Brief Assessment Center History

• Used by Germans in 1st World War to select officers

• Used by U.S. to select spies (OSS)

• In Private Industry, 1st used by AT&T to predict performance of managers (Management Progress Study)

AT&T Manager Progress Study• 1st application of AC method in US industry

(Douglas Bray)

• Longitudinal study of 400+ recently hired managers

• Inbasket, LGD, manufacturing game, interview, personal history, p&p tests (g & personality)

• Predicted progress over a 15 year period

• Implemented throughout the whole Bell system

From then to now…• 1960s: AT&T shared…

– IBM, Sears, Standard Oil, GE, J.C. Penny

• 1966: Bray & Grant: Psych Monographs Paper

• 1969: Conferences being held on AC Method

• 1970: Byham article in Harvard Business Review

• 1973: 1st International Conference on Assessment Center Methods (ICACM ) Meeting; DDI Established

• 1975: AC Guidelines Published

• Today: Hundreds of studies, Thousands of ACs conducted, Millions Assessed!

• Selection and PromotionSelection and Promotion

• Diagnosis– Identification of training &

developmental needs

• Development– Skill enhancement through simulations– Not the same as diagnosis (Carrick & Williams, 1999)

Uses of the Assessment Center Method

Assessment Center Defined

• An assessment center consists of a standardized evaluation of behavior based on multiple inputs. Multiple trained observers and techniques are used. Judgments about behaviors are made, in major part, from specifically developed assessment simulations. These judgments are pooled in a meeting among the assessors or by a statistical integration process.

- International Taskforce, 2009

The AC Big “10”…1. Job analysis (behaviors)2. Behavioral classification (dimensions)3. Links: behaviors dimensions exercises

4. Multiple assessments5. Simulations6. Multiple assessors7. Assessor training8. Recording behavior9. Reports10.Data integration

Observation Rating Judgment

Assessor Training

• Orientation to the method

• Frame of reference training on the dimensions (Schleicher, 2002)

• Training on common rating errors (Thornton & Rupp, 2005)

• Role player training (International Taskforce, 2009)

• Familiarity with stimuli materials and rating process (Leivens, 2001)

• Practice! (International Taskforce, 2009)

S M T W TR FAssessors

and Candidates Arrive; Review

AC Schedule

AC Day; Exercises Conducte

d

EveningAssessors

Review Notes and

Score Assigned Candidate

s

Group Discussion

of Assigned Candidate

s

EveningAssessors

Review Notes and

Score Assigned Candidate

s

Group Discussion

of Assigned Candidate

s

EveningAssessors

Review Notes and

Score Assigned Candidate

s

Group Discussion

of Assigned Candidate

s

EveningWrite

Summary Report on Assigned Candidate

s

SubmitFinal

Summary Reports

Sample of a “Full-Blown” Assessment Center

Sample Individual Exercises• Interview Simulation• Scheduling Exercise• In-Basket

Assessment Center Exercises

Sample Group Exercises• Leaderless Group Discussion• Business Game

InterviewSimulation

SchedulingExercise

BusinessGame

LeaderlessGroup

Discussion

1. Decisiveness X (X) (X)

2. Leadership (X) (X) (X)

3. ManagementControl X X X

4. Oral Communication (X) X (X)

5. Planning and Organization X (X) X

6. Problem Analysis/Judgment (X) (X) (X) X

7. Resilience(X) (X) X X

8. Sensitivity(X) X X X

9. Written Communication(Reaction Forms)

X X X X

Dimensions By Exercise Grid

To be measured in four Participant Reaction FormsX Quality typically measurable in this particular exercise( ) Parentheses indicate an exercise that is a particularly strong measure of that quality

Assessor Report FormInterview Simulation

1 – Very little or none of the quality was shown.2 – A less than satisfactory degree was shown.3 – A satisfactory amount was shown.4 – A greater than satisfactory amount was shown.5 – A great deal of the quality was shown.

(1) Decisiveness: ______(Readiness to make decisions, render judgments, take action or commit oneself.)

(2) Judgment: ______(Ability to develop alternative solutions to problems, to evaluate courses of action andreach logical decisions.)

Participant:______________ (Name)Assessor: ______________ (Name)Date: ____________

Decisiveness:Readiness to make decisions, render judgments, take action or commit oneself.

Assessor YourBusiness Game _____ _____Interview Simulation _____ _____Leaderless Group Discussion _____ _____ _____ _____

Overall _________

Initiative:Actively influencing events rather than passively accepting; self-starting. Takes action beyond what is necessarily calledfor. Originates actions rather than just responding.

Assessor YourBusiness Game _____ _____Leaderless Group Discussion _____ _____

Overall _________

Assessors:_____________________________

Participant:____________________________________________________ Date: ___________________________________________

Assessor Discussion Form

Dimension Assessor #1 Assessor #2 Assessor #3 Final Rating

Decisiveness

Initiative

Judgment

Leadership

Management Control

Oral Communication

Planning & Organization

Problem Analysis

Resilience

Sensitivity

Written Communication

Overall Score

Assessment Center ---

Sample Final

Rating Form

Data Integration Options

• Group Discussion– Administrator role is critical– Leads to higher-quality assessor evidence—peer

pressure– Beware of process losses!

• Statistical/Mechanical– May be more or less acceptable to organizational

decision makers, depending on particular circumstances

– Can be more effective than “clinical” model– Requires research base to develop formula

• Combination of both– Example: consensus on dimension profile, statistical

rule to determine overall assessment rating

Assessment Center Pros and Cons

Male-Female Differences

Source: Dean, Bobko, & Roth (2008). JAP, 93, 685-91.

Pros ConsMultiple exercises and raters

Behavioral Focus

Legal compliance

Less adverse impact than cognitive ability

Liked by candidates

Time and money involved (Cascio & Ramos, 1984, N > 600 managers = $688.00/person. Inflation adjusted = over $1,500.00/person)Potential biases during group discussion

Better predictor of progression within organizations than specific performance scores (Policy Capturing Device?)

~ Assessment Center ~ International Application Issues

• Relevance and generalization of situational exercises

• Scoring of candidate behaviors

• Linkage between behaviors and a given construct (dimensions)

Example: Disagreeing with supervisor and defending one’s position in a meeting with others present (assertiveness vs. impolite)

• Criterion-related validity across cultures