The Assessment Centre is Not Dead!

How to Keep it Alive and Well

by Steven H. Appelbaum, Frank Kay and Barbara T. Shapiro Concordia University, Montreal, Canada
Human Resource Management (HRM) is responsible for the planning, implementation and evaluation of the organisation's recruitment, selection, appraisal, compensation, training and development activities, and providing the necessary ingredient to assist the management of the firm to plan and focus its strategic objectives effectively. To the extent that appropriate human resources will provide the organisation with the opportunity to continue fulfilling its objectives in an effective manner, talent assessment may be the most important task today in HRM. The accurate assessment of human resources is critical to an organisation's selection, promotion and business/manpower planning decisions. The soundness of a business depends on a succession of personnel with the knowledge, skills and ability to manage and the long-range foresight to ensure its continued viability as an organisation. There is a need for proper and accurate assessment and a greater need for the vehicle where this can occur the assessment centre. Most human resource managers agree that it is desirable to match human abilities with job requirements andfillingjobs with key individuals is a dynamic process which is extremely complex and difficult to manage. Common alternatives available to aid management in assessing the knowledge, skills and abilities that are critical for success in key positions include interviews, paper-and-pencil tests, work samples, reference checks and assessment centres[1]. This article will explore some of these methods which can be expedited by comparing/contrasting them with four major criteria: job-relatedness, validity, cost-effectiveness and descriptive or predictive outcomes. The question of what constitutes an assessment centre will provide the necessary basis for analysing its effectiveness and answering management's questions as to whether this process and device should be entertained as an HRM tool for assessment. Despite some shortcomings and problems, the assessment centre is important and fills an important role for organisations but to keep it viable and alive, there are issues and processes in need of managing. This article will address these and propose a blueprint for the future. Assessment Centres: Potentials and Futures Assessment centres today are a "standardised" form of employee appraisal which relies on multiple types of evaluation and multiple raters. Individuals are given the

The Assessment Centre is Not Dead! 51

Journal of Management Development 8,5

52

opportunity to participate in a series of situations which resemble what they might be called on to do in the real world[2]. The centre combines a series of job-related exercises and simulations which have been designed to enable an applicant to demonstrate whether he/she has the skills required[3]. These exercises are observed by a team of trained assessors who later pool their information and reach an agreed assessment on each candidate on the basis of previously identified performance dimensions. Besides ensuring that sound decisions are made, namely the candidate with the closest "fit", this also provides the organisation with a list of each candidate's training and development needs which can be used as a basis for that individual's development plans. Thus the assessment centre is neither exclusively a selection nor a development programme, rather a combination of the two[4]. Assessment centres are not places where test batteries are administered but rather a composite of techniques used in selection decisions. One of the reasons for the successful emergence of these centres has been inadequate performance appraisals to accurately reflect an individual's ability to perform. If traditional appraisals of management potential were valid, there would be little need for assessment centre evaluations. Essentially a future-oriented appraisal system focuses on future performance by evaluating employee potential, and this method is usually applied to groups of middle managers who appear to have the potential to perform at more responsible levels in the organisation[5]. It is a systematic approach to identifying precisely what is required for success in a particular job and then labelling these requirements in terms of a short-list of tightly defined criteria[3]. Leadership, integrity, tenacity and team building are typical criteria which might be included for a middle management position. Information from these sessions is placed into the human resource management information system to assist HR planning and other personnel type management functions. Results can thus be extremely useful for aiding management development and placement decisions which ultimately impact on the future for the firm and individual as well. As an approach to selection, assessment centres were originally used as a selection tool in the military[6,7]. They are most widely used in industry as a way of selecting managers who have the potential to benefit from accelerated development, a transition begun by the director of human resources research at American Telephone & Telegraph in the 1950s[5]. Today, more than 2,000 North American companies use it as a primary selection device. Among programmes to assess managerial candidates, the number of dimensions of effective performance in companies studied have varied from about 10 to 52. Several companies have factor analysed criteria to try to explicate the most important constructs. Generalising from the managerial dimensions selected and factored, the following seem to be important: (a) leadership, (b) organising and planning, (c) decision making, (d) oral and written communications skills, (e) initiative, (0 energy, (g) analytical ability, (h) resistance to stress, (i) use of delegation,(j)behaviourflexibility, (k) human relations competence, (1) originality, (m) controlling, (n) self-direction, and (o) overall potential[8]. However, the entire process of assessment centres is not without its own problems, nor is it a managerial panacea. As anyone familiar with the traditional psychometric literature can corroborate,

