A situational test and an AI follow-up surface behavioral risk signals before the offer. You get an HR report in PDF with interview questions — in minutes, no demo, no rollout.
of reasons for failed hires are related to attitude and behavior, not missing skills (Leadership IQ).
See the research →
up to 30%
of first‑year salary — the cost of a bad hire (US DOL)
100–150%
of salary for complex roles (SHRM)
minutes
a ready report instead of weeks of manual assessment
The stakes
What matters most doesn’t show at launch — only the wreckage does.
A résumé shows skill — not how someone behaves under pressure, in conflict, next to someone else’s win. Behavioral screening surfaces that before the offer, while the cost of a mistake is still zero.
Without screeningA toxic hire rides on the team. Strong people leave first and delivery slows down.
With screeningThe risk shows up before the offer. The team keeps its people, decisions and pace.
No demo, no rollout. Send the candidate a link — the rest assembles itself.
01
Situational test
26 workplace scenarios. The candidate acts instead of describing an ideal self.
02
AI interview
Follow‑up questions press vague answers — in the candidate’s language.
03
HR report (PDF)
A ready report on toxicity and team‑fit risk — share with a manager or client.
What it measures
Four behavioral signals
Not a personality type, not a ranking of people. Grounded in the counterproductive-work-behavior taxonomy (Robinson & Bennett): how someone acts under pressure and alongside peers.
A
Passivity
Avoidance, “not my problem”, quietly letting issues slide.
B
Toxicity
Public shaming, gossip, breaking psychological safety.
C
Politics / status
Status games, informing, pressure outside the process.
D
Mature behavior
Mentoring, focus on people and the work — what holds a team together.
The deliverable
A report for the client — not “a gut feeling”
A ready document shows the signal, its context, and what to probe in the next interview.
01A short takeaway — no labels, no automatic rejection.
02A breakdown of four behavior groups from the candidate’s answers.
03Concrete follow‑up questions — the human decides.
The report helps you see risk and ask better questions. The human makes the final call.
Not a “toxicity detector”, not a verdict
No automatic “emotion” output
We’re validating honestly, on hiring data
Does it replace my hiring decision?+
No. It’s a screening aid: it surfaces behavioral risk signals; you decide. No verdicts, no emotion detection.
How scientific is it?+
It's built on published research: the counterproductive‑work‑behavior taxonomy (Robinson & Bennett, 1995) and team psychological safety (Edmondson, 1999). The method — a situational judgement test — is an established class of selection tools. We're validating our own test on real hiring data, so we honestly call it a structured screening aid, not a “success predictor”. See the breakdown under “What it measures”.
Is it already validated?+
Honestly: we don’t yet have our own predictive-validity study — we’re running a program on real hiring data. That’s why we call it a structured screening aid, not a “success predictor”. The method itself (a situational judgement test) is an established class of selection tools.
What about candidate data?+
Data is processed with the candidate’s consent and deleted on request. The EU has special hiring rules (AI Act, GDPR) — we roll out there gradually, with a human in the loop.
Do I need a demo or rollout?+
No. Self‑serve: sign up, send the candidate a link, get the report.
Scientific basis · signals A–D
4
classes of counterproductive behavior
Where signals A–D come from
What they studied
In 1995, Robinson and Bennett (Academy of Management Journal) used multidimensional scaling to map a stable typology of deviant workplace behavior — from withdrawal to open aggression and status games. Not a “personality type”, but observable actions.
What it means for hiring
Our four signals A–D are built directly on this taxonomy. The researchers note that counterproductive behavior is cheapest to reduce at the selection stage — before hiring, not after. That is exactly where a screener works.
Robinson & Bennett (1995), Academy of Management Journal 38(2):555–572. Scale: Bennett & Robinson (2000), Journal of Applied Psychology 85(3):349–360.
We build on published research. Our own validation data is still being collected — this is a screening aid, not a verdict, and it does not detect “emotions”.
Amy Edmondson (Administrative Science Quarterly, 1999) defined psychological safety — the belief that speaking up or admitting a mistake will not be punished. It is the most studied enabling condition of team effectiveness; a meta-analysis by Frazier et al. (2017) confirmed the construct across 136 samples.
What it means for hiring
One toxic person — public humiliation, gossip, status games (signals B and C) — erodes that safety faster than months of team-building can restore it. Screening helps keep that risk out of the team before the offer.
We build on published research. Our own validation data is still being collected — this is a screening aid, not a verdict, and it does not detect “emotions”.
of reasons for failed hires are related to attitude and behavior
What a bad hire really costs
What they studied
According to Leadership IQ research of over 20,000 new employees, among the reasons for failed hires, 89% were related to attitude and behavior and 11% — to a lack of technical skills. The U.S. Department of Labor puts the cost of a hiring mistake at up to 30% of annual salary; SHRM estimates 100–150% for complex roles.
What it means for hiring
Skills show up on a résumé and in an interview. Behavior under pressure almost never does. A behavioral screener closes exactly that blind spot — before the mistake reaches your team and your budget.
Leadership IQ, Why New Hires Fail; U.S. Department of Labor; SHRM. Full source ledger in the project research.
We build on published research. Our own validation data is still being collected — this is a screening aid, not a verdict, and it does not detect “emotions”.
