This paper analyzes a two-day assessment process used to select a new marketing director from three candidates — Jane, Joe, and Matt. It evaluates each stage of the process, including verbal and mathematical ability tests, personality profiling, a structured interview, and a role play exercise, identifying procedural errors and gender bias that compromised fairness. The paper argues that Jane was the most qualified candidate despite facing disproportionate challenges during her assessment. It also addresses how candidates should be counseled before and after the hiring decision, examines the leadership styles of key figures involved, and recommends strategies for the newly appointed director to maintain team cohesion.
The selection process involved a two-day assessment designed to determine who would become the next marketing director. The three candidates were all expected to complete an assessment process developed by human resource professionals together with senior-level managers. Candidates were taken through role plays, verbal and mathematical ability tests, an interview, and a personality profile in order to identify who was best suited for the position.
Describing the requirements of the position was a straightforward part of the assessment. With the position's requirements clearly laid out, there was little room for error. The role demands a specific set of skills and experiences that can be readily identified from each candidate's previous performance. Therefore, this stage of the selection process was relatively simple for those conducting the assessment: candidates who lacked the required qualifications could be identified and eliminated early, while those who met them could advance (University Human Resources Department, 2010).
The assessment panel consisted of four senior-level managers, three of whom were women. Overall, the interview was conducted reasonably well; however, several mistakes occurred during Jane's interview. In any job interview, the candidate should feel comfortable rather than provoked by the questions being asked. In Jane's case, she felt uncomfortable with the line of questioning pursued by some of the interviewers. At one point she was caught off guard by a question she could not have reasonably anticipated. This does not reflect a lack of preparation on her part; rather, it reflects questions that were inappropriate for the context. Some questions were outright provocative. This constitutes a clear mistake in the assessment process, since Jane at times felt cornered by the interviewers. For future assessments, interviewers should ensure they ask questions appropriate to gauging whether a candidate is genuinely fit for the position.
Another problematic area was the personality profile, specifically in how certain personality dimensions were interpreted differently for men and women. The psychologist conducting the profile insinuated that differences exist between men and women in categories such as tough-mindedness, control, and competitiveness — implying that male candidates would have an inherent advantage in those areas. This is a mistake, as each candidate should be evaluated on a level playing field regardless of gender. Gender bias in assessment instruments undermines the integrity of the entire selection process.
Finally, during the role play, it was evident that the person Jane was paired with — George Montgomery — was being deliberately difficult with her. Jane herself noted that in her entire career she had never encountered an employee as challenging as George Montgomery. Creating unnecessarily harsh conditions during an assessment is a mistake, as it can frustrate a candidate and cause her performance to deteriorate not because of a lack of skill but because of unreasonable provocation.
The fact that Jane, Joe, and Matt all reached the final assessment stage indicates that each possessed the required skills and experience for the marketing director position. Nevertheless, each candidate brought distinct individual strengths to the table.
Jane performed well on both the verbal and mathematical ability tests. She had managed budgets and was comfortable working with numbers and balance sheets. She had worked as a marketing professional for nine years, handling a wide range of projects including advertising, hotel promotions, and marketing research. She had also managed a team of four, demonstrating that she could lead others effectively. Joe and Matt, being men, were rated as more competitive, tough-minded, and controlling than Jane according to the personality profile — though, as discussed above, this dimension of the assessment was itself problematic.
If I were the hiring manager, I would hire Jane. Her nine years of marketing experience, strong quantitative skills, and diverse project background make her highly qualified. Her personality profile was impressive and appropriate for a director-level role. Although George Montgomery's conduct during the role play undermined her opportunity to demonstrate her full managerial capabilities, her performance throughout the rest of the assessment was strong. Furthermore, with only one woman on the panel of interviewers, hiring Jane would help promote gender equality in senior leadership — demonstrating that such positions are not reserved exclusively for men.
If I were advising the three candidates before the interview, I would encourage each of them to be confident and to answer questions in a way that clearly demonstrates their suitability for the position. I would remind them to trust their preparation and to present themselves as calmly and professionally as possible regardless of what challenges arose during the assessment.
"Guidance for all three candidates"
"Authoritative vs. democratic leadership styles"
"Strategies for team cohesion after hiring"
You’re 70% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 3 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.