “red flags” we could identify in the behavioral data that could have signaled risk earlier?
With increasing competition for talent and evolving workforce demands, organizations are looking for more structure and clarity in their hiring decisions. Behavioral assessments play an important role in that process. It’s important to note that no behavioral assessment is meant to serve as a silver bullet, but rather as a valuable tool in hiring teams’ tool belts. When done right, behavioral assessments can help surface patterns and reduce blind spots.
When a new hire exits earlier than expected, it’s natural to look backward for warning signs. At Infor™ Talent Science—our predictive behavioral insights platform—we use the same assessment for everyone, so shouldn’t there be a consistent signal among those who struggle or leave? For example, are they lower on emotional consistency? Is there a shared tendency that suggests misalignment with the demands of the role?
The answer is rarely as simple as one trait in isolation. Behavioral characteristics are not inherently “good” or “bad.” Their impact depends entirely on context. High urgency may be critical in one role and counterproductive in another. Emotional consistency may be essential in customer-facing environments but less central in others.
Effective behavioral assessments provide value when they are used to understand alignment and are not intended to label or automatically eliminate candidates. By offering an objective view of natural preferences and tendencies, assessments strengthen hiring conversations and create more consistency across decision-makers. They complement interviews and experience rather than replace them.
At the organizational level, behavioral data becomes especially powerful when examined across groups. Reviewing high performers and tenured employees can reveal trends that individual cases alone cannot. These insights help organizations refine how success is defined and clarify the true demands of the role.
At the individual level, assessments also deepen evaluation. Rather than assuming flight risk based on a score, hiring teams can ask more targeted questions. If a candidate scores lower on emotional consistency, for example, the conversation can focus on how they’ve handled emotionally-charged situations in the past. This approach replaces assumption with structured questions and reduces decisions made on gut instinct.
Importantly, assessment data is only as valuable as the framework it supports. If organizations have not clearly defined what success requires, then the data will not provide meaningful guidance. But when expectations are aligned and assessments are used consistently, they can surface early signals that improve decision quality.
As with any tool, behavioral assessments cannot eliminate hiring risk entirely; people are complex, and roles evolve. There will always be red flags, whether a candidate completed the full process, showed up prepared, or even did something slightly questionable along the way. Instead of focusing on what we might have missed, what if we focused more intentionally on the green lights?
By leveraging structured behavioral insight, organizations can shift from hindsight questions like “What did we miss?” to proactive strategies aimed at identifying success in a role. For HR leaders and talent acquisition teams, that shift can lead to a stronger foundation for long-term retention.
Products
Regions