00:00 Introduction
01:15 Meet the guest and icebreaker question
03:00 What clients underestimate about implementing assessments
07:47 How to balance between what clients want and what they actually need
10:20 A favourite client moment, and why
14:00 The role of Professional Services teams in protecting the integrity of assessment
17:10 What does scalable actually mean?
13:45 Balancing science and delivery
19:30 Science or Fiction?
29:59 Key Takeaways
Caroline Fry (00:00)
Welcome to The Score, where we make sense of hiring trends, we sort science from fiction, and find out what's new in talent acquisition from top experts in the field.
Nicola Tatham (00:08)
I'm Nicola Tatham, Chief IO Psychologist at Sova with over two decades of experience designing fair, predictive and science-backed talent assessments. I'm here to cut through the noise and talk about what actually works in hiring.
Caroline Fry (00:22)
And I'm Caroline Fry, Head of Product. I spend my time turning smart assessment ideas from Nic into tools that work — scalable, inclusive, and ready for whatever AI throws at us next.
Nicola Tatham (00:33)
Each episode we're joined by a guest to unpack a big question in hiring.
Caroline Fry (00:37)
Because talent deserves better than guesswork.
Nicola Tatham (00:40)
Today we're joined by Nick Brown. Nick is Sova's Global Director of Professional Services. He owns the end-to-end delivery of Sova's projects, ensuring implementations are on time, on budget, and aligned with client goals. No pressure. Crucially, Nick also has over a decade of recruitment and talent acquisition experience under his belt, making him the perfect person to join us to chat about what it really takes to deliver accurate, scalable and science-backed hiring solutions.
Caroline Fry (01:15)
Okay Nick, welcome. We like to kick things off with a light question. What is the weirdest, funniest, or most baffling interview question you've ever come across — whether you were the one being asked or you were watching it happen?
Nick Brown (01:29)
The weirdest one, or probably the most cliched one I've heard — I wasn't asked it, but as a recruiter — was when one hiring manager used to ask candidates: if you were an animal, what animal would you be? I think we've all heard this one before. Some of the answers were quite good. You get the usual lions and tigers.
Caroline Fry (01:49)
Mm-hmm.
Nick Brown (01:56)
But one candidate said they'd be a chameleon — adaptable to any situation. It's a terrible question, a terrible answer. You get what you’re given, really, don’t you?
Nicola Tatham (01:59)
Genius. Yes.
Caroline Fry (01:59)
Mm-hmm.
Nicola Tatham (02:05)
Play that back — what would you be, Nick, if you were an animal?
Caroline Fry (02:08)
Mm-hmm.
Nick Brown (02:09)
Probably a bald eagle. I don't know. I genuinely have no idea. It's just a silly question, isn't it?
Caroline Fry (02:15)
Yeah. Grand, majestic, authoritative. Okay, I like it.
Nick Brown (02:18)
Yeah, bold. Yeah, yeah.
Nicola Tatham (02:22)
Anyway, we digress. Thank you, Nick. Thanks for joining us. We're going to give you a bit of a grilling today and go through quite a few questions. Hopefully it won't be too painful and you'll enjoy it.
Caroline Fry (02:23)
Mm-hmm.
Nicola Tatham (02:33)
We know you've been on both sides of the table. You've acted as a recruiter, a buyer, and now you're leading the delivery. What would you say is one thing people often underestimate about implementing assessments and assessment solutions?
Nick Brown (02:48)
The internal effort is the most common one. Having been on both sides of the fence, everyone is obsessed with how long a vendor — an assessment company like us — can take to do something. How long does it take to build it? To configure it, deploy it, train us, give us the keys? But they often don't consider their own internal challenges: getting resource available, whether it's for integrations or change management — particularly for enterprise or global rollouts.
You may need to chaperone hundreds of internal stakeholders and navigate cultural differences. So I always say: we can do this as quickly as you want to go — but how quickly can you go?
Nicola Tatham (03:54)
I guess it's within your team's power to support clients with understanding what's down the road — even in the pre-sales conversations.
Nick Brown (04:04)
Absolutely. A good project manager thinks two steps ahead of the client — about what's coming, and what similar clients have gone through. No two clients are the same, but certain considerations about pace often come up. Most clients want to go really, really fast, but you have to balance speed and quality. If you prioritise speed, it usually backfires.
We’re not asking them to slow down — we just want them to think about what they need to do to make it successful. Internally with stakeholders, and externally with the candidate market — your reputation is everything.
We share pre-reading and homework to help clients think about the right things. And they should reflect on what they've done when implementing other HR tech — even beyond assessments.
Also, when it comes to scientific rigour, it’s one thing to want accuracy — but once you’re in implementation, it can be hard to get the right people for focus groups, surveys, or job analyses. The data points might be limited.
We're here to support and consult — but there’s still work clients need to do.