the whole idea of assessment centres is preposterous[8]. The basic principle requires that candidates, usually for management positions in organisations, go through a series of individual and group tests and exercises in one concentrated period while being evaluated by a group of assessors. The absurdity is that most of the procedures used to predict future job success are the very ones experience has demonstrated do not work. For example: Clinical, not actuarial, predictions are typically relied on, although most studies have shown the latter to be more accurate. (2) Multiple predictors are used in spite of evidence that clinical prediction may be worse with the inclusion of more than a few variables. (3) Projective tests may be included, although their reliability and validity are highly questionable. (4) An interview is usually an integral part of the process, in spite of its dubious validity. (5) Personality tests are often included, although it has been claimed that they have little or no value for personnel selection. (6) Situational tests are relied on most heavily, although they are still in an embryonic stage compared to classical psychometric tests and failed dismally at predicting the performance of clinical psychologists. (7) Managers are asked to integrate all this information and predict behavioural traits as well as potential success, even though psychologists are still struggling to demonstrate that even they can do it well[8]. Due to serious concerns about the nature and validity of this technique and the necessity for some minimal professional standards, a group of professionals actively engaged in the assessment centre method met throughout the latter 1970s, and developed a set of guidelines by which to distinguish and implement these centres (see Figure 1). Endorsed by the Third International Congress on the Assessment Centre Method in 1975, these guidelines have since been used successfully as evidence defending assessment centre reliability in a number of litigation cases. Continued acceptance of assessment centres as a viable selection and development tool will rest ultimately with their ability to satisfy the three important effectiveness criteria: job-relatedness, validity and cost-effectiveness as well as outcomes, both descriptive and/or predictive. To date, they appear to be on target. However, an analysis of these criteria will help to illuminate several enigmatic issues. Criterion I: Effectiveness Requirements: Job-relatedness There are six activities which are components of job-relatedness. These include: (1) Job Analysis. The assessment centre approach is a formal system of varied management simulations intended to assess management ability which helps to assure affirmative action compliance. Effective assessment centres must analyse appropriate job characteristics and develop successful measures of ability on as many levels as possible[10]. Job analysis research will determine the appropriate knowledge, skills, ability and personal (1)

The Assessment Centre is Not Dead!

53

Journal of Management Development 8,5

54

The Task Force on Development of Assessment Centre Standards has recommended that a programme be considered an assessment centre only if it meets the following minimum requirements. 1. 2. 3. Multiple assessment techniques must be used. At least one of these techniques must be a simulation. Multiple assessors must be used, and must receive training prior to participating in the centre. Judgements resulting in outcome (i.e. recommendation for promotion, specific training or development) must be based on pooling information from assessors and techniques. An overall evaluation of behaviour must be made by assessors at a separate time from observation of behaviour. Simulation exercises are used. These exercises are developed to tap a variety of predetermined behaviours and have been pre-tested prior to use to ensure that the techniques provide reliable, objective and relevant behavioural information for the organisation in question. The dimensions, attributes, characteristics or qualities evaluated by the assessment centre are determined by an analysis of relevant job behaviours. The techniques used in the assessment centre are designed to provide information that is used in evaluating the dimensions, attributes or qualities previously determined. Panel interviews or a series of sequential interviews as the sole technique. Reliance on a specific technique (regardless whether a simulation or not) as the sole basis for evaluation. Using only a test battery composed of a number of paper-and-pencil measures, regardless of whether judgements are made by a statistical or judgemental pooling of scores. Single assessor assessment (measurement by one individual using a variety of techniques). Use of several simulations with more than one assessor where there is no pooling of data (i.e. each assessor prepares a report on performance in an exercise and individual, unintegrated reports are used as the final product of the centre). A physical location labelled as "assessment centre" that does not conform to the requirements noted above.

4. 5.

6. 7.

The following activities do not constitute an assessment centre. 1. 2. 3.

4. 5.

6.

