ASSESSMENT CENTERS: THE NEW METHOD

FOR SELECTING MANAGERS

Cabot L. Jaffee, Fredric D. Frank, and Jack B. Rollins

The accompanying parody oF an "assessment cen-
ter" is everything an assessment center is not. BeForc
we begin a secdon on what assessment centers
should be and why they were developed,* we'll
summarize the major problems illustrated in this
improbable scenario:
1. A skill or trait that cannot be defined by observ-
ables can be oF no value in making an assessment.
(* The Commentary Continues on Page 10)
2. A definition oF a trait that does not describe an
observable behavior can be oF no value.
3. Non-work-rclated beha\'iors are oF no \'alue.
4. Exercises that do not demand work-odented be-
haviors are oF no value.
5. It is unFair to obscr\'e and evaluate individuals
except in the specific exercises.
6. Repwrts on the performance of individuals must
contain relevant behaviors as their basis rather than
conclusions of evaluators reladve to inner traits.

This ardde describes a basic program For analyzing Choosing Appropriote Evaiuotors
behavior by simuladon. The authors developed
The line organizadon must be involved in the
tests of behavioral analysis because the tradidonal
assessment center for opdmal results; their input in
measures For selecdng managers could not be vali-
determining the traits is important, but direct input
dated. The new metliods were based on the concept
in the process itself as evaluators is \dtal if the
that we could create situations that would allow a
results are to be granted high validity by all line
candidate to perForm certain tasks and reveal the
managers. Four characterisdcs were used to choose
existence, or absence oF traits agreed by manage-
the tj'pe of individual most able to successfully meet
ment to be crucial in the determinadon oF what
the challenges of this type of assignment:
makes a successFul super%isor.
1) Company evaluators should be rather mediocre
The first step in the assessment program was to
managers so they can see and understand both sides
decide which traits were cridcal to evaluate, and
of the condnuum equally well; that is, it is the
the Following steps were to choose appropriate eval-
mediocre managers who can deal with behaviors
uatoxs, write simuladon exercises that could dis-
least dewant from their own, whether tlie candi-
cdminate between the presence and absence oF the
dates be quite good or quite bad.
traits, and to evaluate the results oF the first run-
through. The following secdons describe each of 2) They must be able to go along with others'
these stages. opinions; vv'hen the group discusses a potendal
management candidate, it is imperadve that har-
Gaining Consensus on the Traits mony exist, otherwise the indiwdual might: suffer
to be Measured in his evaluadon because of bad feelings betvi'een
A group of successful line inanagers was asked to evaluators.
resporid to a question concerning effecdve super-
3) They must be easily spared from their jobs, and
mory skills. .Exhibit One below presents their un-
have only moderate importance in the organizadon;
professional responses and the subsequent revision
the assignment of a key man to the assessment cen-
job that ~was obviously required hy the assessment
ter would cause resentment and hosdlitj' in the or-
center staff. The staff's revision follows the standard
ganizadonal segments that were depdved of him,
pracdce of determining that the candidate is free
and the assessment center would lose the support
of detrimental or negadve character traits. The
and backing of those groups.
staffs revised list is expanded with adequate defini-
tions of each trait. (It is lecommended that the 4) They must be quite stable, conservadve and
prospective user conunit these to memory.) unassociated with any previous organizadonal inno-

Human Resource Management, Summer, 1976 5


A Few Selected Traits of an EfFectly^
Managers' Responses
(organizing and planning)
(decision making)
(comrhunication skills)
(forceful ness)
(resistance to stress)
Guidelines for Selecting p
Reconceptualizatlon :. ^ ^ -,
absence" of disorganized orxd -,_
chaotic trdits , . . , •',•
absence of poor decision making . '.
absence of incohererit'conirhuhications
absence of wedk-v/illed behdvior
obsence of nervousness •" , ,.:
definition-,;_'; v ? / , " :.
The cpndidote stioujd.faii to;giy^-evidence of
•poor brganizihgond planning as xepresented
by ; confoslpliiy- disorganization,., and chdotic
non'-goal-oriefjted planriing-(or psychosis).
- The candidote shouldfdil to give eyiclerice of
hasty, sloppy, bizzare or .iseculiar decisions.
.The candidate should fail to. give-evidence of
mumbling, ; stuttering, inadequate eye _con-
•tact/ peculiar word-choice,;. ;overgeneraliza-
tioris, and salivating while spedking.:
The candidate shbuld.faii to give evidence of
prying -when yelled at,-pr abandoning his/her
poisitidn v\/hen facing ddyersity.. 'J'-]
• the-cqndidate"should fail- lo:give,..evJdejice of
sweating) stuttering*, or- difficMlt^ breathing.
This^.is^ dt;-times confused-with, "poor fcbm-
, municdtion skills," but is analyzable by ex-
.perienced. evaluators." , - -' ••'':.::..; - -

