Charles D. Hale The Assessment Center Handbook For Police and Fire Personnel PDF

The AssessmenT CenTer hAndbook
for PoliCe And fire Personnel

AboUT The AUThor
Charles d. hale is the President of Resource Management Associates, a

multifaceted firm he created in 1981 to provide technical assistance and con-
sulting services to municipal governments. Mr. Hale began his career in the pub-
lic sector as a police officer in El Segundo, California, in 1965, where he served
for seven years as a patrol officer, investigator, and field supervisor. While work-
ing full time as a police officer, he attended California State University at Long
Beach where he attained his Bachelor’s Degree in 1970 and his Master’s De-
gree in 1972. From 1972 to 1974, Mr. Hale served as the Assistant Director of
the Police Assaults Study conducted by the Oklahoma University Research In-
stitute and funded by the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration. In 1973,
Mr. Hale served on a team of consultants involved in a management and organ-
ization study of the Police Department in Amarillo, Texas. Since that time, Mr.
Hale has conducted similar studies in more than 200 police departments in sev-
eral states. He is the author of numerous publications in the field of law enforce-
ment, including Police Patrol Operations and Management, which is currently in
the third edition and is published by Prentice-Hall.
As President of Resource Management Associates, Mr. Hale directs a small
staff of personnel engaged in conducting management studies of police depart-
ments and designing and administering written promotional examinations, oral
examinations and assessment centers for police and fire departments. Mr. Hale
has personally designed and administered over 300 assessment centers for
dozens of different positions in the police and fire services. His company has
clients in more than 25 states, including Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Connecti-
cut, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts,
Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hamp-
shire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont,
Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
Third Edition
THE ASSESSMENT
CENTER HANDBOOK
FOR POLICE AND FIRE
PERSONNEL
By
CHARLES D. HALE
President
Resource Management Associates
Tinley Park, Illinois
Published and Distributed Throughout the World by
CHARLES C THOMAS • PUBLISHER, LTD.

2600 South First Street
Springfield, Illinois 62794-9265
This book is protected by copyright. No part of

it may be reproduced in any manner without written
permission from the publisher. All rights reserved.
©2010 by CHARLES C THOMAS • PUBLISHER, LTD.
ISBN 978-0-398-07948-2 (spiral)
Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 2010012351
With THOMAS BOOKS careful attention is given to all details of manufacturing

and design. It is the Publisher’s desire to present books that are satisfactory as to their
physical qualities and artistic possibilities and appropriate for their particular use.
THOMAS BOOKS will be true to those laws of quality that assure a good name
and good will.
Printed in the United States of America

TS-R-3
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
Hale, Charles D.
The assessment center handbook for police and fire personnel / by Charles D.
Hale.--3rd ed.
p. cm.
Includes index.
ISBN 978-0-398-07948-2 (Spiral)
1. Assessment centers (Personnel management procedure)--Handbooks, manuals,
etc. 2. Police--Personnel management--Handbooks, manuals, etc. 3. Fire
departments--Personnel management--Handbooks, manuals, etc. I. Title.
HF5549.5.A78H35 2010
363.2’2--dc22
2010012351
PrefACe To The Third ediTion
I am gratified this book has helped people who are either interested in learn-
ing more about assessment centers or who hope to improve their perform-
ance as they face an assessment center. There are other sources of
information about assessment centers and all of them have something im-
portant to contribute to the growing body of knowledge about this important
selection method.
In preparing the third edition I have attempted to expand upon the con-
cepts and principles presented in the first two editions and have introduced
a few new ideas. Several chapters have been extensively edited and refor-
matted. In addition, in Chapter 4, I have added sections of the Tactical EMS
Problem as well as the Public Education Exercise, both of which have spe-
cial applicability to emergency medical and fire prevention personnel. I have
also included a new Chapter 9, entitled “Best Practices in Assessment Cen-
ter Exercises,” which provides a number of examples on how candidates
may achieve superior performance in many different kinds of assessment
center exercises. I have included only a few of the best examples I have
found and I know there are many others of which I am not aware.
I have addressed the use of modern technology in a new section in Chap-
ter 5 and have attempted to reinforce the notion that assessment center devel-
opers and administrators need to be continually alert for opportunities to
improve their policies and incorporate advancing technology into their work
products. I am confident that we will see new developments in this arena in the
years ahead and I hope to be able to update this book accordingly.
Regardless of how hard we work to design and administer successful as-
sessment centers, our hard work can be easily unraveled by the thoughtless
actions of a careless, lazy, or unprofessional assessor. I have been privileged
to work with a great many thoughtful, dedicated and hard-working men and
women who have served as assessors in the several hundred assessment cen-
ters I have administered over the last thirty years. Selecting good assessors
does not happen by accident nor do they work effectively without sound princi-
ples of supervision and administration. I have provided some additional insight
into the selection, preparation, and supervision of assessors in Chapter 6.
v
vi The Assessment Center Handbook for Police and Fire Personnel
The proper ways of evaluating the results of an assessment center, scor-