Figure 1. What an Assessment Centre Is and Is Not

Source:[9].

characteristics necessary for the job under consideration. For assessment centres to function properly this initial requirement must be developed as accurately and concisely as possible since subsequent exercises and measurement criteria will be developed on the basis of these initial findings. (2) Skill Identification. Data from the job analysis must now be used to determine the skills necessary for performing the job effectively. For the most part, such skills will serve as common labels frequently identified

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

with success in the job. Examples include decision making, organising, planning and interpersonal skills. Since this identification is based on specific job analysis procedures, it is representative of the elements required for effective performance in the target position[11]. These in turn will determine the performance dimensions, which assessors will seriously consider in developing exercises and evaluating candidates. Setting Objectives. Insofar as a clear statement of behavioural and skill objectives must be developed prior to conducting the centre, assessments will provide an accurate reflection of the degree to which a participant already exhibits the desired skills and behaviours[12]. Objectives would involve identifying potential for senior management and/or establishing the individual's training and career development needs as well as assisting in developing potential which has already been identified. Each would require different exercises and performance emphasis tailored to the objective in need of developing. Exercise Development. Working from the job analysis results and the situational data and work samples, exercises need to be developed which would stimulate the most critical essential task areas in the classification. Simulated work exercises often include in-basket exercises, decisionmaking exercises and computer-based business games. Candidates are often subjected to a variety of psychological tests, analysis, interviews, peer ratings and leaderless group discussions. Each of these activities is assigned a different weight by the human resources professional administrator on the basis of its importance to the position under consideration[7]. The more these exercises emulate the task and job, the greater their validity. Centre Design. More than most other aspects, the design and delivery of an assessment centre programme is most influenced by an organisation's unique characteristics, human resources, management commitment, policies, personnel and location. To ensure the best possible alignment between the job to be assessed and the candidate, each assessment centre should be designed to reflect and match these organisational factors without sacrificing the principles on which the process was founded[13]. An accurate representation of the organisation and its climate and idiosyncratic profile during the assessment stage means a better transition by the chosen candidate to the actual job itself since his/her abilities have been tested in a realistic manner within a realistic context. Observation, Evaluation and Feedback. Since candidates are tested only on job-relevant abilities and behaviour, criteria for evaluation need to be tightly linked to exact job requirements. This, along with the use of multiple raters, will provide a high degree of validity and objectivity to the whole assessment process. Such objectivity will reinforce a candidate's beliefs in assessment centres as a credible experience, increasing the likelihood of (feedback) acceptance regardless of performance results[ll, 14].

The Assessment Centre is Not Dead!

55

Journal of Management Development 8,5

56

Criterion II: Validity Permeating all job-related considerations are issues dealing with the validity of the assessment centre. Defined simply, validity is the degree to which it serves its purpose and measures what it is intended to measure. The validity of the assessment is closely linked to how accurately it measures the candidate's performance in the job dimensions under consideration. Although it is possible to dichotomise between job-relatedness and validity, it is important that they be considered in relation to one another since validity is a function of how well the requirements of the job are being tested and measured. There are several types of statistical analyses which should be utilised in evaluating assessment centre predictions. They both involve the same approach but differ on how the results are presented. The approach involves relating one set of scores with another, typically assessment centre performance ratings with those based on job performance. This is the correlational technique that is based on the inference that if the effective or ineffective behaviour required of and evaluated by one set of measures (assessment centre exercises) is similar to that required of another set of measures (on-job tasks), the two sets of measures are associated or related to each other. In terms of assessment centre results, a high positive relationship will be obtained when candidates who do well or poorly in the assessment centre also do well or poorly, respectively on their jobs. If candidates who perform well in the assessment centre perform poorly on their jobs and vice versa, the correlation will be strong but in the opposite (or negative) direction from what would be desired. Finally, if little or no discernible pattern between performance in the assessment centre and that on the job is found, the correlation would be negligible or near zero[15]. Criteria-oriented validity which we need to endorse, refers to the degree of concentration on criteria which are best predicted by the assessment centre[16]. A high degree of criteria-oriented validity can be better ensured when the assessment centre considers the organisation's contextual factors in developing the centre design and can provide trained assessors with better information regarding unique situational demands and role requirements. To establish content validity, assessment centres need to be designed to ensure the correspondence of dimensions and jobs, dimensions and exercises, and exercises and jobs. The concept of content validity is a more realistic barometer against which to evaluate assessment centre results. Content validity refers to the extent to which scores on a test, or other indices, represent performance within the specifically defined content area the tests purport to sample. Related to the assessment centre process, this simply refers to the extent to which the simulation exercises represent the performance content of the job which they were designed to sample. This is based on an inference that the factors responsible for performance on one set of measures (i.e. exercises) are similar to those on another set of measures (i.e. job performance). For example, if an exercise is designed to measure the concept of leadership, it is content valid if and only if some evidence exists that it samples the requirements of leadership (however defined) on the job. The definition of leadership can only be defined as the context of the particular job in question. It actually does not matter then what the concept is called but rather how it is

