Assessment Center Perspectives for Talent Management Strategies

2nd Edition

George C. Thornton III, Deborah E. Rupp, Brian J. Hoffman

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2014
• ISBN:
  9781317597803
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Psychologie
• Subtopic: Geschichte & Theorie in der Psychologie

Written by three leading scholars with vast experience in the science and practice of assessment centers (ACs), this is the first volume to comprehensively integrate variations of the assessment center method with alternative talent management strategies. A useful reference guide, it examines the many ways in which organizations can apply the assessment center method to achieve their talent management goals. It provides balanced and in-depth coverage of theory, research, and practice pertaining to the dimension-, task-, and multifaceted-perspectives on the AC method. Ideal for researchers, practitioners, and students alike, and well suited for courses in testing and measurement, personnel selection, HR planning and staffing, training and development, and organizational change, Assessment Center Perspectives for Talent Management Strategies is a complete and up-to-date account of the assessment center method.

Part I
Introduction

1
Assessment Centers and Talent Management in Modern Organizations

The Assessment Center (AC) method is a procedure used by organizations for a variety of talent management (TM) purposes. ACs utilize multiple, trained assessors who observe the behavior of candidates as they participate in simulations of important work activities. Assessors evaluate participants’ performance on focal constructs, such as dimensions and tasks, and may make recommendations for improvement. ACs are an effective tool for the recruitment, selection, succession planning, and development of human capital across organizational levels. In light of the increasing demands on organizations competing in the modern economy, ACs will be of increasing strategic value across TM functions.

The major principle running throughout this book is that there is no “one best way” to design, implement, and evaluate an AC. This principle is manifested in five themes:

• Assessment centers are designed differently to be compatible with different talent management strategies.
• Assessment centers are designed differently for different purposes.
• Different perspectives on the interpretation of the focal constructs measured by the assessment center method are useful and defensible.
• Theory, research, and practice interface to guide the assessment center method.
• A variety of types of evidence demonstrate the validity and usefulness of the assessment center method.

This principle and these themes are not new. One example of the recognition that there are many different forms of the AC method is the change in title of the major conference devoted solely to theory, research, and practice of ACs from “International Congress on the Assessment Center Method,” in the years from its inception in 1972 through 2000, to “International Congress on Assessment Center Methods” in 2001 up to the current date. Note the plural “methods” that formalized a recognition that the practice of ACs had evolved considerably over the previous 25 years. Other examples are the revisions in the five editions (1975, 1979, 1989, 2000, and 2009) of the major document providing guidance on the AC method, namely Guidelines and Ethical Considerations for Assessment Operations (International Task Force, 2009; www.assessmentcenters.org/articles). The sixth revision of the Guidelines is under way as we write this book in mid-2014.

Much has been written about the AC method. Several books, scores of chapters, and hundreds of empirical research studies have examined each facet of the method. A list of key books and articles is provided in the appendix to this chapter, including a “starter list” for newcomers to the field, several meta-analyses analyzing different aspects of ACs by accumulating and summarizing all available research, and important guidelines and regulations.

So, how is this book different from this large body of existing literature? This is the first instance in which the overarching principle and themes listed above have been simultaneously covered in an integrated fashion. We draw from past, current, and emerging trends within AC research and practice to explore the several different ways ACs have been and can be designed, implemented, and evaluated.

First, we note that TM strategies range from traditional personnel and human resource management, to strategic human capital management, to more recent strategies which focus on select individuals in key positions (Cappelli & Keller, 2014; Collings & Mellahi, 2009; DeRue & Wellman, 2009; McCall, 2010). Throughout this book, alternative ways of designing each element of an AC program are discussed, and rationale is provided for deciding what procedures to follow to be compatible with different TM strategies.

The TM strategy pursued by different organizations depends on its unique challenges and goals. Modern organizations around the world (Povah & Thornton, 2011a) use ACs as they implement different strategies when carrying out many human resource functions such as recruiting, selecting, assessing, placing, developing, rewarding, retaining, and managing a healthy and highly functioning workforce. We use this inclusive conception of TM as a springboard to analyze the strengths and weaknesses of different approaches to AC design and interpretation depending on an organization’s TM strategy and its unique challenges and goals.

The concern among AC practitioners for ensuring that ACs are designed to serve various human resource management and TM needs is not new. Historical analyses of AC applications show different modifications to meet evolving organizational needs (Lievens & Thornton, 2005; Povah & Thornton, 2011a; Thornton, 2011). What is new is the increasing complexity of internal and external labor markets, human resources interventions, and TM strategies (Cappelli & Keller, 2014). In this book we undertake a more systematic analysis of how the different TM strategies may influence the essential elements of the AC method.

Second, we continue and expand upon the emphasis that ACs are designed in different ways when used for different purposes: ACs for selection, promotion, diagnosis, and development differ in important ways. Each of the essential elements of the AC method differ: job analysis methods to identify the essential job requirements, the focal constructs to be assessed, simulation exercises and other assessment techniques, assessors and what they are asked to observe and rate, methods of integrating assessment information, feedback provided, and methods of validating and evaluating effectiveness of the AC—all can and need to be tailor-made for the specific purpose of the AC.

Third, whereas there has been recent contention over what focal constructs are being and can be assessed by the AC method (Jackson, Lance, & Hoffman, 2012), we demonstrate that there are legitimate interpretations of what ACs measure, including dimension-based, task-based, and multifaceted interpretations. Recent research over the last 15 years (roughly 2000–2014) that supports each of these perspectives is reviewed in Chapters 9 and 10.