ing candidates, and reporting the results of the process need not be a mys-
tery, but it sometimes can be. The best practice, I believe, is to make the
scoring process as transparent and uncomplicated as possible. Most can-
didates taking part in an assessment center are not mathematicians nor are
they master statisticians and therefore prefer to receive the results of their
efforts in the most practical, simple, and easy-to-understand format. I have
expanded my discussion of candidate scoring in Chapter 7 as a means of
addressing this issue.
We learn by our mistakes and I continually preach to participants that they
will learn more about their own strengths and weaknesses by the mistakes
they make in the assessment center. In the second edition of this book, I in-
cluded a new chapter on “Some of the Greatest Blunders,” and I continue
to think that it is one of the more useful chapters of the book for the first-time
participant. I have added some new material for this section, once again
drawing upon my own experience as an assessment center administrator. I
have no doubt that the future will provide additional examples for this sec-
tion as well.
I continue to believe that part of the success of an assessment center is
the fact that candidates believe that they are a fair, realistic, and practical
way for them to demonstrate their ability to perform the tasks of a position
for which they are being evaluated. When they stop believing this, the
process is doomed to failure. This is one reason that I have tried, as an as-
sessment center administrator, to do whatever can reasonably be done to
ensure that candidates feel satisfied with the results of the process. This
belief is discussed in Chapter 11 where I have provided some additional
thoughts to reinforce this view.
Assessment centers continue to be widely used as the preferred and ac-
cepted manner of evaluating the potential of members of police and fire de-
partments as a part of their standardized promotional examination process.
As I suggested in the Preface to the previous edition, the art and practice of
designing job-related and reliable assessment centers is a work in progress.
As we continue to ply our trade, we will continue to advance the theory and
success of the process. I hope this third edition will play some part in that
advancement.
ACknoWledGmenTs
I n previous editions I have acknowledged that this book is the result of a col-
lective effort involving numerous people and organizations. This statement is
no less true today. However, it is virtually impossible for me to list the many
men and women with whom I have worked over the last 30 years who have
contributed in one way or another to making this book a reality. Nevertheless,
I owe them all a great debt of gratitude for their understanding, support and
guidance.
I am also indebted to the many police and fire chiefs, city managers, per-
sonnel directors, fire and police commissioners, civil service examiners, and
others who have been gracious enough to allow me to assist them in design-
ing and administering assessment centers for their agencies. I appreciate the
trust they have placed in me and I hope that I have not disappointed them.
I would also like to acknowledge the contributions of the hundreds of men
and women who have participated in assessment centers under my direction.
They have offered many comments and suggestions which, over the years,
have helped us to improve the quality of our work. They deserve a great deal
of credit for having the fortitude to go through the process which is indeed ex-
hausting and challenging and I sincerely hope that they consider the experi-
ence a satisfying and rewarding one.
Finally, I would like to acknowledge with the greatest respect and fond mem-
ory of several of my colleagues who have passed on to their eternal reward
but who remain among my most treasured friends: Mr. Gary Konzak, former
Chief of Police in Carol Stream, Illinois and Grand Junction, Colorado; Mr.
Robert Sauer, retired Chief of Police of Hanover Park, Illinois; Mr. Pete
Sanders, retired Chief of Police of the Riverdale, Illinois, Police Department;
Mr. Ed Archer, retired District Chief of the Rockford, Illinois, Fire Department;
Mr. William Sudbury, former Chief of Police of the Munster, Indiana, Police
Department; Mr. Bennie Crane, retired District Chief of the Chicago Fire De-
partment; and Mr. Robert Baird, retired Chief of Police of the Elgin, Illinois, Po-
liceDepartment. These gentlemen, professionals all, have served their
respective profession well and nobly and I am honored to have served with
them.
vii
ConTenTs
Page
Preface to the Third Edition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v
Chapter
1. What Is an Assessment Center? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Advantages of the Assessment Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3. Why Some People Don’t Like Assessment Centers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4. Typical Assessment Center Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