behaviourally defined. Ultimately, the label is unimportant. It is those behaviours, variables, or other factors representing the job that are used to define the label. These serve as the only basis for the content validity of that label. The difficulty in applying the content validity concept to evaluating the assessment centre process, or, for that matter, any other predictive tool, is that it does not readily lend itself to statistical analyses. Oddly enough, because of problems in obtaining accurate statistical results, content validity has emerged as a viable alternative to validating such a programme. The concept of content validity has always been the very basis for the design and implementation of the assessment centre process although unfortunately never spelled out as such[15]. This is depicted in Figure 2.

The Assessment Centre is Not Dead!

57

A Job Activities A. B.

B Dimensions

C Exercises

Dimensions must be job-related and describe all common and important parts of the job. Exercises must be job-related and represent the common and significant job activities. These exercises must be comparable in complexity and difficulty level to that on the job. Performance dimensions must be observable in the exercises.

Figure 2.
Relationships which Must be Established to Show the Content Validity of an Assessment Centre

C.

Source;[3]

The better the selection procedure simulates and resembles the job, the greater the assurance of content validity. The major validity argument used for advocating the assessment centre approach which involves improvements to content validity is reflected by efforts to incorporate as many actual job demands as possible into the various tailored simulations[17]. To better determine the training and development needs for each candidate, attempts to isolate the extent to which assessment centre performance is a function of management skills, personality variables or business knowledge need to be undertaken early, thereby increasing the degree of construct validity[16]. While it is recognised that this process is not Utopian, there are minor problems with interpreting correlations. However, the correlation coefficients obtained in the research on assessment centres have generally been very strong. In almost all cases, the correlations are in the positive direction. Out of 23 studies reviewed by one author, only one was found with a negative correlation. Furthermore, 22 of the studies showed the assessment centre process to be more effective than other approaches; none showed it less effective. Correlations between assessment centre predictions and various on-job performance measures ranged as high as 0.64[18]. Another review study of 18 research studies on the assessment centre approach showed it to be consistently related to a variety of job criteria. These

Journal of Management Development 8,5 58

correlations averaged 0.40 when a number of promotions beyond the candidate's level was used as the criterion and 0.63 when manager's ratings of the candidate's promotion potential was used[19]. In examining how the centre measures what it is intended to measure or in essence validity, there are three issues to be considered at this juncture. They include: assessor training, pre-screening and research support. Assessor Training. The competence of assessors is a major factor which can distinguish between an accurate assessment and an inaccurate one. When exercises are designed to be validated objectively, the role of the assessors is relatively unimportant as evaluation is based only on a non-discretionary score-keeping process[20]. However, the problem arises when exercises are designed to achieve validity through the intersubjective consensus of assessors for a valid assessment of candidates' abilities, assessors must be knowledgeable about most technical requirements and skilled in interpreting how candidates meet them. This is where the training of assessors becomes crucial in ensuring validity. Research has indicated that experienced assessors are more proficient in interviewing management candidates and obtaining relevant information about them, in verbally communicating and defending information on these qualifications for management, and in concisely presenting this information in written form[21]. Since proficiency in acquiring, evaluating and communicating information is important for management effectiveness, assessorship training is in itself critical for management training as well as the key intellectual honest formulation and underpinning of the process. Another inexpensive by-product will involve the improvement of assessors' managerial skills as a result of the assessment process. The Task Force on Assessment Centre Standards has published a list of the minimum training goals necessary for assessors (see Figure 3). Whatever the approach to assessor training, the objective must remain one of generating accurate assessor judgements. Any efforts to the contrary will give rise to potentially biased assessments which may invalidate the whole assessment centre process and damage the credibility of the human resource management effort.
1. Thorough knowledge and understanding of the assessment techniques used, including the kinds of behaviours elicited by each technique, relevant dimensions to be observed, expected or typical behaviours, examples or samples of actual behaviour, etc. Thorough knowledge and understanding of the assessment dimensions, including definitions of dimensions, relationship to job performance, examples of effective and ineffective performance, etc. Skill in behaviour observation and recording, including knowledge of the forms used by the centre. Thorough knowledge and understanding of evaluating and rating procedures, including how data is integrated by the assessment centre staff. Thorough knowledge and understanding of assessment policies and practice of the organisation, including restrictions on how data is to be used. Thorough knowledge of feedback procedures where appropriate. Length of training. This may vary due to a variety of considerations that can be categorised into three major areas.