Fourth, the AC method has historically been guided by a combination of theory, research, and practice. Work on ACs is an exemplar of the healthy interplay inherent to the scientist–practitioner model (Thornton, 2011). Sometimes practice has outstripped research, sometimes theory has been absent or not articulated clearly, and sometimes research has not followed the theory that is there. Often practice is guided by theory and organizational demands when research has not been available. Nevertheless, in the past 55 years, the accumulation of theory, research, and practice has resulted in one of the most enduring methods in the fields of industrial/organizational psychology and human resource management.

Fifth, we move beyond a review of narrowly defined validity arguments made in some past research, and beyond the exploration of the psychology of ACs, to an analysis of the usefulness of various instantiations of the AC method to accomplish different TM objectives in organizations. We agree with Borman (2012), who concluded “the stage is set for productive discussions and debates around new topics and issues in AC research and practice” (p. 318). We marshal a variety of evidence to engage in this debate, including psychometric evidence of construct validity internal and external to the AC itself, more inclusive forms of validity evidence, and broader evidence of the social validity of how ACs impact people and organizations.

Overview of the Book

In this chapter we will first give an overview of the AC method. Then we describe the changing nature of work, organizations, human capital engagement, and the competitive global business environment. These conditions call for a variety of TM approaches, and we provide descriptions of approaches organizations take in managing talent strategically. As organizations have adapted the AC method and as research on the method has evolved, human resource specialists have developed ACs from different perspectives (Jackson et al., 2012). In this chapter, we briefly describe three perspectives and then in subsequent chapters provide detailed descriptions of how the basic elements of the AC method are designed in different applications. The chapter concludes with a comparison of the AC method with other assessment techniques and reactions to and criticisms of the method.

The Assessment Center Method

We have seen both continuity and change over the last several decades in AC applications. In light of increasing economic pressure and the emergence of the knowledge economy, TM has emerged as an increasingly vital function in organizations. ACs are being used for a broader variety of purposes than they have in the past, and technological advances in assessment and development are being incorporated into the method in new and exciting ways. Yet, at its core, the AC method has remained markedly stable since its early applications, with similar dimension labels, similar exercise types, and trained assessors collating, integrating, and scoring the wealth of behavioral data generated in an AC program. At this juncture, it seems appropriate to take stock of common applications of the AC method and evaluate the degree to which this tool is being used as effectively as possible to meet the TM needs of modern organizations. We propose that although ACs have been applied across TM functions, the flexibility afforded by the emerging perspectives on AC functioning can facilitate even more diverse and targeted applications of the method to meet the needs of modern organizations. We will describe these changes and their implications for ACs throughout the book. However, to begin our discussion of the AC method, we start with what has remained constant throughout history: the essential elements of the basic AC method.

Essential Elements of the Assessment Center Method

A set of international professional guidelines, the Guidelines and Ethical Considerations for Assessment Center Operations (International Task Force, 2009), have guided AC best practice since 1975. These Guidelines provide evidence-based policy statements that guide the effectiveness, fairness, and legal defensibility of AC programs. As stated in the Guidelines, there are eight essential elements of any AC:

• An analysis of the target job and its context is conducted to determine focal constructs (e.g., dimensions, competencies, tasks) to be assessed.
• Multiple assessment techniques are used.
• Job-related simulations (i.e., simulation exercises) are used to elicit behavior relevant to focal constructs.
• During the assessment, actual overt behaviors of participants are observed, classified, and evaluated.
• Multiple assessors are used.
• Assessors receive training.
• A systematic procedure is used to record and score behavior.
• Data are integrated across assessors and simulations, and possibly across the focal constructs being assessed to create overall scores.

While each of these elements might be a component of other assessment methods, the distinguishing feature of the AC method is the requirement that all of these features are present.

A hallmark of the AC method is the employment of simulation exercises that allow for the observation of overt behaviors in job-critical situations (International Task Force, 2009). These exercises can involve, for example, situations requiring participants to analyze a marketing opportunity and prepare a written report, make an oral presentation, answer email and voicemail, or talk with a customer (role player) about a service complaint. In addition to individual exercises, group exercises are often used to simulate the common requirement of working in groups. Such exercises could involve a situation where several participants discuss an organizational problem or make business decisions. Trained assessors observe the behaviors displayed in the exercises and make independent evaluations of what they see. These multiple sources of information are aggregated in a discussion among assessors or via a statistical combination of the ratings made by each assessor. The result of this integration is usually an evaluation of each participant’s strengths and weaknesses on the focal constructs being assessed, such as dimensions or tasks. In some applications, a final overall assessment rating is given by the assessors or is computed statistically. When ACs are used for development, individuals and groups can learn new management skills as a result of participation in the simulations, receive detailed feedback and developmental planning after participation in the AC, and engage in activities following participation in the AC.

A Typical Assessment Center

Here’s how one AC works, although we hasten to emphasize that there is no “one best way” that ACs are set up or conducted.

On Monday morning, 12 candidates or “assessees” (e.g., supervisors being considered for promotion to higher-level management), six “assessors” (e.g., third-level line managers, human resource staff, psychologist consultants), and an administrator (often an industrial/organizational psychologist) assemble at a site away from the organization, such as a hotel or conference center. Prior to this time, the assessors have been trained to conduct the assessments, and the assessees have been briefed about the program. At the AC, the administrator provides orientation, makes introductions, and reviews the schedule. Over the course of the

FIGURE 1.1 A Typical Assessment Center

day, the participants take part in a series of simulation exercises and are observed by the assessors. They also possibly complete other ...