yations that may be viewed with suspicion or

trust by the majority of. ihe line; they slioiild, in I caiiihotieU yoWwhatjisraUrhapp^ diiring
fact, be vieiyed as "acceptable people;" - ' ;.• , , ^V^ this' da;^,;^ut ilie^ leSdy. JQbok; and
shake Jiands,with ttdse on eiflier «ide oF you.
Effectively Discnminating Simulation Exercises Some of you will make it and some of you won't
For those of you that do congratulations, for
This section describes what assessees do m a typical
those of you that don't, I'm sorry But remember
day's activities. The exerases, remember, attempt to
that the world cannot be populated only by win-
determine the absence of the cntical traits that
ners, otherwise we wouldn't need so many of our
would discount a candidate for a management posi
important institutions Do the best you can and
tion.
I'll be xneeting with you ^gain, later m the day.
Time . .Exercise
8:03 Brief Introduction to program
8:05 HOMESrr £XEBCI8E
Honesty Exercise
8:10- Company Values Exercise
8:30 Coffee Break Since honesty is so cntical for supervisory employ-
8:45 Group Interaction Exercise ees, especially in companies that manufacture small
10:00 Spee( h Exercise objects, the first exerase has all six partiapants
12:00
.' 1:06 'di-ganizing and Planning Exercise brought into a room and seated around a table while
3:00 Coffee Break the evaluators view their assigned candidate from
-3:-1;5' • -Pyrpmid Exercise behind a one-way vision^ screen The partiapants
Closing and Explanation of Follow up
are g^ven no' instructions and 'the only object on
the table is a large box of popcorn Whoever eats
any 4S jnarked Jown In order to combine develop-
' Participants, aie brought together and informed mental acdvibes vnth selection (a highly xecom-
that they; are about to take part m one of the most mended procedure)," feedback j$^ insured, the pop-
: important expenences m their company careers It com contains & substance (sulfadias^lfate) which
Has^l^n-Vshown that high anxiety enhances pet makes anyone ^wto pats it ext^nidy sidk Tbis is a ,
fdrmancei and it is for this reason that die following bnef exerase becaus'Stesearcbias^shown that those
sp)eech should be read people wbo take the popcorn -mil do so quickly

6 Assessment Centers: the New Method for Selecting Managers

CJOMPAOTVALUESEiDBROiSE ' . -C ' . [.; . ; , ., been g^ven two choices each, the group must rank
Ind«^iw]^;arS3j^lHij^ ^jectives. and ^ J ' ^ order Aepossibilides from most to least desirable.
asked/to rate Ixith m e a)mpanyan;dthenvsdves. : . . - . . -
' • ' ; ' • ; , ' ' - " • , ' > ' • • ; ' / . " " • , • " ; / • ' • • • _ - , • " • • - - " ' • . ' ' ; • • . S P E E C H - - - - ' , . • -

