Assessing Leadership Effectiveness

Article by Dr. John E. Kello

In my consulting business, my team and I design, build, and run assessment centers with our client organizations somewhat regularly. I’ve often been asked for more detailed information about the “assessment center” concept, so, here goes… 

Assessment Center Explained

An assessment center is a structured process for profiling an individual’s knowledge and skill level in terms of the critical competencies required to perform in a certain work environment. In simplest terms, it is a simulation of key aspects of a particular job. The assessment center can serve as a selection tool, commonly used to aid in identifying candidates for critical leadership roles such as frontline supervisor or department head. It can also be a tool for talent  development, providing a current-skills start point for high-potential employees to develop the competencies necessary for higher-level jobs, and, in turn, enable their organization to engage in more targeted succession planning. 

Early History

The assessment center process has an interesting history, to say the least! Initially developed in the 1930s by the German military as a tool for officer selection, the methodology was “borrowed” and adapted shortly thereafter by the British (and later Australian and Canadian) military for similar purposes. When the US entered World War II, the Office of Strategic Services (OSS – the precursor to the present-day CIA) commissioned a similar process, which borrowed heavily from the earlier German and British efforts, combined with “personality profiling” to help in the selection of operatives for Allied spy missions during the war. In an effort which roughly paralleled the OSS project, AT&T developed a similar process in the mid-1950s to assess managerial potential, which was highly publicized and deemed a resounding success.

In ensuing years and up to the present day, the basic assessment center methodology has been refined, researched, and applied in a wide variety of work settings, internationally and domestically. In the US, it is particularly prominent in the selection and development of officers in police and fire departments, though it is common in a wide variety of non-government work settings as well.

Assessment Center Basics

The assessment center process is usually a multi-day affair, with the time frame of 2-5 consecutive days being common. Participants are put through the process in groups (typically 6-12 participants in a center, with about a 1:2 assessor-to-participant ratio). Assessors are commonly incumbents or higher-level managers in the company, often aided by psychologists or other expert consultants who have helped to design the simulation.

Effective, valid assessment centers must be based on two central pillars: 1) a clear competency model that specifically identifies the critical skills for success in the job; 2) realistic scenarios representing critical situations in which incumbents in the job in question must use those skills. Based on such critical competencies and “moment-of-truth” scenarios, the assessment center always involves work simulation activities. No matter what else may be done (e.g., personality profiling), the assessment center requires participants to handle situations “in the role.”

For example, an assessment center for sales managers might put participants in realistic, tough situations that sales managers face, such as talking with an upset customer (a role player in the simulation) who was incorrectly billed or whose newly purchased equipment has failed in the field, while at the same time alerting that very customer to an impending price increase! As another example, operations managers might be given a subordinate supervisor (role player) who resists management direction, and sees his responsibilities very differently than the participant does – e.g., “all this !^&%& paperwork keeps me from doing my job! I didn’t become a supervisor to be a pencil pusher!” Participants handle such situations in role plays, while assessors observe and rate them as they do so. 

One of the most potent exercises I have seen, and indeed one of the defining activities of the assessment center methodology, is the “leaderless group discussion.” Here, participants working in groups are presented with a realistic issue to discuss (e.g., “your organization’s safety audit process has not resulted in any reduction in recordable incidents and your boss wants you and your fellow safety managers to come up with a process for improving results ASAP – lay out your plan”). No one is designated as leader (hence the name), but leadership inevitably emerges. What ensues is a rich cauldron of individual leadership and team dynamics. Who initiates the discussion? Who provides structure and direction? Who ensures that we are on task and meeting objectives? Who asks questions to get the quieter ones engaged? Who sees the broader implications of the group’s decisions? 

When the assessment center methodology aims at selection and placement, external candidates/job applicants often receive only the final hiring recommendation, and are given more detailed feedback only upon request, if at all. If the primary purpose is development rather than selection, and especially when participants are current members of the organization, participants are typically given much more detailed and specific feedback on their performance in the simulation activities, as well as their scores on the critical competencies being assessed. Further, when assessment centers are tied to career planning and succession planning, it is common for extensive individual developmental planning and coaching to follow the feedback review.

While the focus of the assessment center is mainly on the individual, there are broader benefits to the organization as a whole. When an organization has assessed a number of internal candidates, the organization can identify common denominator strengths and developmental needs that show up across individual profiles. Suppose that most internal candidates for frontline supervisor positions score poorly on a critical competency of “developmental delegation.” Such data can be used to support training and development programs and other relevant skill-building processes in the organization, and could also inform the company’s recruiting and hiring strategies. Similarly, longer-range succession planning is supported by having assessment data on a pool of incumbent employees who have the core skills necessary for higher-level jobs. In general terms, assessment centers can provide a level of information that contributes to overall organizational effectiveness, beyond the skills and developmental needs of individual candidates.

Full-blown high fidelity assessment centers clearly require a substantial investment of time and money, in their development and implementation. There is growing interest today in so-called short form or quick start versions of the methodology for use in organizations that want to quickly profile candidates or high-potential employees but can’t justify the heavy resource investment in a full-blown process. The use of a few well-designed elements of the assessment center methodology (e.g., a targeted leaderless group discussion, a couple of critical-incident role-plays) can yield a pretty good general picture of a participant’s most salient strengths and developmental needs. Indeed, my team and I have recently helped to design and successfully pilot just such a short-form assessment center for new and aspiring frontline supervisors in a major US industrial company. 

Conclusion

From its earliest applications in the business setting, the assessment center methodology has grown to be a significant tool for employee selection, promotion, and long-term career development. When a fine-grained analysis of individuals’ strengths and development needs is needed, the assessment center is among the sharpest tools that psychologists have yet developed.