The In-Basket Exercise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
The Group Problem-Solving Exercise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
The Tactical Exercise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
The Tactical Fire Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
The Tactical EMS Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32
The Tactical Police Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
The Employee Meeting Exercise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
The Citizen Interview Exercise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
The Fire Inspection Exercise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
The Shift or Company Meeting Exercise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
The Shift or Company Training Exercise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
The Community Meeting or Presentation Exercise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
The Public Education Exercise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53
The Staff Meeting Exercise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
The News Media Exercise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
The Program Development Exercise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
The Criminal Investigation Exercise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
The Career Interview Exercise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
The Accident Review Board Exercise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
ix
x The Assessment Center Handbook for Police and Fire Personnel
5. Assessment Center Design and Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

The Importance of Good Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .67
Exercise Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Candidate Orientation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Facilities and Equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
Scheduling Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Maintaining Test Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Staff Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
Use of Modern Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .80
Fire Simulators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .80
The Electonic In-Basket . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .81
The In-Car Camera . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .82
Using Videotape or DVDs to Simulate Reality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .84
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .84
6. Selection and Training of Assessors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

Assessor Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
Assessor Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
The Assessor Manual . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .88
Assessor Orientation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .88
Assessor Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .89
Care and Nurturing of Assessors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .90
Rules of Conduct for Assessors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .91
7. Candidate Evaluation, Scoring, and Feedback . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .92

Assessor Note-Taking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .92
Weighting of Exercise Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .93
Maintaining Consistency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .94
Selecting the Evaluation Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .95
Performance Dimensions and Benchmarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .97
The Rating Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .100
The Numerical Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .100
The Raw Score Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .101
Reporting Candidate Scores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .102
Assessor Commentary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .104
Providing Feedback to the Candidates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .105
8. Preparing for an Assessment Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .108

Contents xi
9. Best Practices in Assessment Center Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .115

In-Basket Exercise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .115
The Tactical Fire/EMS Problem Exercise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .118
The Group Problem-Solving Exercise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .121
The Employee Meeting Exercise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .123
The Community Meeting Exercise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .125
The Citizen Interview Exercise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .126
The Company or Shift Training Exercise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .127
10. Some of the Greatest Blunders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .130

The Orientation Session . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .131
The In-Basket Exercise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .132
The Employee Meeting Exercise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .133
The Tactical Fire Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .137
The Community Meeting Exercise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .138
The Program Development Exercise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .140
The Citizen Interview Exercise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .141
The Staff Meeting Exercise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .142
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .144
11. Ensuring Candidate Satisfaction with Assessment Center Methods . . .145

Candidate Orientation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .146
Customizing the Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .147
Keeping the Exercises Realistic and Relevant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .148
Selection and Qualifications of Assessors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .148
Obtaining Feedback from Candidates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .149
Candidate Debriefing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .151
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .153
12. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .154
Figures:
2.1 How Candidates View an Assessment Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10

