01
Govern
ISO 10667 frames the process, responsibilities and appropriate use.
Assessment standards and science
Built on international standards and established science.
HRP is a controlled person-work assessment system. It connects evidence about a person with evidence about a role and work environment, then supports purpose-specific professional interpretation for decisions across the employee journey.
From standards to responsible action
02
Ground
Established science defines the evidence used by HRP.
03
Focus
The role profile determines what is assessed and the target for interpretation.
04
Interpret
Authorized professionals interpret the evidence within its purpose and context.
05
Act
Purpose-specific reporting supports selection, onboarding and development action.
Assessment governance
Standards govern the assessment process
International standards frame how responsibilities are divided between the client organization and the assessment service provider. ISO 10667 provides the process framework: Part 1 addresses client responsibilities, while Part 2 addresses service-provider responsibilities.
Standards govern the process. Established science defines the evidence. The role determines both what is assessed and what good alignment looks like.
ISO 10667-1:2020
Client responsibilities
The client organization is responsible for the organizational side of appropriate assessment use.
- Define the assessment need and purpose.
- Provide relevant organizational and role context.
- Ensure competent and appropriate use.
- Determine access, use and storage of results.
- Retain responsibility for organizational and employment decisions.
ISO 10667-2:2020
Service-provider responsibilities
The service-provider side governs how appropriate assessment procedures are chosen, integrated and delivered.
- Choice, integration and delivery of appropriate assessment procedures.
- Implementation and evaluation of assessment methods.
- Communication with clients and assessment participants.
- Interpretation and reporting.
- Competent professional involvement.
- Assessment-data processing and storage.
Assessment supports human judgement
Standards frame process responsibilities, not scientific constructs. Science determines the evidence, the role determines assessment and targets, automation supports delivery and reporting, authorized humans interpret, and the responsible organization decides.
HRP does not independently make employment or development decisions. Appropriate professionals remain responsible for interpreting evidence, considering other relevant information and deciding what action is justified.
- defined assessment purpose
- role-relevant evidence
- appropriate assessment conditions
- professional competence
- controlled interpretation
- suitable reporting
- responsible use and reuse
- human review
Scientific foundations
The scientific foundations behind HRP
This layer concerns the evidence and constructs themselves: occupational context, person-work correspondence, work motivation, occupational-ability traditions, modern digital cognitive measures and workplace personality evidence.
Theory
Theory of Work Adjustment
The Theory of Work Adjustment provides HRP's central person-work correspondence architecture. It frames how abilities, work requirements, work needs and environmental reinforcers are considered together rather than reduced to one static fit label.
Research basisOccupational evidence
O*NET occupational evidence
O*NET provides structured occupational evidence concerning abilities, knowledge, skills, work values and work context across occupations. HRP uses that evidence to help define the role profile before interpreting person evidence against it.
Official sourcePerson-work evidence
Three evidence layers. One differentiated person-work profile.
HRP examines role-relevant abilities, work motivation and workplace personality as distinct but complementary sources of evidence. The role determines what is relevant, while authorized professionals interpret the combined profile within its purpose and context.
01 — Role-relevant abilities
Fair cognitive assessment focused on what the role requires
TWA distinguishes individual abilities from work-environment ability requirements. In HRP, the role profile determines which cognitive abilities and measures belong in the battery and also determines the target used for interpretation.
Role relevance works together with practice before scored testing, generated alternative forms where the instrument allows them, responsible retesting and flexible remote delivery supported by TestAnywhere.
This is a fairness-supporting assessment design, not proof of zero bias or adverse impact and not a claim that HRP has been proven fairer than another provider.
Practice before scored testing
Practice is intended to reduce format unfamiliarity so the scored session reflects capability more than first-contact confusion with the task format.
AIG and alternative forms
Generated forms support responsible retesting and reduce fixed-item exposure, while remaining separate from AI-assisted reporting.
Flexible delivery
Remote completion gives candidates more control over conditions for cognitively demanding work without requiring a live proctoring appointment.
Bounded evidence
Convergent-validity work compares HRP measures with corresponding established cognitive measures. The current bounded sample is N=57 and should not be overstated.
02 — Work motivation
Assess motivation as evidence in its own right
HRP assesses work motivation separately rather than inferring it solely from personality. TWA correspondence considers individual needs and the reinforcers available in the work environment, so motivation remains a distinct evidence layer.
HRP uses an adapted digital implementation closely based on the public-domain O*NET Computerized Work Importance Profiler, within the broader MIQ and WIP-C lineage, to assess 21 work needs organized into six broader work values.
The evidence supports careful interpretation of adjustment and satisfaction. It is evidence for interpretation, not a mechanical prediction of what a person will feel or do.
03 — Workplace personality
Go beyond a broad behavioral type
HRP assesses workplace personality using WorkPlace HEXACO. It is grounded in the six-dimensional HEXACO model, reports 24 subdimensions and includes Honesty–Humility as a distinct dimension.
This supports differentiated interpretation without reducing a person to one type or category. Six dimensions are not automatically more valid than five, and Big Five models also have broad scientific acceptance.
Some proprietary types and profiles have varying independent acceptance and transparency. Workplace personality evidence can support careful interpretation of likely workplace behaviour, collaboration, adjustment and development, but it does not observe conduct or determine whether someone corresponds with a role.
OCB and CWB remain interpretive themes, not separately measured traits, and workplace personality does not predict misconduct or citizenship behaviour with certainty.
The official International Personality Item Pool website also lists HR Potentials among its “High-Quality Implementations of IPIP Measures.” View the official IPIP listing
Comparison
See how HRP differs from common assessment approaches
Compare how HRP and common behavioral-first or general-cognitive-fit approaches differ in assessment governance, role relevance, cognitive evidence, workplace personality, motivation, interpretation and decision responsibility.
