Our Story

Workforce Interactive gives new meaning to the phrase “value investment” in a literal sense. Our innovative technology provides our customers with an array of services based on the scientific examination and measurement of human thinking values and emotional intelligence.  Our technological underpinnings are based on Nobel Prize nominee Dr. Robert Hartman’s developments in Axiology – commonly referred to as Value Science.

We have been in business since 2006, and we are driven to provide the finest array of human capital analysis services in the marketplace.  We have the pleasure of serving clients across a wide range of industries, including, but not limited to, healthcare, financial services, retail, logistics, full service/quick service restaurants, construction services, professional services, engineering, and fitness.

The precision associated with our values-based solutions affords our clientele a keener understanding of emotional intelligence that can be leveraged when evaluating applicants, recruiting and sourcing candidates, onboarding new hires, increasing employee engagement, planning internal and external communications, designing and delivering training & development programs, considering succession plans, and implementing change management or culture transformation initiatives.

Learn more about our story

High Risk Employees Love Profit-Sharing Programs; Whether You Offer One Or Not

Unnecessary expenses associated with misconduct can be devastating to an organization’s operating performance. The good news is that they can be substantially diminished. It all starts with your hiring practices. Workforce Interactive enables employers to evaluate employment candidates in an objective way that uniquely factors their thinking values while measuring their emotional intelligence.

One of the distinct advantages of our program over traditional personality and integrity instruments is that we’re significantly less vulnerable to deception by suspicious candidates who may intentionally offer misinformation. How do you think a thief would respond to the following question: Have you ever thought about stealing from your employer? These are actual questions included in traditional self-analysis tools. Many customers have told us that their exposure to risk can actually worsen when relying on legacy tests such as these. That’s because low-risk candidates may induce false positives for being honest about a minor discretion.

Because our thinking style survey does not require the individual to engage in self-analysis, test trauma and "fudging" of answers is substantially eliminated. Individuals objectively rank things in the order that reflects their value structures.

Our methodology has been validated to comply with E.E.O.C. standards, and is available in multiple languages.

A few minutes after candidates complete our twenty minute thinking style survey, your hiring managers and/or recruiters can gain critical insight related to the risk levels they pose for inappropriate behavior that can often lead to involuntary terminations.

Learn how others have chosen Evolved Insight to reduce losses associated with employee misconduct

You Can’t Spell “Failed Promotion” Without a “Pro”

Many entities promote individual contributors from within rather than hire managers from outside the organization. Management recognizes a superstar employee and determines that the individual needs to be promoted so that they can transfer their success to others. Have you been down this road before? The promotion ultimately fails, and management is confused as to why the individual contributor didn’t perform well as a manager. Employee retention suffers, and engagement levels can wane.

Human Resources gets involved and receives feedback from the failed manager’s team members suggesting that the recently promoted manager was impatient with them, overly demanding, and did a poor job at looking at things from their unique, personal perspectives. They discuss this with the manager of record as well as the leader who recommended the promotion in the first place. Everyone seems befuddled because they all perceive the recently promoted manager to be personable, persuasive, and self-motivated. What’s not to like? Why the disconnect regarding the feedback from the manager’s team members?

The answer to this riddle has everything to do with thinking values. The actions of the superstar, as an individual contributor, showed them building rapport with customers, negotiating profitable transactions for their employer, and working tirelessly. Yet when this person was managing others, their actions were seen as intolerant, judgmental, and impersonal.

If this individual’s value system had been assessed, it would have likely divulged a value hierarchy that placed much more emphasis on getting results than interpersonal relationships. Consequently, their values didn’t really change at all; the context of their actions is what changed. This person’s value structure led them to be highly self-directed and to do what was necessary to be productive. It just so happened that the lesser attentiveness regarding interpersonal relationships wasn’t exposed until management responsibilities were part of the equation. Their values didn’t fit the managerial role as well as they did the individual contributor role. Their dominant valuation of productivity, at the expense of interpersonal relationships, presented issues only when their responsibilities changed from periodic contact with clients to day-to-day contact with subordinates.

Learn how others have chosen Evolved Insight to improve employee retention

If You Don’t Measure Values, There’s Always 20/20 Hindsight

The concept of benchmarking is commonly used with behavioral testing in order to provide predictive insight regarding the fitness of candidates for respective positions. When administering personality tests to employees for benchmarking purposes, the variations between personalities and values have often compromised accuracy when it comes to correlating test results and operating performance metrics. There are often discrepancies between how one acts and how one thinks. Think of it this way. Do all the successful people in a given job at your organization have the same personality? Probably not. But it’s very conceivable that they share common thinking values that lead to success. This explains why individuals with different personalities can be successful in the same job. On the flip side, people with the same personality can have vastly different results.

To illustrate this further, consider a common salesperson candidate dilemma that is not ideally addressed by traditional, self-analysis personality tests. Assume there are two sales candidates with aggressive, competitive, results-oriented personality profiles. These traits are routinely associated with a propensity to succeed in the sales profession. However, the personality tests don’t offer a window into the candidates’ value structure, and that could pose an important risk for the employer. One candidate may be aggressive, competitive, and results-oriented; and may also impose high self expectations to do things in a responsible manner. The other candidate may likewise be aggressive, competitive, and results-oriented; however, they may be so focused on individual efforts and/or personal status, perhaps to an obsessive extreme, that it leads them to cross the line and act irresponsibly. In both cases, adequate sales production may be achieved, but at what expense? Could the ethical transgression by the irresponsible salesperson do irreparable harm to a customer relationship and/or their organization’s reputation?

In addition to the gap between personalities and values, benchmarks that are based on personality tests can be compromised by employees who misdiagnose themselves inadvertently, or intentionally try to deceive the tests. Many personality tests include accuracy estimators to account for employees who try to game or manipulate the tests, nonetheless, the reliability challenge remains. If a personality test result shows an 18% distortion factor for an employee, meaning the employee’s answers were, to a certain degree, inaccurate, how can that result be dependably factored in an aggregate analysis that includes a myriad of distortion factors?

Because our science enables people to objectively value things the way they see the world, the burden of analyzing themselves is removed. They can’t inadvertently describe themselves as competitive, or intentionally represent themselves as competitive because they sense the employer is looking for that characteristic.

By objectively measuring how people assign value instead of how they act, our technology produces purer test result data. This enables employers to benchmark with unprecedented accuracy when performing correlations to key employee performance metrics that support the company’s operating goals. As opposed to the homogenous group scoring patterns and averages often seen when personality test result data is analyzed, clear distinctions emerge when aggregating group employee performance data by value structures. This unparalleled accuracy leads to better predictability related to candidates’ future performance.

Learn how others have chosen Evolved Insight to increase revenue