5.1 Relationship Between Performance Dimensions And Job Tasks . .70
5.2 List of Facilities and Equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .75
7.1 Example of Calculating Weighted Scores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .102
7.2 Example of a Detailed Breakdown of an Assessment Center Score .103
7.3 Sample Group Comparison of In-Basket Scores . . . . . . . . . . . . .104
xii The Assessment Center Handbook for Police and Fire Personnel
Appendices:
A. Assessment Center Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159

B. Typical In-Basket Items . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
C. Guidelines for Scoring the In-Basket Exercise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
D. Group Problem-Solving Exercise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184
E. Tactical Fire Problem Exercise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186
F. Tactical Fire Problem Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
G. Fire Tactical Problem: Evaluation of Tactical Considerations
for Tactical Fire Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192
H. Employee Meeting Exercise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194
I. Citizen Interview Exercise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
J. Role-Playing Instructions for the Citizen Interview Exercise . . . . . 196
K. Fire Inspection Exercise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198
L. Shift Meeting Exercise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200
M. Company Training Exercise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202
N. Community Meeting Exercise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204
O. Staff Meeting Exercise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206
P. Program Development Exercise (Police Lieutenant) . . . . . . . . . . 207
Q. Room Configurations for Various Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209
Q-1 Group Problem-Solving . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209
Q-2 Shift or Company Training Exercise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210
Q-3 Employee or Citizen Interview Exercise . . . . . . . . . . . . 210
Q-4 Police or Fire Tactical Exercise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
R. Typical Assessment Center Schedules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212
S. Candidate Feedback Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214
T. Candidate Feedback Forms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218
Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221
The AssessmenT CenTer hAndbook
for PoliCe And fire Personnel
Chapter 1
WhAT is An AssessmenT CenTer?
A n assessment center is not a place, but rather a process that is used in

both private industry and in governmental agencies for the purpose of
determining those persons who have the ability or potential to assume higher
levels of supervisory, managerial, and administrative ability.
What’s this I hear about assessment centers?
Assessment centers are traditionally viewed as a part of a selection

process, whereby candidates are evaluated on their ability to perform a par-
ticular job for which they are applying, but an assessment center can also
serve other purposes as well. For example, assessment centers can be used
to assist individuals in learning more about their strengths and weaknesses
so that they can better prepare themselves to achieve whatever career goals
they may have set for themselves. Carefully-designed assessment centers
3
4 The Assessment Center Handbook for Police and Fire Personnel
can also be used to evaluate deficiencies in department operations, man-

agement practices, and training programs. For example, the results of an as-
sessment center may indicate the need for additional training in public
speaking, cultural diversity awareness, or human relations. By being tested
in a “real world” environment, candidates learn a great deal about their own
strengths and weaknesses. Participating in an assessment center helps to
prepare a candidate for the challenges that he or she will face in the posi-
tion for which he or she is being evaluated.
Assessment centers create a learning environment for participants.

By taking part in an assessment center, participants can better un-
derstand the direction their organization is going and prepare for
the “journey.”1
An assessment center can also be used to pinpoint problems with orga-