Nicola Tatham (05:54)
Sorry, Caroline, I know you were going to ask something, but I’ve got a burning one. Every client wants a solution that's custom, fast, and scientifically sound. How on earth do you manage those expectations and juggle all those plates?
Caroline Fry (05:58)
Mm-hmm.
Nick Brown (06:11)
For large implementations with multiple strands or products, a phased approach is key — whether by product or by region. Also, having the right project team is essential.
Do you need 15 people on every call? Probably not. Usually, four to five people owning different areas works best. That team also needs to be empowered internally.
Clients come to us as experts. They want guidance. So we have to be confident in giving that, while also respecting their deep knowledge of their own organisation. It’s about finding that pragmatic balance.
This is part 1 of the transcript. It continues in the next message.
Caroline Fry (07:21)
Yeah, I think related to that, Nick, it’s dawning on me how much you straddle the divide — the consultancy, the advisory piece. There’s often a gap between what clients ask for and what they actually need. How do you and your team navigate that, especially when you're switching between being advisors and listening to the client's unique challenges?
Nick Brown (08:00)
At Sova and in my previous roles, I’ve always spent a lot of time on discovery. We work in a SaaS industry, and sometimes customers just want the keys to the car to go drive it. But we always want to start with: why have you bought this? Why are you investing in assessments?
Is it replacing something inaccurate? Is it about user experience, candidate experience, quality of hire? There are lots of reasons. We explore that in the sales process, but we revisit it in implementation because we're now working with different people — the end users. Recruiters, hiring managers, product owners. They’ll have hands-on experience and will say: here’s what’s not working for us.
Understanding the actual problem means we can run and deliver the project in a way that brings real value.
Nicola Tatham (09:37)
Thanks. And identify the metrics. What are you going to be compared against at the end? What does success look like?
Nick Brown (09:50)
Yeah. That’s the scientist in you — give me the metrics. Give me the numbers. And you're right. After 20 years in the industry, I’m used to clients not always having full data. Funnels can be incomplete. But you still need to define what value looks like.
Nicola Tatham (10:23)
Without naming names — unless you want to — what’s been one of your favourite client moments recently, and why?
Nick Brown (10:32)
I don’t have one standout, but having worked in SaaS implementation for the past eight years, the best moments are seeing recruiters genuinely delighted. Especially as a former recruiter myself — when we implement something that makes their job easier and lets them focus on what matters.
During go-live training weeks, you see the solution land and bring joy. One example — 10 years ago, recruiters were spending four hours a day on phone interviews. Day in, day out. That’s a slog.
We moved them to a video interview solution, combined with an assessment. Suddenly, they had data points, were spending more time on the best candidates, and offering a white-glove service. Job satisfaction went up. It’s not always front of mind in buying — people talk about efficiency or quality of hire — but actually improving recruiters’ job satisfaction is huge. I’ve always enjoyed seeing that.
Nicola Tatham (12:28)
Hmm.
Caroline Fry (12:30)
As usual, it's the impact on real people that matters. Even though we work in tech, it's still about the humans.
Nick Brown (12:44)
Yeah. Hiring managers too. I worked with a large defence company with a prestigious graduate scheme. The hiring managers were really engaged, and the hiring was part of the community. They’d often be interviewing candidates who lived just down the road.
When those candidates had gone through a new assessment process and it worked, the feedback was real. Those hiring managers were big critics — so when it landed well, it was even more rewarding. And when you widen the net for them and disrupt old ways, that’s exciting.
Nicola Tatham (13:45)
So let’s talk about data, implementation, speed. What role does your team — professional services — play in protecting the integrity of the science while still keeping clients happy? Are you the gatekeepers?
Nick Brown (14:03)
Definitely. I joke that I can offer the “idiot’s guide” to what IO psychologists are doing. That’s not a dig — I’ve worked with amazing IOs. But sometimes we’re dealing with complex concepts, and recruiters might not have exposure to assessments before.
That’s where my team comes in. We can explain what the IO is saying in practical terms. It becomes a double act — the IO explains the science, and we explain what that looks like in practice. We help bridge that gap.
Sometimes the IO says, “This is the scientific gold standard,” and we say, “Sure, but here’s what this specific client can realistically do.” We aim high but stay pragmatic.
Also, we’re guardians of minimum standards. If we say something has to be done a certain way, it's not us being difficult — it's about maintaining professional rigour in assessment delivery.
Nicola Tatham (16:13)
They’ve got to speak both languages. They’re the constant across the project. IOs can jump in and out, but your team has to understand the science and explain it clearly. The customer needs to understand why they’re being asked to provide people for a pilot, or a job analysis.
Nick Brown (16:40)
Exactly. The best teams I’ve worked with are in tandem with the client. When we get to training, we’re not just showing them the platform — we’re also explaining what the assessment is doing.