2.

3. 4. 5.

Figure 3. Minimum Training Goals for Assessors Task Force on Assessment Centre Standards

6. 7.

Pre-screening. Organisations choosing to utilise assessment centres should recognise that the pre-screening process helps determine the validity of the assessment centre itself[22]. To the extent that pre-screening can: (1) save money by reducing the number of assessments required, (2) increase morale by decreasing the number of unsuccessful candidates, (3) increase objectivity, reducing the likelihood of lawsuits, and (4) supplement the validity of assessment centres, organisations should pay more attention to this process. The final selection of a particular technique needs to be influenced by both the intrinsic characteristics of the method as well as its validity, legal defensibility and acceptability. These criteria must not be negotiable throughout this experience. Research Support. Overall, testimonies to the validity of assessment centres have been well documented. Assessment technology has repeatedly demonstrated validity and reliability even when subjected to controlled research experimentation[ll]. Research findings indicate that assessment centres are a good predictor of promotability within organisations[23] and actual on-the-job performance 75 per cent of the time[24]. This data has similar implications for the selection of outstanding performers as an added testimonial to the process. A further support for the objectivity and reliability of assessment centre findings was established early in 1973 when the Equal Rights Opportunity Commission issued a consent decree calling for their use to correct existing appraisal problems. This is consistent with findings which indicate that it is more effective than any other means for identifying and analysing a candidate's management potential regardless of sex and race[25]. Assessment centres have fared just as well in the courts. Rulings have consistently emphasised the consistency and validity of assessment centres as a non-discriminatory and job-related mode of selection and development. This is most encouraging for human resource professionals and administrations concerned about litigious activities arising from appraisal and evaluation functions which they are responsible for. Criterion III: Cost-effectiveness The most common criticism levied against assessment centres is their costliness. Aside from being time-consuming, costs can run as high as several thousand dollars a candidate[26]. Since activities are usually conducted for a few days at a location physically removed from the job site, candidates are away from their jobs, travel and accommodation must be paid for, and evaluators are often company managers assigned to these centres expenses do pile up[5]. These activities do not take into account the cost of psychologists and personnel professionals who operate the centre and are responsible for evaluations which impact not only on the professional/personal lives of the assessees but also on the effectiveness of the supporting organisations prescribing this activity. One of the major challenges to contemporary human resource professionals must be to estimate the costs of ineffective employee performance in the quest to determine the cost-effectiveness of the assessment centre. One starting point might be to focus on turnover due to lack of ability. If we can enhance the probability of job success by more effective prediction, it is possible

The Assessment Centre is Not Dead! 59

Journal of Management Development 8,5

60

to reduce the occurrence of ineffective performance. Some of the costs that need to be calculated are those associated with (a) start-up time required of a replacement for the incumbent; (b) down-time associated with the incumbent changing jobs either internally or externally; (c) training and/or retraining associated with both the replacement and the incumbent; (d) travel and moving expenses if applicable; (e) the difference in productivity (related to dollars) that might have accrued if the incumbent was effective; and (0 the more difficult, yet undeniably present, psychological impact on the "failed" incumbent, and also on the morale of those surrounding him/her[15]. The question remains: how can the firm start to evaluate the usefulness of an assessment centre? A modest way to begin would be to estimate the assessment centre costs and compare them with what it would cost the organisation for only one person not to succeed in the illuminated position for which the assessment centre is to be developed. If the assessment centre programme can prevent one candidate minimally from being selected who otherwise might have been selected through alternative methods, it has covered its worth. This does not even consider the potential for improved productivity and revenues with the selection of one person who succeeds for the firm and him or her self. The fact remains, however, that developing and operating an effective appraisal process is neither inexpensive nor simplistic. The question often boils down to whether alternative assessment methods can contribute as much to the assessment of managerial potential as the assessment centres. The issue of economic cost must be balanced with the objective of effectiveness.To this end, assessment centres may be regarded as an investment and not a cost which must be expanded and resourced in the interest of the organisation's long-run viability. This is especially important given the reality that most assessments are conducted for the purposes of isolating the company's available and potential pool of key management personnel. A realisation that "redundancy begins with recruitment" and a desire to "live slim" and manage with fewer people places a great onus on the selection process but recruitment is rarely cheap at any level and the time and money expended on assessment centres can have benefits going far beyond the particular selection system[27]. This is a critical dualism which human resource professionals must carefully weigh in their decision-making matrix. Criterion IV: Assessment Centre Outcomes (Descriptive or Predictive) Most assessment programmes are geared to a specific outcome, such as selecting a candidate for further advancement or using data collected to help place an individual in a future assignment or prescribing development or training needs. Assessment centre outcomes are often best reflected in the composite or overall rating provided. Centres that are geared to assist with selection or advancement activities rely on an overall rating. Centres which do not provide an overall rating but emphasise individual dimensional ratings such as leadership and decision making tend to be used for placement and/or development purposes. Often, however, these distinctions are blurred or confused.

