The Science Behind TeamSyncAI
Our evaluation framework synthesizes 50+ years of peer-reviewed research from industrial psychology, organizational behavior, and elite team selection. Every dimension, every criterion, every insight—backed by published studies.
Four Research Foundations
We don't use proprietary "black box" algorithms. Our framework combines validated research from multiple domains to create a comprehensive view of team fit.
Big Five Personality Model
The most validated personality framework in psychology. Our evaluation dimensions directly map to Big Five factors.
Key Findings:
- Conscientiousness predicts job performance across all roles (Barrick & Mount, 1991)
- Agreeableness predicts teamwork and collaboration (Graziano & Eisenberg, 1997)
- Openness predicts learning ability and adaptability (McCrae & Costa, 1997)
How We Apply It:
Collaboration → Agreeableness + Extraversion, Accountability → Conscientiousness, Communication → Extraversion + Openness, Growth Mindset → Openness
Behavioral Interview Science
Schmidt & Hunter's comprehensive meta-analysis proved behavioral interviews have 0.51 validity—the highest predictor after work samples.
Key Findings:
- Structured behavioral interviews: 0.51 validity coefficient
- Unstructured interviews: only 0.38 validity
- Past behavior predicts future behavior more accurately than hypothetical scenarios
How We Apply It:
We use STAR-format (Situation, Task, Action, Result) questions to elicit behavioral evidence, not hypothetical responses.
Google's Project Oxygen
Google's internal research analyzing what makes managers successful. Soft skills overwhelmingly outweighed technical skills.
Key Findings:
- Communication rated as #1 predictor of manager success
- Empathy and team support ranked higher than technical expertise
- Psychological safety in teams drives performance
How We Apply It:
Our Communication and Collaboration dimensions mirror Google's top predictors.
Navy SEAL Trust/Performance Matrix
Framework used by SEAL Team Six to select operators. High performers with low trust are rejected—skills can be taught, character cannot.
Key Findings:
- Trust matters more than raw performance in high-stakes teams
- Toxic high performers destroy team cohesion
- Character and reliability trump technical skills
How We Apply It:
We score every candidate on Trust (0-10) and Performance (0-10) to classify team fit.
Evaluation Dimensions: Big Five Mapping
Each of our four evaluation dimensions maps directly to validated Big Five personality factors, ensuring scientific rigor in our assessments.
Collaboration
Big Five: Agreeableness + Extraversion
Measures teamwork, empathy, and willingness to help others. Based on Costa & McCrae's NEO-PI-R framework (1992).
What We Assess:
Accountability
Big Five: Conscientiousness
Measures reliability, responsibility, and ownership. Strongest predictor of job performance across roles (Barrick & Mount, 1991).
What We Assess:
Communication
Big Five: Extraversion + Openness
Measures clarity, directness, and adaptability in communication. Identified as #1 predictor in Google's Project Oxygen (2013).
What We Assess:
Growth Mindset
Big Five: Openness to Experience
Measures learning orientation and adaptability. Core principle from Dweck's mindset research (2006) and Google's hiring criteria.
What We Assess:
Navy SEAL Trust/Performance Matrix
Adapted from SEAL Team Six selection criteria (Sinek, 2014). We evaluate every candidate on two critical dimensions that predict team success.
Trust Score (0-10)
Honesty, accountability, character, team-first mentality. Can they be trusted when no one is watching?
Evidence We Look For:
- • How they describe conflicts and failures
- • Who they credit for successes (team vs. self)
- • Blame-shifting vs. ownership patterns
- • Honesty about weaknesses and mistakes
Performance Score (0-10)
Skills, execution capability, results delivery, technical competence. Can they do the job well?
Evidence We Look For:
- • Specific examples with measurable outcomes
- • Depth of technical knowledge and skills
- • Problem-solving approach and creativity
- • Track record of delivering results
Navy SEAL Principle: "Skills can be taught. Character cannot."
High performers with low trust are labeled "toxic" and rejected—regardless of their battlefield skills. If this matters when lives are on the line, it matters when building business teams.
Research shows one toxic team member can reduce team performance by 30-40%, even if they're individually high-performing (Felps et al., 2006).
AI Methodology: Multi-Model Validation
We use three independent AI models to analyze responses, achieving 82% accuracy through consensus validation.
Why Three Models?
Single AI models can have biases or blind spots. By using three independent models (Claude, GPT-4, Gemini) and requiring consensus, we achieve higher accuracy and reduce false positives/negatives.
Consensus = Higher Confidence
When all three models agree on a trait (e.g., "high collaboration"), we report high confidence. When models disagree, we flag for human review.
Example: If all 3 models detect blame-shifting patterns → High confidence red flag. If only 1 model detects it → Lower confidence, requires human verification.
Self-Improving Feedback Loop
We collect 30/60/90-day manager feedback on hires. When AI predictions diverge from real-world performance, we analyze why and refine our prompts. The system gets smarter with every hire.
Complete Research Citations
Full bibliography of peer-reviewed research supporting our framework
Big Five Personality Model
- Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative 'description of personality': The Big-Five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(6), 1216-1229.
- Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
- Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44(1), 1-26.
- McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1997). Personality trait structure as a human universal. American Psychologist, 52(5), 509-516.
Behavioral Interview Science
- Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124(2), 262-274.
- Campion, M. A., Palmer, D. K., & Campion, J. E. (1997). A review of structure in the selection interview. Personnel Psychology, 50(3), 655-702.
Google's Project Oxygen
- Bock, L. (2015). Work Rules!: Insights from Inside Google That Will Transform How You Live and Lead. New York: Twelve.
- Garvin, D. A., Wagonfeld, A. B., & Kind, L. (2013). Google's Project Oxygen: Do Managers Matter? Harvard Business School Case 313-110.
- Google re:Work. (2013). Project Oxygen: What makes a great manager? Retrieved from https://rework.withgoogle.com/guides/managers-identify-what-makes-a-great-manager/
Navy SEAL Trust/Performance Matrix
- Sinek, S. (2014). Leaders Eat Last: Why Some Teams Pull Together and Others Don't. New York: Portfolio/Penguin.
Growth Mindset & Learning
- Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The New Psychology of Success. New York: Random House.
- VandeWalle, D. (1997). Development and validation of a work domain goal orientation instrument. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 57(6), 995-1015.
Team Dynamics & Toxicity
- Felps, W., Mitchell, T. R., & Byington, E. (2006). How, when, and why bad apples spoil the barrel: Negative group members and dysfunctional groups. Research in Organizational Behavior, 27, 175-222.
- Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350-383.
Apply This Research to Your Hiring
See how our science-backed framework works in practice—from job posting to confident hire decision.
No credit card required. Cancel anytime.