Assessment Center

Is the trend slowly ebbing away?

In recent years, assessment centers (ACs) have developed into an integral part of staff selection at many small and large companies. ACs consist of a number of exercises and work simulations. The aim of this is to measure a variety of professional and social skills and thus minimize the risk of an incorrect assessment.

One of the most well-known examples is the mailbox method, for which applicants should answer fictitious emails and postal letters according to relevance under time pressure. But the great enthusiasm for ACs seems to be slowly ebbing away and more and more companies are removing them from their personnel selection. The reason is simple: ACs often fell short of HR managers' expectations, are time-consuming and very expensive.

The validity of assessment centers

Scientific overview studies show that assessment centers are among the “losers” when comparing different personnel selection processes (Schmidt & Hunter 1998). Although there is certainly a significant relationship between the results of an AC and professional success, ACs generally do not provide any value that goes beyond that of aptitude diagnostic data (e.g. intelligence tests) (Schmidt & Hunter, 1989). This is particularly often the case because the tasks developed are not based on an empirical requirement analysis and thus reflect the actual requirements in the workplace only to a limited extent. In addition, criteria for evaluating applicants' behavior are only insufficiently defined in the individual exercises. For example, group discussions often aim to capture rhetorical, social and leadership-related competencies.

On the other hand, the specific behaviours that should reflect these competencies are often no longer specifically defined. As a result, other criteria — such as applicants' extraversion — are often assessed in group discussions instead.

This is particularly true when observers have not been adequately trained to evaluate relevant criteria in assessment centers — and this is still often the case in both small and large companies.

The time and financial costs of assessment centers

The previous analysis shows that designing a valid assessment center is not easy. In order for this to be successful, considerable time and financial resources are invested in an empirical requirement analysis, in the selection and design of exercises and assessment forms, and in the training of observers. Of course, not every company can afford this and therefore often uses less scientifically based methods.

But it is not only the development of ACs that is complicated, expensive and time-consuming — the ACs themselves are also associated with high costs and a great deal of effort. Applicants usually have to accept long and expensive journeys and long, intensive preparation times. On the part of the company, on the other hand, specialist and HR departments use considerable human resources to monitor and support candidates.

Our Conclusion

Before using an AC, carry out a well-founded cost-benefit analysis and check whether an AC is actually suitable for your personnel selection. This can be the case when selecting managers, for example. Tip: You can often use digital online assessments to achieve just as good or even better effects!

Sources

• Kanning, U.P. (2014). Assessment Center: Between Ringelpiez and effective method. https://www.haufe.de/personal/hr-management/kolumne-psychologie-wirksamkeit-des-assessment-center_80_235664.html
• Schmidt, F.L., & Hunter, J.E. (1998). The Validity and Utility of Selection Methods in Personnel Psychology: Practice and Theoretical Implications of 85 Years of Research Findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 262—274.
• Schuler, H. (2014). Psychological personnel selection (3rd ed.). Göttingen: Hogrefe.