• >^ ^ ^ l \ , .company:- Candidates are seated around a table and asked to

. . " ; > •' \; • .; ,' - • ' . ; ' .'•.'.•. ,.' give a speech on an assigned topic for as long as
•: . y ."""rr~:—-- -----v-—:-;-—t- .they wish. This sometimes has the disadvantage of
^*° ..—.—........--...-.._„. .....—...............—L not getting all speeches completed in the allotted
comforting :.;™........_;...r....:....,V ...".~....f,.....:...:.....: dme, but the freedom each individual has to speak
loypl :'• :.\ . ::...;il ^...;.-..l.... .........; ;......(.„....: ' as long as he/she wishes has many overdding ad-
ossertiye ./...^.l..........:.....J..:. _.: .; 1.... vantages. During the speech, the evaluator takes
': : . . . ' pedodic reading on a palmer conductance measure
':'\'"^" •• -. hi^h V . low. high low obtained by hooking the speaker to a series of elec-
5 ;: r . : " ; . • ;v : ;. : - trodes, measures the number of dysfluendes in the
Participants-are then broiight together in a group ' speech, and hy means of an absorbent piece of
and asked ito discuss why they have rated the yarir blotter paper measures the amount of saliva given
ous adjective; in "the way Jthat ihey have. For all off during the talk. In addidon to these, duration of
group exeois^, the-eyaluatpts^t adjacent to their speech, eye contact, hand gestures, and feet shuffles
particular candidates; sio ,djat nothirig is missed. ^re noted. For those individuals vvho do not get a
There -are; rtherefore, tvvelve Jndiyiduals seated chance to participate in the speech experience, they
around the table,^ alternately candidate axid ev^u- ?re simply assumed to have ho negative traits since
ator, with the ey^Iuator noting :everything the can- none were noted. As said previously, this procedure
didate does and says :as he/she does of says i t I t has some disadvantages hut appears logistically
has heen shown that, forsomereasori,: ihe succ^sful. riecessary.
supervisor sees Hniself/herselF as weaker and less
assertive.than,the company-?ind,therefore chooses a LUNCH
higher point for; the company on the first, diird, There is no speaking by the evaluators during
andfourthadjectiyes.; j - . " • •lunch. In Fact, evaluators are required to eat as
rapidly as possible so that they can note the con-
COFFEEBBEAK. . . •' . , = - . . . .. . '
versations and gestures of all candidates. Once
During.^|iis period allipartidjpants and evaluators again, the seating arrangement is deliberately ar-
stand _aroimd= aiid; iipJ^^ffee^^ are not: ranged so as to insure, maiximum opportunity for
allowed tO'Sp^afc to -piartidpants and they are to evaluation of the candidates. The amount of food
"' n^behavior and/or consumed by each candidate is noted as well as
,tum:a\yay^.":; how-tauch is left over. (Research indicates that the
y-inotk .successful stipeiOTSprs eat mpst of their, food,
• possibly^^^an indication' of a need for. task comple-
tion.) ;. . ; .

ORGANIZING AND PLANIWNG EXERCISE

iasja unique Participants are given a three hundred pia;e puzzle

to put together in the prescribed time period. The
methods they use to organize and plan for the
: group :activities (as well asUie dedsions as to which
pieces go where) allow an opportunity for
on the absence of the nega-
ihis ttait As an ^ditional in-
d whisde is sounded every fifteen
:nunutes to evaluate the individual's nerves. For the