Not a three-hour deep dive into the history of psychometrics, but enough so that they feel confident explaining it to candidates. “This is what this assessment is doing, here’s why it looks like this, and here’s how it scores.”
Part 2 complete. Final part continues in next message.
Caroline Fry (17:18)
In your opinion, what does “scalable” actually mean in our space? And where do people go wrong trying to scale?
Nick Brown (17:27)
When rolling out globally, it's about balancing localisation and consistency. They're not opposites — you can have both. But you need to focus your energy where it matters.
Localising branding, videos, and the candidate-facing parts makes sense — maybe even adapting content for a different country or a specific population. But is it necessary to support 15 languages if your organisation operates almost entirely in English? Maybe, maybe not.
Obviously, if you're giving someone a personality or cognitive assessment, you want them to take it in their native language. But it depends on context. It’s about knowing when localisation supports fairness and when it’s just complexity for its own sake.
Consistency matters, especially if you want reliable, comparable data globally. So, scale means doing what’s needed for your business, without compromising on scientific integrity.
Caroline Fry (18:58)
Yeah.
Nick Brown (19:08)
The other big thing is integrations — working with major HR tech platforms. You need assessments to sit naturally in the hiring workflow, not feel bolted on. Navigating that complexity is key.
Caroline Fry (19:27)
Mm-hmm.
I think you’ll be pleased to know the hardcore grilling might be over. I think Nic's got a fun game for you now.
Nicola Tatham (19:40)
So fun.
This is a little game we call Science or Fiction. We’ll throw a few statements your way. Some are based on science, others not so much. Your job is to tell us which is which, and help us set the record straight.
Caroline Fry (19:53)
Don’t give him a get-out.
Nicola Tatham (19:56)
Nope. Your job is to pick a side.
First one: if you can’t explain an assessment to a candidate, you shouldn’t use it. Science or fiction?
Nick Brown (20:11)
I think that's science. I'm not quoting a study, but from experience — it’s essential. Anyone administering or using an assessment should have taken it themselves, understood how it works, and be able to explain it.
We talk about explainability in AI, but it’s just as important here. If a candidate calls or emails, the recruiter needs to be able to explain what it’s doing in plain terms. That’s non-negotiable for me.
Caroline Fry (20:42)
Mm-hmm.
Nicola Tatham (20:59)
Next one: fairness isn’t a science problem, it’s a design problem.
Nick Brown (21:04)
I think it’s both. You need scientific fairness — evidence, data, adverse impact analysis. But that informs design. It affects weighting, assessment types, and how different groups perform.
From a product point of view, it also means designing with accessibility in mind. In implementation, we get asked about neurodiverse candidates, colour blindness, platform accessibility — and it’s great. Everyone’s trying to do the right thing.
So yes, fairness is a science and a design issue.
Caroline Fry (21:34)
Mm-hmm.
Nicola Tatham (22:11)
Completely agree. If the science isn't there, it won’t be valid. If the design is wrong, it won’t be usable — and people won’t trust it. That affects candidate buy-in, and that affects validity too.
Okay, next one. DE&I — diversity, equity and inclusion — starts with how you define success. Science or fiction?
Nick Brown (22:33)
100% science.
One of the things I love about assessments is that they're about identifying people who can do the job — starting from a clear, structured place. Then you work backwards and make the process equitable.
It moves you away from “hiring in your own image,” or the cultural fit clichés — like “they’ll come to the pub with us on Fridays.” That narrows the talent pool.
Using assessments fairly and consistently should improve diversity of hire, even without explicitly trying. Because you're starting from a level playing field.
Nicola Tatham (23:59)
Thank you. Almost done. A scientifically valid assessment can still feel unfair.
Nick Brown (24:05)
Yeah. I’ve taken loads of assessments in the past decade — not for jobs, just to test them. Some feel brutal. But they’re meant to be hard. That’s why candidate comms are crucial.
Does your website explain the assessment? What should candidates expect? Otherwise, people might think, “That was impossible,” when actually they’re doing great.
Even image-based personality assessments — which we’ve worked on — can feel difficult because they're designed to stop gaming. That’s intentional.
Nicola Tatham (25:15)
I'd challenge that a bit. There’s a difference between unfair and hard. If it feels hard but relevant to the job, it’s fine. If it feels arbitrary — like bursting balloons on a screen when that's not part of the job — then it feels unfair.
This is why communication with candidates is essential. Explain what the assessment is and why you're using it. You've talked a lot about comms with clients — but candidate comms matter just as much, especially for neurodivergent candidates.
With the right communication, a hard assessment can still feel fair.
Nick Brown (26:26)
Yeah. You’re better at this than me, Nic. That’s a really good point. If a question feels irrelevant — like “what animal are you?” — then it feels unfair. Totally agree.