Role requirements and person evidence
From role requirements to purpose-specific guidance
HRP separates evidence about the work from evidence about the person. Standardized occupational information—including O*NET—and the organization's actual context help define the role. HRP assessments provide relevant evidence about the person. The two are compared to support professional judgement and authorized action.
Role information
Define the role
Standardized occupational information and the organization’s actual context help identify what success in the role requires. O*NET may inform this work, but the profile is adapted to the organization, position and actual context.
Person assessment
Assess the person
A role-profile-based cognitive battery, workplace personality evidence and work motivation provide evidence about the person.
Professional comparison
Understand alignment
HRP compares role-relevant requirements and person evidence to identify areas of alignment, possible adjustment needs and topics requiring professional consideration.
Purpose-specific action
Guide what comes next
The evidence can support purpose-specific selection, onboarding and development guidance when its use or reuse is appropriate and authorized.
Interpretation and reporting
Evidence is interpreted for a purpose
Assessment evidence becomes useful only when it is interpreted for an authorized purpose, by appropriate people, within the target role and organizational context.
Beyond task performance
Constructive and harmful workplace behaviours are outcomes—not personality labels.
Workplace-personality evidence can support careful discussion of behaviour beyond formal task performance—including constructive contribution and risks related to harmful workplace behaviour.
These remain interpretive themes. Personality results do not establish that either outcome will occur.
Organizational citizenship behaviour
Constructive, discretionary behaviour that supports colleagues or the organization beyond formal task requirements.
Counterproductive work behaviour
Behaviour that may harm colleagues, the organization or its legitimate interests.
WorkPlace HEXACO evidence can inform careful interpretation of integrity-related themes and potential patterns of organizational citizenship or counterproductive behaviour. HRP does not measure OCB or CWB as separate outcomes, and these interpretations are not certain predictions of future behaviour.
Purpose-specific professional reporting
The same assessment evidence can be interpreted for different authorized purposes. Selection reporting focuses on person-role alignment and decision support; onboarding reporting focuses on role clarity, adjustment and early support; development reporting focuses on priorities for coaching, mentoring and professional growth.
Selection
Evidence relevant to the target role, decision criteria and authorized decision-makers.
Onboarding
Early adjustment, work needs, learning priorities and manager-employee discussion points.
Development
Reflection themes, development priorities and follow-up for the practitioner and participant.
Internal mobility
Evidence interpreted against a different target role, future responsibilities and the new purpose.
Audience and competence
Written for the people who use the report
HRP reports present relevant evidence in language, structure and detail appropriate to their purpose and intended audience. Psychologists and assessment professionals may require more technical decision-support information, while managers, assessed individuals, coaches and mentors need clear, accessible and practically relevant guidance.
Accessible language does not remove professional boundaries. Some assessment purposes—particularly professional interpretation in selection—require a psychologist. Other reports may be read or used by appropriately trained HR professionals, managers, coaches or mentors within defined limits, without authorizing them to independently interpret assessment evidence beyond those limits.
The same report is not reused unchanged. HRP controls report access and interpretation requirements according to purpose, target role, intended user, completed training and applicable professional or legal requirements.
Reuse is controlled. A new purpose requires review of relevance to the target role, result age, consent, applicable data-protection requirements, authorization and professional interpretation boundaries. When those conditions are not met, reassessment or different evidence may be needed. Authorized professionals interpret; the organization retains decision responsibility.
Business value
Lower decision risk. More value from every people investment.
HRP does not create value by replacing organizational judgement. It creates value by improving the quality and role relevance of evidence used in high-cost people decisions and follow-up interventions.
SELECTION
Reduce the cost of wrong hires
Role-relevant evidence can improve hiring decisions when interviews and CVs alone do not sufficiently distinguish finalists. That can reduce repeated recruitment effort, lost productivity and the downstream cost of a hiring failure.
ROLE ONBOARDING
Reach productive contribution sooner
Assessment does not create successful onboarding by itself, but it can sharpen role clarity, manager focus, adjustment priorities and early support conversations. That can reduce avoidable drift, confusion and early-exit risk during the ramp-up period.
DEVELOPMENT, COACHING & MENTORING
Get more value from development spend
HRP can help focus coaching, mentoring and development priorities so organizations spend less on generic activity and more on role-relevant growth themes, structured feedback and follow-up that people can actually use.
INTERNAL MOBILITY
Retain talent and reduce replacement costs
Promotion, reassignment and succession decisions can make better use of existing talent when readiness is considered against the target role rather than assumed from past performance alone. That can help retain organizational knowledge and reduce dependence on external replacement hiring.
Why these outcomes matter economically
Selection value
Better selection can create—or lose—millions in value
“The gains from increasing the validity of hiring methods can amount over time to literally millions of dollars.”
Selection utility depends on factors such as improvement over the existing selection process, hiring volume, role value and performance variability, selection ratio, and the duration over which value accumulates.
Schmidt and Hunter also make the reverse implication clear: persistently using low-validity selection methods can produce substantial losses through reduced workforce productivity.
Frank L. Schmidt and John E. Hunter (1998)Onboarding value
An avoidable early departure makes the organization pay twice
Ineffective organizational socialization can contribute to premature departure or ineffective adjustment. An early departure can restart recruitment and selection and create repeated recruitment expenditure, vacancy and lost-productivity costs, additional manager and team time, another onboarding cycle and a second ramp-up period before productive contribution.
HRP does not replace an organization’s selection or onboarding process. It provides role-relevant evidence that helps authorized professionals make better-informed hiring decisions and focus early role-clarity and support conversations.
Apply the method to a real people decision
Define the purpose, target role, evidence and professional responsibilities before choosing an assessment route.