Human Resource Management, Summer, 1976 7

most part, this exercise has proven to be very suc-
cessful in spite of the fact that participants do not
particularly enjoy it. It is recommended that evalu-
ators wear ear plugs.
COFFEE BREAK
Each candidate is given two of the other candidates
to vifork for him in the building of a large pyramid.
This activity must take place in a large outdoor
area. Indiwduals who are able to get the pyramid
built are evaluated highly. Each individual is
allowed to use whatever means he/she sees- likely
to t e effective in getting the others to work.
CLOSING AND EXPLANATION OF FOLLOW-UP
ACTIVITIES
The following speech should be given at the close
of the day's acti\'ities:
You have gone through a highly developed pro-
gram based on scientific principles. You will be
given feedback on how you have done at a later
time, but for the present, do not discuss your
experience Mnth any other individuals in the
company since they would have an unfair ad-
vantage if they knew in advance what to look
for. If you have any questions about why we
have done some oE the things the way we have, I
will be happy to answer any questions about our
scientific method.
The following are some representative questions
asked at the conclusion of a number of programs.
1) Why do the observers sit so close to us during
the exercises?
2) Why do the evaluators eat so quickly at lunch?
3) Will my promotion be based on this test?
4) What does "scientifically determined" mean?
5) What do you learn about us from these tests?
6) I did not know enough about plant growth in
the South Seas to speak about it. How am I eval-
uated?
7) How do you rate me because I chose losing an
ear as my favorite choice?
8) My group never got the puzzle together. Did
we fail the test?
8 Assessment Centers: the New Method for Selecting Managers
As can be seen by the representative questions, the
program is basically well understood and accepted
by the candidates. Their areas of doubt have to do
with how they performed rather than reflecting a
lack of understanding of the reasons for the various
exercises. It is evident that the face validities of
these exercises are quite high.
Evaluators' Final Reporting Sessions
The next most critical aspect of the program is the
activity that goes on after all the infonnation has
been gathered on each candidate during the day's
actiwties. Unknown to the candidates, the major
portion of the activity takes place wlien they are
returned happily to their present positions. For it is
then that the evaluation panel begins the arduous
task of making judgments about the strengths and
weaknesses of the candidates on their lack of poor
behavioral traits.
This process takes at least one additional day and
usually more. At no time in an individual's career
is as much effort spent in evaluating his/her capa-
bilities as during this program. A report on a strong
candidate as well as on a weak one is presented
here to give readers an opportunity to appreciate a
final product.
EVALUATION REPORT FOR JOHN DOE
John Doe (a pseudonum to preserve anonymity)
was seen as a strong management candidate by the
evaluation panel. The reasons revolve around the
following critical behaviors:
HONESTY EXERCISE: Mr. Doe did not steal any pop-
corn, indicative of an absence of thieving behavior.
This would make him suitable for work iri com-
panies manufacturing either small objects or large
objects; this versatility is highly xecommfended.
VALUES EXERCISE: Mr. Doe performed in
a fashion similar to that of other successful man-
agers, seeing himself as weaker and. less assertive
than the company.
GROUP INTERACTION EXERCISE: H e defended his
points vigorously and organized and planned much
of the activity that went on in the group. In his
dealings with others, he is extremely polite and he
is a very neat man. He chose being bitten by a
rabid fox above the poisonoiis snake; cancer over
heart disease; loss of an ear rather than an eye; a
car wreck over a plane crash; and the loss of his
wife over a poor grade in school. For all these
choices, his arguments were cogent, well organized
and effectively delivered.
COFFEE BREAK: He drank most of one cup (black)
and ate one sweet roll. H e held a napkin in one
hand and got no crumbs on his pants. He seems to
be an outgoing, happy man who laughs on occasion,
and once laughed out loud while standing alone in
a comer of the room.
SPEECH: He gave a very fine speech. He was the
first candidate to speak, and spoke for twenty-eight
minutes in a loud; clear voice, with good eye con-
tact and hand gestures. While he may have spoken
a little too loudly, he was effective in maintaining
the attention of the other group members since his
topic was, by design, not meant to be particularly
interesting. His cbart on the critical analyses is
presented as a means of comparing him to an aver-
age candidate.
variable amt. of average
condidate
sweating 10 drops 130 drops
galvcnicskin
responses 10 (abnormal) . 200 (abnormal)
dysfluencies 68 , - 3
spittle dischorge - 120 drops 5 drops. .
feet shuffles 0 25
eye blinks 0 165
LUNCH: He ate quickly, said nothing to other mem-
bers of the group, wiped his mouth and stood in
the comer for the remainder of the time. N o nega-
tive behaviors were noted.
ORGANIZING AiTO PLANNING: H e Worked diligently
on two puzzle pieces for the entire time period,
finally getting them together. The loud whistle did
not bother him, nor was he bothered by the observ-
ers sitting dose to tbe candidates; at all times he
maintaiiied a stiff posture..
THE PYBAMib EXERCISE: By using a novel and effec-
tive approach, he got his two workei? to build the
pyramid rapidly: be vvalked up behind them quietly
and screamed instructions in their ear. His group
finished in record tinie.
.: Mr. - E ^ proved to be one pf the most
successfid candidates seen at the program. H e dis-
Human Resource Managevient, Summer, 1976 9
played no negative behaviors, maintained a fixed
bearing, spoke eamestly and sincerely, and partici-
pated vigorously in the exercises and remained aloof
on other occasions. There is no question that he is
a superior candidate and this panel of evaluators
