What people are wired for is real, measurable, and proven.

Every job runs on skill and will. The interview already covers skill, so this measures the other half: what kinds of work a person is truly wired for.

Map a role now

The method

A measurable map of what a person is wired for.

Decades of behavioral science sort work into six kinds. A short, validated questionnaire, the same questions in the same order for everyone, reads which kinds of work a person naturally settles on. No resume, no skills test, no age, gender, or background, just one honest signal: what someone's wired for. It tells us where they'll have momentum, never that they'll succeed, skill decides that.

Those six are the foundation. A real role runs on several at once, so we read it as nine demands, the six plus a few common combinations, so no kind of work gets missed. Then we match a person to the role on those same six.

Realistic

Hands-on work, building, fixing, operating

Staying hands-on while doing everything else

Long stretches of solo focus

Investigative

Analyzing, researching, solving complex problems

Finding new ways when the obvious path is blocked

Deciding before all the data is in

Artistic

Creating, designing, expressing ideas

Navigating without a clear plan

Setting your own direction

Social

Teaching, helping, mentoring, collaborating

Growing other people

Convincing people who don't report to you

Enterprising

Leading, persuading, taking initiative

Walking into disagreements instead of around them

Being 'on' for people outside the company

Conventional

Organizing, following systems, maintaining standards

Following the system, every time

Working within rules that slow things down

Not a personality test

You've seen the four-letter type. This is the opposite of that.

A personality test sorts everyone into one fixed box. We change the box for every role.

Korture

DISC

MBTI

Predictive Index

Changes per role

Yes, demands chosen per JD

Partly (manual job target)

Shows trade-offs

Yes, every demand

Evidence for each read

Yes, traced to the JD

Time for the candidate

7 min

10-15 min

20-30 min

6-10 min

Science underneath

Work-interest model, 70+ years

Marston theory (1928)

Jung/Briggs (1962)

PI proprietary

Can candidates game it?

Very hard, forced-choice

Easy

Somewhat

Cost

$4 a credit

$200-2,000/yr

$4,950+/yr

Changes per role

Yes, demands chosen per JD

Compare with others

DISCNo

MBTINo

Predictive IndexPartly (manual job target)

Shows trade-offs

Yes, every demand

Compare with others

DISCNo

MBTINo

Predictive IndexNo

Evidence for each read

Yes, traced to the JD

Compare with others

DISCNo

MBTINo

Predictive IndexNo

Time for the candidate

7 min

Compare with others

DISC10-15 min

MBTI20-30 min

Predictive Index6-10 min

Science underneath

Work-interest model, 70+ years

Compare with others

DISCMarston theory (1928)

MBTIJung/Briggs (1962)

Predictive IndexPI proprietary

Can candidates game it?

Very hard, forced-choice

Compare with others

DISCEasy

MBTIEasy

Predictive IndexSomewhat

Cost

$4 a credit

Compare with others

DISC$200-2,000/yr

MBTI$200-2,000/yr

Predictive Index$4,950+/yr

The evidence

The company is new. The science is older than you are.

Two findings from decades of research, and the number they add up to.

2.2xstructured vs. gut-feel

Structured beats gut-feel by 2.2x

Behavior-based interviews predict on-the-job performance more than twice as well as a good feeling across the table. We build that structure for you, so the gut stays out of it.

Sackett et al., 2022, Journal of Applied Psychology

80 studiesspanning 14,522 people

Interest predicts performance and tenure

When the work runs on what someone is wired for, they do it better and they stay longer. That second part is the expensive flop you're trying to avoid.

Nye et al., 2012, Perspectives on Psychological Science

up to 3xvs. resume-and-gut hiring

Stacked, up to 3x the odds

Put the structured interview and the interest read together and you are up to three times more likely to land a top performer than skim-a-CV-and-trust-your-gut hiring.

Where up to 3x comes from

The number above is derived, not borrowed. Here is the whole chain, including the part where it gets weaker.

01
Start where you already are
You screen resumes and you interview for skill. On its own that is a weak signal for who performs: a resume proxy like years of experience sits near .07, and an unstructured interview near .19.
Sackett et al., 2022, Journal of Applied Psychology
02
Structure the interview
Same questions, same rubric, every candidate. That moves the interview from .19 to .42, the highest of any method in the current evidence. This is the 2.2x above, and it is the layer most teams already believe in.
Sackett et al., 2022, Journal of Applied Psychology
03
Add the interest read on top
Interest congruence is not a substitute for the skill check, it stacks on it, and it carries information the interview does not. Across 74 studies it tracks turnover intentions at -.19 and people actually leaving at -.15. Together the two layers plausibly reach about .50.
Nye et al., 2012; Van Iddekinge et al., 2011
04
Why a close match holds
When what someone is drawn to lines up with what the work runs on, they are markedly more satisfied and more committed. Satisfied people, in turn, perform better. Neither link is huge on its own, and neither is a guess.
Kristof-Brown et al., 2005, Personnel Psychology; Judge et al., 2001, Psychological Bulletin
05
Turn that into odds
Converting to the chance a hire lands in the top tenth of performers, the standard selection-odds model: at about .50 that chance is roughly 32 percent, against roughly 12 percent on a resume screen and 10 percent on a coin flip. That is where up to three times comes from.
Bivariate-normal selection model, standard I/O method

The assumptions, so you can argue with them. This compares against resume-and-gut screening, not against a good structured interview you already run, where the gain is nearer two times. It assumes you are selecting roughly the top tenth of your pool, and it treats a top performer as top-decile. "Up to" is doing real work in that sentence. And every number here is about the method, not a promise about one particular hire.

The lineage

Under the hood is the most widely studied model of work interest, tested for 70+ years. We speak plain English everywhere else on this page; this is the lineage, so you can go check our homework.

Here's what we won't claim.

We're a new company, so we won't pretend to predict performance or promise you a great hire. One more thing worth saying plainly: this research is strongest when you ask people how well a job suits them, and that answer only exists once they are already doing it. Before you hire, nobody has it, including us. What we measure is interest, which is the one honest way to read that match in advance. We show you the read and the evidence behind it, then leave the decision where it belongs, with you.

Data: US Department of Labor (O*NET). Science verified by IIM Bangalore.

The missing piece

The science was always sound. The tooling wasn’t.

For about 60 years, this kind of interest research had one job: career counseling, helping a person pick a path. Researchers only seriously reconsidered it as a hiring signal around 2011.

Even then, one hard problem remained. Taking a specific, messy, real job and reading its true behavioral demands was nearly impossible to do by hand at scale. Think of a powerful telescope nobody could aim at one particular star. The lens was always sound; the mount that points it at your exact role is the part that needed the kind of AI we only have now.

So no one beat us to it. The science was just waiting for the tooling to catch up.

Fairness

Fair because of what it never asks.

The questionnaire never collects who you are, only what kind of work you're wired for. That one choice is also what makes it fairer, and easier to defend.

No demographic data, ever

We never see your age, gender, or background. There is nothing there to be biased by.

Smaller gaps than IQ-style tests

It shows smaller differences between race and gender groups than aptitude tests do, so it is fairer and easier to defend.

What you're wired for, not who you are

That is the whole point. It sharpens your read on skill, it does not replace it.

Fairer hiring is only the first step. The goal is teams that click, and a culture you build on purpose, not by luck.

The foundation

One science. A growing list of uses.

What a person is wired for is the constant, the engine under everything we build. Today it powers how you hire: it reads a role's real demands, shows how a candidate is wired for that work, and builds your interview questions from those demands. Tomorrow, the same science shapes how people grow, how teams are built, and how culture takes hold.

Quinn · Senior Account Manager

Wired for parts of it

The will is here for part of it. Much of what this role is sits right where this person's interest naturally lives, but one of the parts that truly decides it does not, so expect real self-driven momentum on most of the role and a slow fade where it matters just as much.

The closer their shape sits to the role's, the stronger the match.

Interest is the first lever of a growing culture, and you're standing on it. It's where the work has a natural grain, so we read it to aim the structured interview, not to call the outcome.

Put it to work