John (not his real name) was a highly qualified and experienced serviceman who was well liked by customers and colleagues. He worked well in a team, showed consistent reliability, and maintained an excellent reputation. Customer feedback was always positive.
After ten years in the same role, John felt it was time for a change. Because there were no advancement opportunities within his current organisation, he approached a well-known recruitment consultant. John’s personable nature made an immediate impression. Based on his experience and strong references, the recruitment agency decided he was ready for a management role in a competing business. His testimonials were outstanding, and his employer at the time even stated he would rehire John without hesitation. He seemed the perfect candidate.
But the recruiter overlooked one critical factor: John’s behavioural style.
A Role That Didn’t Match His Natural Style
John began his new role with enthusiasm, but he soon discovered that his new employer’s culture was very different. He also learned that the position had become available because the previous manager had resigned after only a few months. It did not take long for John to understand why.
After six months, the business owner became concerned. John was not meeting his targets, and the atmosphere within his department had become tense. A consultant was brought in to investigate. The first step was to have John complete a Behavioural Assessment.
The Profiles from the Report are shown opposite.
Profile II showed John was under considerable pressure, as indicated by the elevated profile. His natural behavioural style was predominantly S (85%). While he had a very small percentage of D traits (5%), this was likely the behaviour he demonstrated during the interview process.
Profile I revealed something more alarming. John felt he needed to change his behaviour dramatically to meet the demands of the new environment. He believed he needed to become 70% D and 30% I. The sharp suppression of S indicated significant stress, and the combination of pressure and forced adjustment was affecting his performance.
A Dramatic Shift Outside His Comfort Zone
The Diamond taken from the Report (shown opposite) demonstrates even more graphically how much of a change John felt he needed to make, and how far outside his natural comfort zone he was being pushed.
The behaviour required for the role was simply not sustainable for someone with John’s natural style.
The Outcome
After speaking with the consultant and reviewing his report, John realised the role was not suited to him. He resigned shortly afterward.
The employer found themselves searching for a replacement for the third time in less than a year, despite the recruiter assuring them that John met all managerial criteria.
Both the employer and the recruitment agency learned a difficult but valuable lesson:
never make assumptions about a candidate’s suitability based solely on experience, personality, or interview presence. Behavioural Reports and aptitude tests are essential for making informed hiring decisions.
Want to Avoid Costly Hiring Mistakes?
Use Behavioural Reports to ensure every candidate aligns with the role, the culture, and their natural behavioural strengths.