recommends him highly for promotion.
EVALUATION REPORT FOR JOHN SMtTH
John Smith (pseudonym) does not appear to be a
likely candidate for a management position. To
start with, he ate the popcom after first stating that
he had not had breakfast. He then proceeded to get
sick. (As if this were not enough, he brushed him-
self off with a newspaper and continued to go
through the rest of the day's program, much to his
evaluator's discomfort.)
COMPANY VALUES EXERCISE: H e rated himself as
being stronger than the company and in the dis-
cussion section of the exercise sat quietly, not enter-
ing into the arguments.
COFFEE BREAK: Mentioned that he was still very
hungry and ate four sweet rolls and drank two cups
of coffee.
GROUP INTERACTION EXERCISE: He refused to par-
ticipate in choosing between the hideous alterna-
tives, stating that he couldn't "see how the informa-
tion would be of any value to anyone."
SPEECH: He never had the opportunity to g^ve a
speech, so these were the only positive scores he got.
LUNCH: He felt ill from the four sweet rolls and so
ate no lunch. No behaviors were noted.
ORGANIZING AND PLANNING EXERCISE: Each time the
whistle sounded, Mr- Smith jumped and was un-
able to begin working for a period of sonie ten
minutes. Since the whisde sounded every fifteen
minutes, he did not contribute gready to the group
activity.
PYRAMID EXERCISE: H e could not get his two assign-
ees to do anything in the pyramid building exercise
and so demonstrated many negative traits.
OVERALL: Mr. Smith displayed very litde potential
for a managerial position. Many more negative be-
haviors were displayed than average for a manage-
ment candidate and the only absence of negative
bebaviors took place during tbe speech be never
gave. He is not recommended.
Tests measuring ability to perform a job can create
an obvious parallel between the test and the job
situation (as in performance tests for typists which
measure the ability to type) or they can find them-
selves at the other end of the continuum, asking
for responses that overlap very little with subse-
quent job performance (for example, various apti-
tude tests, or standardized intelligence tests). The
responses called for in such tests may not be at all
related to an ability to perform on the job in spite
of the fact that "intelligence" may be highly desired
by the employer.
Such distinctions are very relevant to an impwrtant
problem in the use of assessment centers for pre-
dicting supervisory success. One of the interesting
findings coming out of the extensive body of studies
on the assessment center is its ability to predict
success at the second level management with greater
accuracy than success at the first level.' One reason
for this anomaly may be the greater overlap between
the assessment center exercises and what is de-
manded of an individual at the second level of
management. One of the unfortunate by-products
of all the recent assessment center activity has been
the development of "packages" that organizations
use to judge first-level supervisory potential across
various organizations and the continued reliance on
the original AT&T design as a model for the devel-
opment of exercises. Both these directions are
fraught with many of the same dangers as the
original testing programs, in that a situational exer-
cise designed for one environment will not neces-
sarily predict in another because it is not an
adequate simulation of that new environment. It
is not sufficient to merely consider "organizing and
planning" as a critical skill for a supervisor and use
an in-basket to measure it. Organizing and plan-
ning demands in one setting may be quite different
from the demands in another setting, in spite of the
fact that the best label for both classes of behavior
might be "Organizing and Planning."
This says something important for the use and de-
sign of assessment center programs. More than
anything, time and effort must be spent on ade-
quately defining the critical skills and how they
are represented behaviorally in a particular organi-
zation (as well as designing the best means of ob-
serving their presence or absence.) All in-baskets
10 Assessment Centers: the New Method for Selecting Managers
are not the same nor are all business games or lead-
ership group discussions identical. If this is the
case, then they cannot all represent the real en-
Naronment equally well.
Much of the variance in predicting job success,
after the simulation exercises and the pencil and
paper tests have made their contributions, may well
be due to the inadequate sampling of the situational
factors; such variance is not necessarily an indict-
ment of simulation per se in selection.
Assessment centers are being used in private in-
dustry and government for selection of many kinds
of employees and managers at all levels in a wide
assortment of positions. Byham summarized assess-
ment center advantages in this
Reports have proved to be remarkably valid.
Longitudinal studies of thousands of employees
assessed over the last few years indicate that this
assessment method is much more accurate than
traditional appraisal procedures, and these seem
to be the reasons:
• The exercises used are designed to bring out
the specific skills and aptitudes needed in the
position(s) for which a group of candidates is
being assessed.
• Since the exercises are standardized, assessors
evaluate the candidates under relatively constant
conditions and thus are able to make valid com-
parative judgments.
• The assessors usually do not know the candi-
dates personally, so, being emotionally disen-
gaged, they are unbiased.
• The assessors are shielded from the many in-
terruptions of normal working conditions and
can pay full attention to the candidates' behawor
in the exercises.
• The procedures focus their attention on the
primary kinds of behavior they ought to observe
in evaluating a promotion candidate.
• They have been trained to observe and evalu-
ate these kinds of behavior.
» Campbell and Bray, 1967; and Kraut and Scott, 1972.
2 W. C. Byham, "Assessment Centers for Spotting
Future Managers," Harvard Business Review, 1970, July-
August, pp. 150-160.

