Assessment Center Approach: Selection and Evaluation Methods

Introduction and Definition

The CEO who requested a report on strategic human resource management was impressed with the research on how senior individuals in the organization are selected. The Assessment Center Approach caught the attention of the CEO, and the objective of this work is to prepare a proposal that includes a description of this approach, as well as methods of measuring its effectiveness and the anticipated costs and benefits.

Characteristics of the Assessment Center Approach

The Assessment Center is defined by the "Guidelines and Ethical Considerations for Assessment Center Operations" Task Force on Assessment Center Guidelines as "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." (1989)

The Assessment Center approach encompasses various evaluation techniques, including "job-related simulations and sometimes interviews and psychological tests." (Byham, 2011a) Typical job simulations utilized in assessment centers include the following:

(1) In-basket exercises; (2) Group discussions; (3) Simulations of interviews with subordinates or clients; (4) Fact-finding exercises; and (5) Written communication exercises. (Byham, 2011a)

Validity and Organizational Research

The simulations used in the Assessment Center approach are designed to discover individual behavior in relation to the primary competencies and job aspects for which the individual being assessed has applied or is being considered. These competencies are identified prior to the assessment through analysis of the position. Job analysis identifies the "behaviors, motivations and types of knowledge that are critical for success in the target position." (Byham, 2011a)

The validity of the Assessment Center approach was reviewed by Thornton and Byham (1982) in an examination of 29 studies. Their findings showed that the Assessment Center approach had more support than other methodologies examined. Byham (2011a) reports that Thornton and colleagues at Colorado State University in 1985 "processed 220 validity coefficients from 50 studies using a statistical approach called meta-analysis. They estimated the method's validity at .37." (Byham, 2011a)

Research followed the advancement of participants in subsequent years, and eight years after the initial assessment, the previous assessment ratings were found to still be valid. Wayne Cascio of the University of Colorado conducted a separate study and also arrived at a validity coefficient of .37 in his study of assessment centers at Bell System. The bottom-line impact was also measured by Cascio regarding promotion decisions using assessment center data.

Organizations have increasingly moved toward empowering their workforce and are providing employees with the following: (1) Responsibility for their designated areas or outputs; (2) Control over resources, systems, methods, and equipment; (3) Control over working conditions and schedules; (4) Authority (within defined limits) to commit the organization; and (5) Evaluation by achievements. (Byham, 2011a) Most organizations are "organizing employees into self-directed work teams." (Byham, 2011a)

Team Structure and Role Changes

Self-directed teams are comprised of team members and a team leader. These teams take responsibility for the following: (1) improvement of both quality and productivity, as well as job rotation; (2) planning and scheduling; (3) deciding who performs what work; (4) quality audits; (5) adjustment to equipment, as well as maintenance and repair; (6) planning of vacations, housekeeping, absenteeism, tardiness, and other job performance issues; and (7) choice of team leader. (Byham, 2011a)

The roles of supervisors and managers change significantly as organizations transition to self-directed teams. Supervisors gain a broader range of control, while team members assume many of the normal functions of supervision. In turn, supervisors take on more management functions, including budgeting and planning. The roles of middle managers are also impacted due to the multiple-level shifts in organizational job functions. (Byham, 2011a, paraphrased)

Methods for measuring the effectiveness of the assessment center approach include the following steps: (1) Individuals being assessed participate in exercises that simulate situations known to occur on the job; (2) specially trained assessors observe and document the participants' behavior; (3) assessors write individual reports documenting their observations of each participant's performance; (4) Data is integrated by assessors into a consensus, and the center administrator handles documentation of decisions and ratings; (5) Each participant receives objective performance information. (Waldrop and Joines, 1994)

The behavior observed and noted by assessors includes the actions and words of the individual that are "observable and verifiable". (Waldrop and Joines, 1994) Assessors use a standardized rating scale, such as the following example:

Methods of Measuring Effectiveness

5: Much more than acceptable: Significantly above criteria required for successful job performance

4: More than acceptable: Generally exceeds criteria relative to quality and quantity of behavior required for successful job performance

3: Acceptable: Meets criteria relative to quality and quantity of behavior required for successful job performance

2: Less than acceptable: Generally does not meet criteria relative to quality and quantity of behavior required for successful job performance

Costs and Benefits

1: Much less than acceptable: Significantly below criteria required for successful job performance (Waldrop and Joines, 1994)

According to the Canadian Public Service Commission (2004), there are numerous benefits to utilizing assessment center methods. The assessment center approach has effects that are "far-reaching and often associated with core organizational staffing values." The assessment center method "provides information not otherwise readily available from standard sources such as interviews, file reviews, and performance appraisals. The AC results, when combined with other conventional sources of information, enable organizations to select the most qualified candidates." (Canadian Public Service Commission, 2004)

Additionally, the assessment center method "provides objective, standardized information to organizations about employees' managerial abilities. Teams of trained executive assessors observe candidates in multiple simulations. Behavioral observations are then systematically integrated to arrive at ratings for relevant managerial competencies." (Canadian Public Service Commission, 2004)

The assessment center method "has been widely reported both by empirical research and users to be fair as well as perceived to be fair. Organizations using this method not only benefit by the unique types of information yielded, but also the positive effects that good staffing practices and values contribute to employee morale." (Canadian Public Service Commission, 2004)

Assessment centers are renowned for the contribution they make to effective staffing-related decisions. Whether for recruiting, training, or staffing, the objective in human resource selection is to select the most qualified employees. "Informed staffing decisions save money." (Canadian Public Service Commission, 2004) The Canadian Public Service Commission states that often "opportunities to learn about one's competencies are limited to on-the-job subjective information. However, at the assessment centre, candidates are provided with professional, objective feedback about their managerial competencies; they can then apply this information to direct their careers." (2004)

To determine the dollar impact of utilizing assessment centers, Cascio developed a methodology using information from approximately 700 line managers. The findings of Cascio are as follows: "Over a four-year period the gain to the company in terms of the improved job performance of new managers was estimated at $13.4 million, or approximately $2,700 each year for each of the 1,100 people promoted in first-level management jobs." (Byham, 2011)

Conclusion

This study has conducted an analysis of the assessment center method and has found that the benefits of using this method for employee assessment demonstrate it to be a valid and reliable approach. In addition, this method for assessment is highly cost-effective and even profitable for the organization. This method brings about changes in job functions of those working in the organization as more individuals become actively involved in various functions, and those in supervisory positions become more engaged in business processes including budgeting and organizational management.