How teams adopt PERSONA for smarter hiring and talent choices
Everything you need to roll out AI-powered psychometrics for hiring, performance, retention, and mobility.
For HR leaders, hiring managers, and CEOs making high-stakes people decisions, including executive appointments.
Adoption path
Deploy on priority roles and align decision inputs with stakeholders.
Expand across teams with shared language and manager calibration.
Standardize decision records and extend use across the organization.
Typical enterprise setup
- Purchased 5 user licenses for 3 years.
- Each license allows managing up to 20 employee/candidate profiles.
- Added training package for internal team enablement.
- Added consulting package: 10 days over 2 months to drive adoption success.
- Added support package: annual support (5 x 8) with early ehancement access.
Adoption milestones
Inputs you can use
Infer from the individual’s response to role-specific context
Baseline career history and relevant experience.
Role expectations and performance context.
Used when hiring decisions must be finalized.
Helpful when planning for the next year or ratings.
Included if your process already uses it.
Can be used when a survey is available from the reportees
Customer rollout snapshots
Growth-stage leaders
Starting problem: Fast hiring decisions made under pressure.
What changed: Clear role-based insights support decisions from first interview to offer.
Enterprise leadership teams
Starting problem: Different leaders see candidates differently.
What changed: Everyone reviews people using the same role criteria and signals.
Large hiring organisations
Starting problem: Important information spread across systems and emails.
What changed: All role and decision context captured in one trusted place.
Before vs After: how decisions actually change
Before
- Different managers reach different conclusions about the same person.
- Important reasons live in people’s heads or private notes.
- Final decisions feel risky and hard to explain later.
After
- Everyone reviews people against the same role expectations.
- Key reasons are captured once and understood by all.
- Decisions feel clear, confident, and easy to revisit.
Why organisations stay with PERSONA
Used year after year
Organisations using PERSONA continue to rely on it for real people decisions, returning to review outcomes and refine how it supports their teams.
Decisions do not get lost
With PERSONA, teams can see why a decision was made, even months later. Important context stays in one place, so people do not need to start discussions again or rely on memory.
Built for real decisions, not one-off answers
Customers trust PERSONA because it keeps decision history, context, and reasoning together over time. It supports accountability and continuity, not just instant answers.
Real outcomes teams report
- Hiring cycle time for a Head of HR role dropped from 78 days to 23 days.
- Saved ~$300K by selecting the right finalist for a senior role.
- Avoided an estimated $100K-$250K in potential labor-related legal exposure through a defensible promotion decision.
How teams know PERSONA is working
Risk reduction and governance
- Documented rationale for each recommendation.
- Repeatable method across hiring teams.
- Transparent inputs and interpretation trail.
- Audit-ready records for compliance and review.
Who gets value first
Hiring managers
Clearer role-fit signals before final offer decisions.
HRBPs
Stronger governance and consistent decision documentation.
Talent acquisition leads
More structured screening and interviewer alignment.
Business heads
Higher confidence in strategic people decisions.
How teams compare PERSONA with other options
| Dimension | PERSONA | Established assessments (for example SHL/Hogan) | Generic AI chat tools |
|---|---|---|---|
| Process transparency | Structured, traceable, and review-friendly. | Varies by framework; often report-led workflows. | Output can be helpful but not decision-system structured. |
| Total cost predictability | Customers report clearer, lower operating cost over time. | Commonly tied to report packs, add-ons, or program tiers. | Low entry cost, but not built as a governed decision workflow. |
| Cost for new reports | No extra per-report fee pattern in typical rollout plans. | Often linked to report volume or package design. | No report model; mostly ad hoc conversations. |
| Report turnaround speed | Instant, real-time report generation and support. | Often request-based with turnaround time before final delivery. | Fast answers, but not a governed assessment-report workflow. |
| Interpretation consistency | Customers report stable, evidence-grounded outputs when the same profile and query are revisited. | Can vary when interpretation is handled by different people across cycles. | Can vary by prompt style and session context. |
| Interrogate insights | Interactive questioning of decision context and rationale. | Typically fixed-format outputs and interpretation guides. | Conversational, but without organization-specific governance memory. |
| Build custom reports | Teams can create internal decision views and report formats. | Customization may depend on service scope and vendor model. | Manual prompting required each time. |
| Audit and future candidate reviews | One internal context trail for future reviews and audits. | History can be distributed across systems and documents. | Session-based context unless separately documented. |
| Human-like support experience | Built-in chat workflow aligned to people-decision context. | Usually report interpretation process, not conversational support. | Strong chat capability, but not role-anchored by default. |
| Certification dependency | No certified operator requirement in standard adoption model. | Many programs rely on certified interpretation pathways. | No certification, but also no embedded hiring guardrail model. |
| Guardrails for safe use | Well-defined guardrails for consistent interpretation quality. | Governance depends on methodology and deployment style. | General-purpose AI not purpose-built for hiring governance. |
Comparison reflects recurring customer feedback from deployments over the past 3 years and may vary by implementation context.
View extended comparison notes
- Customers often cite better continuity because prior candidate context is preserved for future hiring discussions.
- Teams value being able to question outputs directly instead of only receiving static report files.
- In most rollouts, the model is designed for internal use with audit-friendly records and clear decision rationale.
- Customers also report strong consistency: when they revisit the same candidate profile and run the same query, outputs remain stable and evidence-grounded.
Pricing indicators
See how rollout works in your hiring context.
Discuss your rollout plan