nizational performance and policy and procedure development. For exam-
ple, the police or fire tactical problem exercise (described in Chapter 4) may
yield tremendously valuable information about a police or fire department’s
tactical procedures and how well (or poorly) they are understood by mem-
bers of the organization. Similarly, a well-designed role playing exercise may
reveal deficiencies in how members of the department deal with internal
employee issues, external relationships or customer service issues. While
these other uses are important, the assessment center is used primarily as
a tool for evaluating candidates for promotion or appointment and it is in this
context that the material contained in this book is presented.
An assessment center consists of an organized, standardized, and com-
prehensive evaluation of behavior based on multiple inputs. Multiple trained
observers and techniques are used. Judgments about behavior are made,
in major part, from specifically developed assessment simulations. These
judgements are pooled in a meeting among the assessors or by a statisti-
cal integration process. In an integration discussion, comprehensive ac-
counts of behavior and often, ratings of it, are pooled. The discussion results
in evaluations of the performance of the assessed on the dimensions or
other variables which the assessment center is designed to measure.
The assessment center process differs from more traditional examination
methods in that it is a test of skill and ability rather than knowledge. In other
words, it measures not how much someone knows about something but
rather how well a person can function in an assigned role or task. Some
people are known to be great at memorizing information from textbooks,
procedural manuals, and statutes, but they fall short in such critical areas as
1 Patrick Oliver, “The Assessment Center Method: Not Just for Promotions Anymore.” in Subject to Debate:
A Newsletter of the Police Executive Research Forum (March/April, 1998), p. 2.

What is an Assessment Center? 5
leadership, human relations, and decision-making skills which are difficult to

measure in a written examination.
Perhaps the greatest advantage of the assessment center is that it pro-
vides a higher degree of reliability and insight into supervisory or manage-
ment potential than is possible with other examination methods. In addition,
experience has shown that candidates feel that the assessment center is
much more fair and job-related than other types of examinations. As a re-
sult, they are less inclined to challenge the results of an assessment cen-
ter, even when they do poorly.
Assessment centers are sometimes confused with oral interviews, or “oral
assessments” as they are sometimes called, but they are quite different and
the characteristics of an assessment center are quite distinct. Assessment
centers must adhere to certain basic principles that have been developed
over time and must be administered under carefully controlled conditions if
they are to be considered valid and reliable (see Appendix A). These condi-
tions are:2
1. A job analysis of relevant behaviors must be conducted to determine

the dimensions or competencies important to job success in order to iden-
tify what should be evaluated by the assessment center.
2. Behaviors displayed by participants must be classified into meaningful
and relevant categories such as behavioral dimensions, attributes, char-
acteristics, aptitudes, qualities, skills, abilities, competencies or knowl-
edge.
3. The techniques used in the assessment center must be designed to
provide information for evaluating the dimensions previously determined
by the job analysis.
4. Multiple assessment techniques must be used.
5. Assessment techniques must include a sufficient number of job-related
simulations to allow opportunities to observe the candidate’s behavior re-
lated to each dimension/competency being assessed.
6. Multiple assessors must be used to observe and evaluate each as-
sessee.
7. Assessors must receive thorough training and demonstrate perform-
ance that meets the guideline in the “Assessor Training” section of this
document before participating in an assessment center.
8. A systematic procedure must be used by assessors to record specific
behavioral observations accurately at the time of observation.
2International Task Force on Assessment Center Guidelines, “Guidelines and Ethical Considerations for As-
sessment Center Operations,” International Journal of Selection and Assessment, Vol. 17, No. 3 (Septem-
ber, 2009), pp. 244–247.
9. The integration of each individual’s behaviors must be based on pooled

