Let&#x27;s say for the sake of argument that there is a positive correlation. Should you use it?<p>I argue probably not. You will be selecting for one &quot;type&quot; of person. Maybe people that do well on these tests are bad at, I dunno, creative or lateral thinking. Or maybe they are good at following directions but not at finding flaws and pushing back. Maybe they are great (or bad) at follow though (completing projects). Who knows?<p>My categories are a bit silly, and surely those test will not select exact carbon copy duplicates of people, but you get the idea. Most businesses will do best with a range of different abilities vs hyper-selected people all with the same skills, strengths, and weaknesses. Need creative problem solving for a new algorithm? Get Zahra on it. Need somebody to plod though tons of data and tease out why this hardware is failing intermittently? Ted excels at that. Need somebody to design a new caching scheme? Hmm, nobody has that skill set, but Tyrone is great at reading research and synthesizing it into a working solution for a specific problem. Have a boring problem with a difficult client? Joel loves working with people and building consensus, and doesn&#x27;t care too much about the tech. And so on. Variety is far more valuable (IMO) than uniformity, and writing lines of code to solve combinatorial problems in O(N) time in O(log N) space is a tiny, tiny part of the problems a business needs to solve.