Byham further points out some indirect benefits
which accrue from the assessment center:
a. Candidate training
b. Positive influence on morale and job expecta-
tions
c. Subtle improvement of candidates' under-
standing of and attitudes toward organiza-
tional goals and {X)licies
d. Assessor training (said to be by far the most
valuable "fringe benefit").
A good deal of research has demonstrated the effec-
tiveness of the assessment center technique;' more-
over, the support of thousands of managers who
have been an integral part of the assessment process
by acting in the capacity of assessors argues as
strongly for the process as do the numbers in re-
search findings which by now have, in their own
right, become overwhelmingly documentation for
the value of the assessment process.
REFERENCES
Bender, J. M. What is typical of assessment centers. Per-
sonnel, 1973, 50, 50-57.
Bray, D. W. and Campbell, R. J. Selection of salesmen by
means of an assessment center, joumai of Applied Psy-
chology, 1968,52, 36-41.
Bray, D. W. and Grant, D. L. The assessment center in
the measurement of potential for business management.
Psychological Monographs, 1966, 80, Whole No. 625.
Bray, D. W. and Moses, J. L. Personnel selection. Annual
Review of Psychology, 1972, 23, 545-576.
Byham, W. C. Assessment centers for spotting future man-
agers. Harvard Business Review, 1970, July-August,
150-160.
Campbell, R. J. and Bray, D. W. Assessment centers: An
aid in management selection. Personnel Administration,
1967, 30, 6-13.
Cohen, B. M., Moses, J. L., and Byham, W. C. The
validity of assessment centers: A literature review. De-
velopment Dimensions, Pittsburgh: (Monograph 2),
1972.
Cohen, B. M. and Jaffee, C. L. The assessment center in
government. The Govemment Executive, Fall, 1972.
^ The first and perhaps least contaminated of all the
research done on the effectiveness of the assessment center
was done at the American Telephone and Telegraph Com-
pany by Bray and Grant. TTiis study involveof some 300
newly appointed managers of whom about eighty percent
who reached middle management after an eight year period
Were correctly identified by the center. In addition, some
ninety percent of this same group never promoted from the
first level of management were also correctly identified.
See "The Assessment Center in the Measurement of Po-
tential for Business Management," Psychological Mono-
graphs. 1966.
Human Resource Management, Summer, 1976 11
Cooper, G. and Sobol, R. X. 1969 seniority and testing
under fair employment laws: A general approach to ob-
jective criteria of hiring and promotion. Harvard Law
Review, 1969, 82, 1598-1679.
Huck, J. R. Assessment centers: A review of the external
and internal validities. Personnel Psychology, 1973, 26,
191-212.
JafFee, C. L. and Frank, F. D. Interviews conductet at
assessment centers. Kendall-Hunt, Dubuque, Iowa, 1976.
Jaffe, C. L. Effective Supervisory Selection: The Evalua-
tion of Behavior, Addison-Wesley, 1971.
JafFee, C. L., Bender, J., and Calvert, D. The assessment
center technique. A validation study. Management of
Personnel Qtmrterly, 1970, Fall, 9-14.
JafFee, C. L., Cohen, S. L., and Chevey, R. Supervisory
selection program for disadvantaged or minority employ-
ees. Training and Development journal, 1972, BF, 22—
27.
Kraut, A. J. and Scott, C. J. Validity of an operational
management assessment program, journal of Aj>plied
Psychology, 1972, 56, 124-129.
McConnel, J. and Parker, T. An assessment center pro-
gram for multi-organizational use. Training and Devel-
opment Joumai, 1972, 26, 6-14.
Wernimont, P. F. and Campbell, J. P. Signs, samples and
criteria, joumai of Applied Psychology, 1968, S2, 372-
376.
Cabot L. Jaffee
is Professor of Psychology at Florida Technological Uni-
versity. He was involved in the pioneer research at ATT on
assessment centers and for the past eight years has been
actively consulting in the area of managerial assessment for
both industry and government. He has authored several
books on assessment centers: Effective Management Selec-
tion, Problems in Supervision, and Interviews Conducted
at Assessment Centers (co-authored with Dr. Fredric Frank).
Fredric D. Frank
is the Coordinator of the Graduate Program in Industrial
Psychology and an Associate Professor of Psychology at
Florida Technological University. He has been actively
involved in the area of managerial assessment and training.
Jack B. Rollins
is a Professor of Psychology and Associate Dean of the
College of Social Sciences at Florida Technological Uni-
versity. He contributed to the early development of sales
assessment programs while at American Telephone and
Telegraph Company. He has published a number of articles
on assessment centers in professional journals.