information from assessors or through a statistical integration process.
The assessment center process has proven itself in more than fifty years
of application in both government and in private enterprise. While assess-
ment centers are usually viewed as tools for determining a candidate’s suit-
ability for promotion in rank or assignment to a higher position in the police
or fire service, this method is also used by some agencies for evaluating
candidates for entry-level positions.
No single method can or should be used to evaluate the skills and abili-
ties of persons for new appointment, promotion, or career advancement and
none of the many methods that are available is absolutely guaranteed to
produce perfect results. Instead, any fire or police department personnel
selection or promotion program should be multifaceted and designed to
meet the unique needs of the employing agency. No one method will work
well in all circumstances and no single method is infallible.
Although there are other methods that can (and should) be used in eval-
uating the supervision, management, and administrative skills of candidates
for various positions, there are none that provide the same level of insight
into how a person will actually perform if eventually appointed to the posi-
tion for which he or she is being evaluated. “Research has consistently
demonstrated that Assessment Centers successfully predict a variety of im-
portant outcomes: Job Performance, Management Potential, Training Per-
formance, Career Development.”3 This is due, in part, to the fact that, in the
assessment center method, there is an attempt to place the candidate into
situations and scenarios that are very similar to the situations and scenar-
ios that the candidate will actually confront if appointed to the position.
An assessment center attempts to capture the essential characteristics
of the position for which the person is being considered. While the candidate
understands that the exercise is merely a simulation, he or she also under-
stands that every attempt has been made to make the simulation reflect the
actual conditions of the position for which he or she is being considered.
For example, in an In-Basket Exercise, the organization of the police or fire
department used in the exercise will normally reflect or be similar to the ac-
tual organization of the police or fire department in which the candidate
works or where the position is located for which the person is applying. Sim-
ilarly, in a Community Meeting Exercise, the candidate will normally be
asked questions by the role players based upon actual conditions in the
community or neighborhood that is being represented in that exercise.
3 Michael D. Blair, “Best Practices in Assessment Centers: Reducing Group Differences to a Phrase for the
Past,” paper presented at the 27th annual IPMAAC Conference on Personnel Assessment, Baltimore, Mary-
land, June, 2003.
What is an Assessment Center? 7
Because candidates understand that the exercises which they will expe-
rience are intended to reflect reality, they are more likely to appreciate the
fact that their reactions to these situations should also reflect reality. They
must understand that they are expected to deal with each of the scenarios
presented to them in the same manner they would if, in fact, the scenario
were an actual situation. In truth, candidates rarely need to be told this at all.
Experience has shown that candidates become so involved in the emotion
of the situation that they often forget that they are role playing and do, in
fact, react exactly the way they would in a real-life situation. This becomes
quite important in the evaluation of candidates if it becomes clear to the as-
sessors that a candidate may lose confidence under pressure or react bel-
ligerently when encountering opposition or hostility.
One of the most unique characteristics of assessment centers is how
quickly and accurately assessors are able to “size up” a candidate. In a rel-
atively brief period, assessors are able to learn as much about a candidate’s
personality and behavior as someone who has worked with them for years.
I sometimes test this theory by asking assessors, after the candidates have
been scored, to give the chief executive officer of the agency a brief thumb-
nail sketch of each of the candidates. They might respond, for example by
saying that “candidate B has a lot of potential but lacks self confidence.”
They might describe another candidate as very intelligent but inflexible and
officious. Still another candidate might be described as “being able to talk a
good game but lacking in substance.” In nine cases out of ten, the chief ex-
ecutive officer of that agency will know exactly who the assessors are de-
scribing!
For me, this simply validates the process because it demonstrates that as-
sessors are able to make accurate judgments of candidates in a relatively
short period of time. It also helps to nullify the criticism we sometimes hear
that “the assessors can’t really get to know me that well in such a short time”
(see Chapter 3). The fact is, they can and they do!
Chapter 2
AdVAnTAGes of The AssessmenT CenTer
T he assessment center method offers a number of advantages over more

traditional selection methods, such as supervisory and peer evaluations,
career aptitude tests, paper and pencil tests, and oral interview boards. First,
assessment centers have been found to be much more reliable in evaluating
supervisory, managerial and administrative ability than more traditional selec-
tion methods. Written examinations, for example, test a person’s knowledge
(or, more often, his or her ability to memorize written material), but cannot in-
dicate how well that person will be able to actually apply that knowledge. We
all know someone who may be a good “test taker” but fails to function effec-
tively in the position to which he or she was appointed. Oral interviews, on the
other hand, are heavily influenced by how well the interviewers like what the
person has to say, his or her appearance, and the nature of the questions
being asked. Oral interviews also dwell on hypothetical issues and cannot ac-
tually place the candidate in the actual role for which he or she is being con-
sidered. Assessment centers, on the other hand, examine the person’s ability
to actually perform the job by creating job simulations which closely parallel the
actual job situation.
In addition, the assessment center is flexible in that it can be adapted to a
variety of situations and uses and has been successfully employed to evalu-
ate persons for both entry-level positions as well as promotions. Assessment
centers have been used to select police chiefs, fire chiefs, city managers, and
office managers. Assessment centers can be adapted to evaluating candi-
dates for an infinite number of positions in both the public and the private sec-
tors. Importantly, the assessment center method has been shown to be a
highly reliable method of evaluating candidates for a particular position. Prac-
tical experience has demonstrated that there is a very high probability that a
person who performs well in an assessment center will eventually go on to
perform well in the position for which he or she is being evaluated.
8
Advantages of the Assessment Center 9
There are obvious exceptions. While an assessment center can demon-

