When Laszlo Bock joined Google as CHRO in 2006, he inherited a hiring system built on pedigree. Candidates arrived with dossiers detailing their achievements, grades and SAT scores. The company, like most elite employers, assumed these credentials predicted success.

However, Bock thought they were wrong.

“By focusing on pedigree, we are missing out on a ton of people,” Bock said during a recent session at The Human Resources Policy Institute (HRPI) at Boston University’s 2025 Fall Summit.

That realization marked a turning point not only for Google but for how many leading organizations think about talent. What followed was an experiment in using data to challenge some of HR’s most deeply held assumptions about hiring.

Inside Google’s 300-variable hiring experiment

Instead of relying on traditional markers of achievement, Bock shared that Google’s team analyzed more than 300 variables to predict employee performance. The approach represented a shift from credentials to capabilities, from what people had achieved in the past to what they could actually do.

The results challenged conventional wisdom about what makes someone successful, according to Bock. Practical skills assessments, which ask candidates to demonstrate actual job skills rather than discuss hypothetical scenarios or present credentials, emerged as the strongest predictor.

“Work sample tests are good,” Bock noted, pointing to research from MIT on AI interpretation that demonstrated how practical demonstrations of skill outperform traditional assessment methods.

Bock said that structured interviews, where every candidate answers the same questions in the same order, consistently outperformed unstructured conversations. The findings aligned with research from McKinsey and other organizations studying hiring effectiveness.

IQ tests, while seemingly objective, proved too exclusionary and failed to capture the full picture of potential.

“An IQ test is not as clear; it excludes too much,” Bock explained. The tests might measure certain cognitive abilities, but they systematically screened out talented people who could excel in the role.

Read the full article here: