Trusting your gut is not an effective way to hire. And neither is over-reliance on AI.

State-of-the-Art Review: Intuition vs Analytics in Hiring (2020–2025)

Below are summaries of recent scholarship (systematic reviews, meta-analytic re-analyses, and conceptual books) that critically examine intuition (“gut feel”) in hiring and highlight where reliance on unstructured judgment remains problematic — or at least risky — compared to structured, data-driven approaches.

Key Recent Reviews & Syntheses

1. Sackett, Zhang, Berry & Lievens (2022): Revisiting Meta-Analytic Estimates of Validity This is a major empirical/meta-analytic paper that reevaluates how we estimate the validity (predictive power) of various selection tools (interviews, cognitive tests, etc.). PubMed+2ResearchGate+2 Their critique: previous meta-analyses overcorrected for “range restriction” (a psychometric artifact), which inflated validity estimates. PubMed+1 After recalibration, many predictor tools still have predictive validity, but the corrected validities are 0.10–0.20 points lower than earlier estimates. PubMed Importantly for intuition: they found structured interviews emerged as the top-ranked selection predictor under their corrected model. Cambridge University Press & Assessment+1 They also emphasized variance (i.e., not just the mean validity): there’s a lot of variability across studies in how effective different tools are, suggesting real-world effectiveness depends greatly on how well selection tools are designed and implemented. Cambridge University Press & Assessment+1
2. Deters (2022): Analytics & Intuition in the Process of Selecting Talent This is an open-access book that takes a holistic, conceptual approach. EconStor+2fox.leuphana.de+2 It argues that both intuition and analytics have roles in hiring but warns about overconfidence in intuitive judgments. EconStor It outlines how intuition can be measured, operationalized, and integrated with rational-analytical procedures (rather than simply relying on “gut feel”). EconStor The author also explores cultural variations, the challenge of feedback (intuition improves only if you get good feedback), and how digital tools (AI, analytics) can complement intuition rather than replace it. fox.leuphana.de A key takeaway: simply trusting intuition without structuring it or grounding it in analytic/data processes is risky and often suboptimal.
3. Huffcutt & Murphy (2023): Commentary on Validity Variability in Structured Interviews In Industrial & Organizational Psychology, Huffcutt and Murphy comment on new meta-analytic findings (notably those from Sackett et al.) and call attention to variability (not just average validity) of structured interviews. Cambridge University Press & Assessment+1 They note that although structured interviews can be highly predictive on average, their predictive power varies widely (credibility intervals are large). Cambridge University Press & Assessment This means that "just structuring interviews" isn’t a magic bullet — how you structure them (questions, rating scales, training) matters a lot. Over-relying on intuition without recognizing and managing this variability is likely to lead to poor outcomes in some contexts.
4. Wingate et al. (2025): Meta-analytic Review of Interview-Based Assessments A very recent (2025) meta-analysis focusing on interview-based assessments of specific constructs. Wiley Online Library They examine how different types of interview content (behavioral, situational, etc.) map onto their intended constructs (e.g., teamwork, leadership). This helps clarify which interview styles are more “analytic” and predictive, and which are more impressionistic or intuitive. Their findings provide empirical support for more structured, targeted interview designs rather than free-form, general “get-a-feel-for-the-candidate” interviews.

Emerging Themes & Implications from These Reviews

Putting together the insights from these works, here’s what the current (“state-of-the-art”) research suggests about relying on gut in hiring:

• Intuition has a role, but it’s not sufficient by itself. The Deters book argues for a hybrid model — leveraging intuition but anchoring it with structured, validated tools. EconStor
• Correcting overconfidence: Intuitive judgments often feel more accurate than they are. The meta-analytic work (Sackett et al.) shows that validity of many tools was overestimated; overconfidence in unstructured judgments can amplify risk.
• Variability matters more than average validity: Structured tools (like structured interviews) are not uniformly effective. Their performance depends on design, implementation, and context. Cambridge University Press & Assessment
• Design and training are critical: To realize the benefits of structured approaches, organizations need to invest in good question design, rating rubrics, and interviewer training. Poorly designed structured interviews can underperform.
• Feedback loops help intuition improve: Intuitive decisions improve when decision-makers receive high-quality, timely feedback — but many hiring environments lack this. Deters argues for mechanisms to strengthen feedback on hiring decisions. fox.leuphana.de
• AI and analytics can help: Rather than replacing human intuition, AI / analytics can augment it. But reliance on AI should also be careful: some studies (e.g., in human-AI decision-making) show that explanations can lead to overreliance or misapplication of both AI and human intuition. arXiv

Bottom Line / Practical Take-Aways

• The research strongly cautions against “just going with your gut” in hiring — especially in unstructured interviews or when relying on purely subjective impressions.
• Better hiring decisions come from blending intuition with structure: use validated tools (structured interviews, psychometric tests), but don’t dismiss intuitive judgment entirely — just make sure it's grounded and calibrated.
• Invest in training interviewers, creating good scoring rubrics, and building feedback loops so your team’s intuition gets better over time.
• Monitor and evaluate your hiring tools: use data to check which methods predict success in your organization (not just general meta-analytic claims).