strate that a person has the aptitude to capably perform a particular task, it
cannot always determine that a person will be the “best fit” for the job. Other
factors, such as attitude, emotional maturity, and personality characteris-
tics, may need to be factored into the selection decision. Sometimes the
“most qualified” person is not the “best” person for the job.
In addition, successful performance in an assessment center is not a
guarantee that a person will perform well if appointed to the position. Job
performance is strongly linked to attitude, motivation, and other character-
istics that may affect how well a person will perform in a position, regardless
of his or her ability. The assessment center can accurately measure the ca-
pacity of a person to do the job for which he or she is being considered, but
other factors will ultimately determine whether that person will work up to his
or her full potential.
Does this mean that no other selection devices have value or purpose?
Clearly, this is not the case. Good selection decisions were made long be-
fore anyone ever thought of using assessment centers, and no one would
suggest that no other selection devices should be considered. There is
clearly room for more than one approach to making a selection decision,
and other selection devices have use in many situations. For example, a
written test is a good way to test a person’s knowledge of the job, but is in-
capable of predicting how well that person can apply the job knowledge in
a real-world situation or under pressure. By contrast, an assessment cen-
ter is a test of ability, not knowledge. In an assessment center, candidates
are evaluated under conditions that closely approximate the actual condi-
tions of the job, and experience has demonstrated that the way a candidate
reacts in a simulated condition is often indicative of the way he or she will
react in an actual situation.
Another advantage of the assessment center method is the high degree
of acceptance usually associated with the process by the candidates them-
selves. This is particularly important in the case of a promotional examina-
tion in a police or fire department. Police officers and firefighters often are
skeptical of any promotional process based on anything other than senior-
ity on the job and can be expected to complain that just about any other
kind of promotional process is biased, unfair, not job-related, or too subjec-
tive. Experience has shown that an assessment center may yield entirely dif-
ferent results. Most candidates who participate in an assessment center
describe the process as fair, objective, job-related and a good test of their
ability to do the job for which they are being considered.
For example, Figure 2.1, shown below, illustrates how one group of can-
didates viewed the assessment center in which they participated.
16
14
12
10
0
Definitely Yes Yes Somewhat Very Little No
Figure 2.1. Were the exercises in which you participated a fair test
of your ability to perform the duties of the position?
Many municipalities use assessment centers for evaluating candidates

for top-level positions, such as police chief and fire chief. While these are
usually not promotions in the true sense of the word, it is nevertheless im-
portant that candidates have confidence in the fairness of the process. Hav-
ing gone through an assessment center process, which is typically one in
which the candidates are placed under a great deal of pressure, even the
unsuccessful candidate can appreciate the fact that the person who is even-
tually selected for the position was undoubtedly well-suited for the job.
The assessment center is more than simply a selection tool. It may also
be used as a means of self-evaluation. There are few candidates (usually
those who already know it all) who do not gain insight into their own
strengths and weaknesses as a result of participating in the assessment
center process. Thus, it is a process of learning and self-evaluation by which
candidates help themselves grow and develop and to be better prepared
for the next selection process. An important part of the assessment
process—especially those designed for promotions within the ranks of a po-
lice or fire department—is, or ought to be, that of candidate feedback. In
some fashion, candidates should be provided with some information that
tells them what they did right and what they did wrong and how they can im-
prove their job skills in the future (see “Candidate Debriefing” in Chapter
11).
Candidate feedback can be most effective using videotape summaries of
the candidates’ performance by the assessors. Rather than providing the
candidates with written narratives, which often do not convey the sense of
emotion that is intended in them, it may be preferable to have the assessors

