Adding more punch to Assessment Centres

Since its introduction in the 1950s by AT & T, the assessment centre (AC) method has classically been used to assess an individual’s potential with respect to behavioural competencies. Its results have been used for the purpose of recruitment, internal mobility, promotions and succession planning. As a process that is based on empirical data, it brings objectivity and a rigor to assessment. All assessors use the same set of criteria to rate a candidate’s potential based on pre defined behavioural indicators, thereby minimizing the element of assessor bias and/or error. Its use of different formats (e.g. interview, role play, presentation, questionnaire) to assess a common set of competencies also adds to its robustness.

While I appreciate its basis on researched fundamentals, I am also concerned about its heavy skew towards objectivity for something as complex as human behavior. Given that people respond differently to various situations, how fair is it to use an objective process alone?

Over a period of time, assessors too tend to get more clinical and judgmental in their analysis –a complete antithesis for an assessment of a subjective quality such as leadership potential. Are we as assessors even mindful of our slip into a critical, fact oriented process that impairs our discerning, intuitive ability to go beyond what meets the eye? An artificially created situation where a person is being judged by several hawk eyes can put undue pressure on the candidate.  It’s only natural for candidates to falter in such a scenario.  Many a times strong discrepancies are observed in the person’s performance at work when compared with that of the assessment centre. What then is the rationale for dismissing someone’s competence as a leader when he has demonstrated it amply at the workplace? In such a scenario, the relevance of the data thrown up in the AC becomes suspect.

What I am alluding to is a certain balance of a fact cum intuition led approach in assessments. As HR practitioners, we must constantly strive to enhance our perceptive abilities in spotting potential rather than be led by a ‘one size fits all’ process. Subsequently our developmental initiatives should also focus on drawing out the best in an individual. Adopting a set approach alone; in the interest of time and scale can be counterproductive in our efforts to tap potentially bright candidates. In addition the scores of an AC should be corroborated with other tools such as the 360 degree feedback and performance rating for a more accurate assessment of an individual’s potential to move up the leadership curve.

Since the world of managing talent cannot be driven by a set of frameworks and data alone, losing our deeper sensing abilities can be quite detrimental in the long run. Like I said, we carry an even higher responsibility of harnessing the latter in ourselves and in the people we are responsible for.  It may be a good idea to step back from time to readjust the fulcrum of assessment and development to a balance of an objective and subjective approach.