What Makes Data-Driven Leadership Work

Claire Monroe

Okay, Edwin—data-driven leadership. It’s, like, everywhere right now. Blogs, webinars, leadership books... But, honestly—is it actually any different from the old-school “gut feeling” approach leaders have always used? Or is it just a fancy new label for doing the same thing?

Edwin Carrington

That’s a great question, Claire. And I get why it might feel like a rebrand. But no—it’s more than just a buzzword. What’s really changed is how central people analytics have become. We’re not talking about fringe HR tools anymore. We’re talking about leadership decisions guided by real data—behavioral insights, psychometrics, emotional intelligence profiles. And when companies apply that data thoughtfully? The results are hard to ignore. Like—hiring people based not just on credentials, but on how they’ll actually show up in a team? That’s a different game.

Claire Monroe

Yeah, but... does it really work? Like, can you think of a time when the data said one thing, the gut said another—and the data ended up being right?

Edwin Carrington

Absolutely. There was a company I worked with—they kept hiring senior managers with amazing technical chops. On paper, solid picks. But culturally? Total mismatch. Morale dropped, turnover spiked. So they finally shifted: started using validated assessment data, and guess what? One hire stood out—not the “obvious” choice. But the data showed high adaptability and a collaborative style. They took the chance. Six months in, everything changed—team dynamics improved, retention stabilized, and productivity jumped. It was eye-opening. Sometimes the data reveals the stuff our instincts—or our blind spots—just miss.

Claire Monroe

Okay, but why do leaders still resist it? Is it a generational thing? Or maybe they just… don’t trust the tools?

Edwin Carrington

A mix of things. Habit, for sure. Ego, sometimes—there’s this confidence that experienced leaders can “read people.” But science says otherwise—especially under pressure, we’re surprisingly bad at judging fit. And yeah, there’s still skepticism—like, can data really capture the full human picture? But as tools become more user-friendly and transparent—and results speak for themselves—it gets harder to dismiss. When retention improves and teams start clicking? That’s real impact.

Claire Monroe

Yeah, totally. It’s kind of like what we talked about in our last episode—self-awareness in leadership. Data keeps you honest. It’s like, a mirror that doesn’t flatter you… but also helps you grow.

Edwin Carrington

Exactly. It helps challenge your assumptions. Because that “first impression” you trust? Might not be the full story.

Claire Monroe

Alright, so... let’s get into the hiring side of this. Like—what does using data actually look like? What are teams doing differently?

Edwin Carrington

It starts with shifting from reactive to predictive hiring. So instead of just scanning a CV for job titles or degrees, they’re layering in behavioral assessments—things like communication style, adaptability, cognitive agility. Platforms like Thomas, for instance, help hiring managers get a multidimensional view. You’re not just hiring a résumé—you’re hiring a personality, a mindset, a team player. And that changes who you see as the “best fit.”

Claire Monroe

Can we talk bias for a sec? Because gut-feel hiring—yeah, it sounds intuitive, but it also, like... quietly reinforces all sorts of unconscious bias, right?

Edwin Carrington

Absolutely. That’s one of the biggest value points here. When you use structured, validated assessments, it levels the field. You’re no longer favoring someone just because they “feel familiar” or went to the same university as you. You’re focusing on measured potential—on real, observable behavior. And that opens the door to talent you might’ve otherwise overlooked.

Claire Monroe

That hits home. I remember early on in my career—there was this role, and one candidate’s résumé was... fine. Nothing flashy. But the assessment flagged top-tier collaboration skills. Like, way above average. We brought her in, and I was honestly skeptical. But she ended up being the glue in the room. Solved tension, pulled teams together. Without that data, we never would’ve seen her.

Edwin Carrington

That’s the shift—valuing what’s under the surface. Credentials matter, sure. But how someone thinks, adapts, connects? That’s what drives long-term success. It’s why the phrase “hire for the role, fire for the fit” keeps showing up. When we don’t account for behavioral dynamics, we miss the real reasons teams break down.

Claire Monroe

Yeah—it’s like, titles tell part of the story... but the context? That’s where the gold is. And data helps surface that context.

Edwin Carrington

Exactly. That’s why more HR teams are moving beyond checkbox hiring. They’re building processes that are more inclusive, more predictive—and frankly, more strategic. It’s not just about filling seats. It’s about building teams that actually work well together.

Claire Monroe

Alright, so let’s zoom out from hiring. What happens after someone joins? Like, how are companies using this kind of insight to actually build stronger teams—not just plug holes?

Edwin Carrington

This is where it gets really compelling. Traditionally, team issues only got attention after the drama—after someone quit or a project stalled. Now? Smart orgs are getting ahead of the curve. They use assessments to map team chemistry right from the start. Like—do we have too many risk-averse thinkers here? Are we missing someone who can drive collaboration? These aren’t things you’ll find on an org chart. But they’re critical for team design, leadership pairings, even onboarding strategies.

Claire Monroe

It’s like... moving from hoping for chemistry to engineering it. That’s a big shift.

Edwin Carrington

It is. And you don’t need to be a huge company to do this well. Some of the best case studies I’ve seen? Small-to-mid-sized teams using regular assessment check-ins to see where strengths cluster—and where gaps might cause tension. I remember one client who used the data to reorganize a product team before conflict showed up. They saw that everyone leaned highly competitive, but no one scored high on empathy or active listening. That insight helped them bring in balance—and avoid friction altogether.

Claire Monroe

That’s kind of amazing. Like, you’re not just reacting—you’re designing teams like systems. With intention.

Edwin Carrington

Exactly. It’s strategic. And it works.

Claire Monroe

Alright, before we wrap—I know some folks are probably thinking, “Sounds great... but where do I even start?” So—if someone’s curious about using this kind of data in their own hiring or team planning, what would you say?

Edwin Carrington

I’d say—start small, but start smart. You don’t need to overhaul your whole system. Even just integrating a behavioral assessment at the interview stage can give you insights that shift the whole process.And if you’re wondering how to put this into action… you can test out OAD’s tools—like behavioral assessments—for free at o-a-d-dot-a-i. It’s a simple way to streamline hiring and really improve team fit.

Claire Monroe

Love it. It’s like getting a sneak peek into how someone really works—not just how they look on paper. Big difference.