Caroline Fry (26:31)
Thank...
Nicola Tatham (26:52)
Okay, final one. Psychologists are the original UX designers of hiring.
Caroline Fry (27:01)
User experience!
Nicola Tatham (27:02)
Thank you.
Nick Brown (27:03)
Being married to a UX researcher — and work-married to psychologist Nic — I’d say: to some extent, yes.
Maybe 40 years ago, assessments weren’t very user-friendly. It was all about the science. But in the past 20 years, UX has become critical. My IO colleagues always think: is it valid, but also, is it appropriate? Is it a good experience?
Not being terrible isn’t enough anymore. It has to be delightful. A process that feels good to go through. So yes — psychologists today are absolutely thinking like UX designers.
Nicola Tatham (28:32)
It’s that multidisciplinary approach. We’re not UX designers, but we work with them. Caroline will confirm the hours our teams spend together on every platform rollout. We can’t work in isolation.
Nick Brown (28:39)
Mm-hmm.
Caroline Fry (28:41)
That’s where my team comes in.
Nicola Tatham (29:01)
It’s become even more important — for clients and candidates. We said this in the last podcast too — the multidisciplinary work is what enables great solutions. That’s the end of my statements. Thank you, Nick.
Caroline Fry (29:12)
Yeah.
Nick Brown (29:21)
Thank you both. You're welcome.
Caroline Fry (29:22)
Nick, this has been really insightful — for me and hopefully for our listeners. If there’s one thing you want people to remember from this episode, what would it be?
Nick Brown (29:39)
If you're investing in assessments, take the time to think about what you want to achieve and how to get there. We’re not asking you to build a bridge, but you do need to put in some thought.
Yes, we can work fast, but thoughtful participation makes the rollout more successful — both internally and externally. That client-vendor relationship is key.
Caroline Fry (30:30)
Thinking back on what you've shared, I think your team’s value is in helping clients get to successful outcomes. That continued support, the enablement — not just the platform, but everything around it — means they end up with something that actually delivers what they need.
I already appreciated your team, but hearing this detail makes it even clearer. And I love hearing you say “delight” — very much a product word!
Nicola Tatham (31:05)
Yeah.
Caroline Fry (31:20)
So thank you, from me, for everything you do to make what we build work so well.
Nick Brown (31:26)
You’re very welcome. It’s always multidisciplinary, multi-team. Thank you.
Caroline Fry (31:29)
Of course.
Nicola Tatham (31:32)
And I’ve always appreciated you.
Caroline Fry (31:33)
What about me? I’m late to the party!
Nick Brown (31:34)
Yeah, yeah.
Nicola Tatham (31:37)
One of my takeaways is the importance of that partnership mindset you bring. When we ask tough questions or hold clients to deadlines, it’s not about pressure — it’s because we care. It’s: we’re in this together. To delight you, we sometimes need to challenge you. What do you want to measure? Why? Can you really meet this deadline?
Partnership is the key word.
Nick Brown (32:10)
Definitely. We all want the same thing. When I work with a client team, I want them to get the internal recognition — because they’ve delivered something valuable that helps the business.
It’s so impactful — because ultimately you’re dealing with people and their jobs. When it goes well, it’s the best job in the world. You can see things transform quickly and have real impact. It can be hard, but you get there.
Caroline Fry (32:56)
Thanks so much, Nick.
Nick Brown (32:56)
Thank you both.
Caroline Fry (32:59)
Thanks, Nick, for hanging out with us on The Score. And to our listeners — if you enjoyed this deep dive into candidate experience, fairness, and making assessment rollouts actually work, don’t miss what’s coming next. New episodes drop every two weeks on YouTube, Spotify, or wherever you get your talent assessment insights.
Nick Brown (33:16)
You two are so good at this!
Rolling out an assessment strategy at scale isn’t just about choosing the right platform or relying on strong science. It’s about making the process work in the real world, taking into account the people that will be using the technology, internal and external deadlines, and organisational complexity.
In this episode of The Score, Nicola Tatham (Chief IO Psychologist) and Caroline Fry (Director of Product) are joined by Nick Brown, Sova’s Global Director of Professional Services, to discuss what makes an assessment rollout succeed. With over two decade of experience in recruitment, implementation, and large-scale talent transformation, Nick brings a unique perspective on how deliver assessments that are fair, scalable, and grounded in science, while still keeping people at the centre of the process.
The recipe for a successful assessment implementation varies based on each organisation’s unique needs, but there are proven lessons from teams who do it every day. Whether you're planning your first assessment project or thinking about going global, this episode of The Score offers practical insights that can help you deliver assessment strategies that work for all the stakeholders involved.
Sova is a talent assessment platform that provides the right tools to evaluate candidates faster, fairer and more accurately than ever.
.webp)
.webp)
.webp)