If an overallratingis provided, it makes a big difference if this rating is a composite arrived at by averaging or weighting dimensions according to some predetermined format. These result in descriptive judgements. Most centres for entry-level sales or management jobs are of this nature. Assessors are trained to observe behaviours and determine whether or not they occurred. The evaluation process focuses on whether behaviours did or did not occur. Exercise reports and evaluation discussions are used to describe what did occur. For example, in-basket exercises can be scored based on the relationship of a response to an item and its assumed importance to an external criterion. A second kind of assessment overall rating is the result of inferences and judgement. These result in predictive outcomes. Assessors in this type of setting are trained to integrate information in order to make a prediction concerning the overall likelihood of success in the target job. These kinds of judgements are more common in assessment centres for higher-level management jobs. The emphasis of the evaluation process shifts from a discussion of whether or not a behaviour has occurred to the impact of observed behaviour when predicting subsequent performance. This kind of discussion also requires agreement on whether or not the behaviour did occur but goes beyond a descriptive dialogue to indicate whether or not the behaviour appears to be typical (and therefore highly predictive) or less typical. Assessors are trained to integrate data from many simulations rather than "scoring" each simulation in a discrete fashion[28]. There are major differences in overall ratings arrived at by description or prediction approaches. As noted description-oriented assessment programmes tend to rely on a composite assessment score. Assessors are trained to either weigh specific dimensions to reflect job analysisfindingsor to add up and average individual ratings in order to determine a composite score. Assessors may use formal or informal approaches depending on their training or the folklore of the centre. In any event, the goal of these centres is to ensure consistency in ratings. Discussions are designed to resolve differences in assessor ratings and to arrive at a consensus decision on individual dimensions. Most of the evaluation session is aimed at making sure that the individual dimension ratings are as accurate and as descriptive as possible. When an overall rating is made, there is usually little disagreement since it represents an averaging of composite dimension ratings. Prediction-driven assessment ratings tend to look for patterns of performance rather than a composite. Compensatory judgements often appear. These are judgements which reflect the fact that an individual may perform differently in different situations. For example, an individual's leadership style may vary in different simulations. Let us hypothesise that a participant was very effective in one situation and demonstrated a great deal of leadership talent. In another group exercise, however, this person did little to lead others but was a helpful, supportive group member. Rather than averaging leadership ratings, i.e. very effective as a leader in one situation and less effective as a leader in another situation equals an "average" leadership rating, prediction-oriented centres tend to look at the context in which the behaviour occurred. For example, this individual may be most effective when leading others in structured tasks and has more difficulty taking the lead when the task is unstructured; or this person is best when leading others

The Assessment Centre is Not Dead! 61

Journal of Management Development 8,5

62

in competitive situations but is less effective when faced with co-operative tasks. The overall assessment rating reflects more than a composite rating. It is a prediction of overall effectiveness; i.e. an outstanding rating means that this individual will have little difficulty in almost any aspect of more complex management jobs simulated at the centre, and a poor rating suggests that this individual will have difficulty making a transition to more complex job demands[28]. As seen from this discussion, description-oriented programmes emphasise dimensions whereas prediction-oriented programmes focus on simulations. Prediction-oriented approaches allow greater flexibility for placement, development and selection outcomes, while description-oriented programmes work best when they focus exclusively on selection issues. Unfortunately these distinctions are often blurred. Description-oriented assessment programmes require a less sophisticated staff. Assessors can come from almost anywhere and may not need to know much about the host organisation. The training of assessors is usually shorter and less detailed than in predictionoriented programmes. The typical training consists of teaching assessors to indicate whether or not a behaviour occurred and assessors are encouraged to use checklists, behaviour observing report forms, predetermined report forms, or other techniques to ensure consistency. Description-oriented programmes tend to use commercially available assessment exercises, forms and rating instruments. If a job analysis has been performed, its purpose was to verify that existing commercially prepared exercises do reflect aspects of performance in the host organisation. As noted, these kinds of programmes are very popular for assessing entry-level sales and management jobs. Prediction-oriented assessment programmes tend to require a more sophisticated assessment staff. While some description-oriented programmes have exceptionally talented assessors, many operate with assessors who are available rather than requested. Assessors in a prediction-oriented programmes must have extensive knowledge about the target jobs and must be able to differentiate between important aspects of these jobs. For example, assessors should be able to determine which positions require considerable work as an individual contributor versus which jobs require team effort; which jobs demand little supervision of the incumbent versus which jobs are characterised by close supervision; which positions are fundamentally unstructured versus jobs that follow standard procedures; which positions require an incumbent to think on his or her feet versus which positions allow the individual to have a great deal of time before giving a response. In contrast to descriptionoriented programmes, prediction-oriented assessment programmes tend to develop rather than purchase simulations and are most frequently used for middle and upper management positions[28]. Is There a Future for an Effective Assessment Centre? The key to proper management selection is not to focus on one evaluation point or even on several points, but to match the skills of the candidate with the primary demand of the job at the present time[20]. Assessment centres are an important

tool to human resource managers who are empowered to match individuals to jobs on a constant, consistent and equitable basis. Although assessment centres are in a sense an independent activity, in practice they cannot be isolated from the total organisational context. The objective values and procedures of the organisation shape every stage of the assessment centre process[27]. To be effective, they must become integrated into the total organisational system for dealing with the identification and development of management talent. In planning and implementing an assessment centre programme, other dimensions of the HRM system must be considered such as compensation, training, development and career planning. Part of the plan for gaining a realistic commitment should include an understanding of where the centre willfitand also reinforce the existing promotion system, or whether a new design will be required. Assessment centre results must, accordingly, be kept in realistic perspective: not an end in themselves, assessments from these centres are part of a larger appraisal system. If seen as the sole determinant of future career progress, employees will see the assessment process as threatening; however, if they are used to appraise an individual's strengths and weaknesses with options for improving areas of deficiency, then the centre can be a positive force for developing future talent within the company. Also as the need to document performance assumes a greater role for the future, the failure of most performance appraisal systems will become a major problem in need of a solution. Most of the criticisms and pitfalls surrounding assessment centres occur when short-cuts are taken. Organisations will occasionally dilute a full job analysis in an effort to "speed up" the assessment procedures, invalidating the whole process. On aggregate, the primary threats come more from poor design and implementation rather than any characteristic deficiencies specific to assessment centres themselves. Despite some pitfalls, the assessment centre is considerably more effective than most other means for analysing and identifying a candidate's management potential. Further examination and rejection of alternative appraisal systems, such as psychological measurement, that have already been rejected by human resource professionals in selection decisions, and interviews in addition to other performance reviews which are laden with proven inherent problems, will narrow the range of possible instruments to content valid simulation instruments the basis of assessment centre philosophy and technology. Assessment centres must be entered into and developed thoughtfully to provide the basis for effective human resource utilisation. As an extension of the organisation's HRM policy, commitment to the concept of the assessment centre must exist for it to succeed. To this end, support for the programme must be preceded by an understanding of the HRM approach to management. It appears to be quite clear that the assessment centre does have a future if it adheres to the model balanced by job-relatedness, validity, cost-effectiveness and measuring outcomes. In the quest to enhance effectiveness, an assessment centre will demand a job analysis with the skills to be measured being observable, relevant and measurable. Instruments will need to be prepared that reflect the

The Assessment Centre is Not Dead!

63

Journal of Management Development 8,5

64

job demands, a staff of assessors will need to be trained, and the process must be properly integrated into a system that most effectively uses the information for the proper development of the individual and the organisation. This is the balance which will guarantee its future.
References
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. Friedman, B.A. and Mann, R.W., "Employee Assessment Methods Assessed", Personnel, Vol. 58, 1981, pp. 69-74. Jaffee, C.L. and Sefcik, J.T., "What is an Assessment Center?" The Personnel Administrator, Vol. 25, February 1980, pp. 40-43, 67. Byham, W.C., "Starting an Assessment Center the Correct Way", The Personnel Administrator, Vol. 25, February 1980, pp. 27-34. Nichols, L.C. and Hudson, J., "Dual Role Assessment Center: Selection and Development", Personnel, Vol. 60, 1981, pp. 380-86. Werther, W.B. el al., Canadian Personnel Management and Human Resources, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill Ryerson, Toronto, 1985, pp. 256-7. Lee, C. "Assessment Centers: A Method with Proven Methods", Training, Vol. 22, 1985, pp. 69-70. Steines, J., "Assessment Centers: Promoting the Right Employee", Security Management, Vol. 29, 1985, pp. 23-5. Howard, A., "An Assessment of Assessment Centers", Academy of Management Review, Vol. 17, 1974, pp. 115-34. "Standards and Ethical Considerations for Assessment Centre Operations", chaired by Moses, J.L., Task Force on Assessment Centre Standards, 1978. Quarles, C.L., "Public Services Managerial Selection Methods: A Comparison with Performance Appraisal", Public Administration Quarterly, Vol. 7, 1983, pp. 310-22. Cohen, S.L., "Pre-packaged vs Tailor-made: The Assessment Debate", Personnel Journal, Vol. 59, 1980, pp. 939-91. Quick, J.C., Fisher, W.A., Schkade, L.L. and Ayers, G.W., "Developing Administrative Personnel through the Assessment Center Techniques", The Personnel Administrator, Vol. 25, February 1980, pp. 44-6, 62. Russell, C.J.,' 'Individual Decision Processes in an Assessment Center", Journal ofApplied Psychology, Vol. 70, 1985, pp. 737-46. Teel, K.S. and Dubois, H., "Participants' Reactions to Assessment Centers", Personnel Administration, Vol. 28, 1983, pp. 85-91. Jaffee, C.L. and Cohen, S.L., "Improving Human Resource Effectiveness through Assessment Center Technology: Emergence, Design, Application and Evaluation", in Miller, E.L., Burack, E.H. and Albrecht, M.A.(Eds.), Management of Human Resources, PrenticeHall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1980, pp. 350-79. Thornton, G.C. and Byham, W.C., Assessment Centers and Managerial Performance, Academic Press, Toronto, 1982. Frank, F.D. and Preston, J.R., "The Validity of the Assessment Center Approach and Related Issues", Personnel Administrator, Vol. 27, 1982, pp. 87-95. Byham, W.C., "Assessment Centers for Spotting Future Managers", Harvard Business Review, Vol. 48, 1970, pp. 150-60. Cohen, B.M., Moses, J.L. and Byham, W.C., The Validity ofAssessment Centers: A Literature Review, Monograph II, Developmental Dimensions Press, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 1974. Cunningham, R.B. and Olshfski, D.F., "Evaluating Task Leadership: A Problem for Assessment Centers", Public Personnel Management, Vol. 14, 1985, pp. 293-9.

13. 14. 15.

16. 17. 18. 19. 20.

21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28.

Lorenzo, R.V., "Effects of Assessorship on Managers' Proficiency in Acquiring, Evaluating and Communicating Information about People", Personnel Psychology, Vol. 37, 1984, pp. 617-34. Warmke, D.L., "Pre-selection for Assessment Centers: Some Choices of Issues to Consider", Journal of Management Development, Vol. 4, 1985, pp. 18-39. Collins, R.D., "The Assessment Center", Management Insights, Vol. 83, 1982, pp. 85-6. Bucalo, J.P., "The Assessment Center A More Specified Approach", Human Resource Management, Fall 1974, pp. 2-13. Badawy, M.K., "Managing Career Transitions", Research Management, Vol. 26, 1983, pp. 28-31. Edwards, M.R., "OJQ Offers Alternative to Assessment Center", Public Personnel Management Journal, Vol. 12, 1983, pp. 146-55. Rothwell, S., "Manpower Matters: The Use of Assessment Centers", Journal of General Management, Vol. 10, 1985, pp. 79-84. Moses, J., "Assessment Centers", in Craig, R. (Ed.), Training and Development Handbook, 3rd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, 1987, pp. 248-62.

The Assessment Centre is Not Dead! 65