record their comments on videotape (or on DVD or similar device) so that
the candidates have a chance to hear, eyeball to eyeball, how their perform-
ance was rated by the assessors. While a candidate does not always want
to hear the cold truth about how poorly he or she acquitted themselves in a
particular exercise, they can and should learn by the comments offered by
the assessors. If they want to, they will learn a lot by going through the
process. Those who are smart enough to know that they do not know it all
stand to gain quite a bit by participating in an assessment center.
In those communities and agencies where assessment centers have
been used over a long period of time for the same positions, it is a gratify-
ing experience to observe the development of the candidates over that span
of time. There is no question in my mind that this development has been
due, in a large part, to the experience and feedback provided by the assess-
ment center process.
Most candidates, if they are honest with themselves, concur with the eval-
uations provided by the assessors. In debriefing sessions conducted with in-
dividual candidates, they are asked to describe how they felt about their
performance in the process. Not surprisingly, the candidates’ own evaluation
of their performance closely approximate that of the assessors. This helps
to reinforce the validity of the process and the level of credibility associated
with it in the minds of the candidates themselves. There are those, of course,
who, if they do not succeed in any kind of promotional process, will find a
way to blame everyone but themselves. They are called the “two percenters”
and there is not much anyone can do for them because they are always
Careful note-taking is required.

right and everyone else is always wrong.

While the assessment center has been sometimes cloaked in mystery,
and is viewed by some as actually a form of psychoanalysis, the assess-
ment center method need not be either complicated or technically cumber-
some. While many of the designers and administrators of assessment
centers have backgrounds in psychology and psychometrics, the methods
used in evaluating candidates and developing job-related and practical ex-
ercises require common sense, a working knowledge of the position for
which candidates are being considered, and a healthy dose of fairness and
objectivity by the assessors.
Assessors need to be practical observers with a thorough knowledge of
what is required to fill a particular position. After it is all said and done, the
assessors are expected to answer this question: Given what you have ob-
served in this scenario, what can you tell us about his or her ability to per-
form the particular task being evaluated? Assessors should not be expected
to read into the minds of the candidates or to be armchair psychologists.
The evaluation process should be straightforward, not technically-compli-
cated or cumbersome.
It is important that the candidates feel comfortable about the process in
which they are about to participate. The process is difficult and challenging
enough without playing mind games with them by keeping them guessing
about what is in store for them. Whenever possible, it is a good idea to
schedule an orientation session for the candidates a few days before the
process begins so that they will have a better understanding of what is ex-
pected of them. In the orientation session (see Chapter 5), it may be desir-
able to discuss with the candidates the actual exercises in which they will
participate as well as the manner in which the assessors will rate their per-
formance. It is useful to give the candidates as much insight as possible into
the process so that the assessment center will be seen by the candidate as
an opportunity to excel rather than as an obstacle placed in the path of their
success.
While some people are opposed to telling candidates too much before
the process begins and believe that they should be expected to “figure it out
for themselves,” those who have the ability and can do the job for which
they are being tested will emerge in the process. Telling people in advance
what to expect is the only fair thing to do and it works to the advantage of
all candidates, not just those who have never been through the process be-
fore.
It is important for the candidates to know that there are no “tricks” to be
learned or hidden obstacles to overcome. To the extent possible, candidates
should be given insight into all aspects of the process so that they can be
as prepared as possible. The only thing that is gained by keeping candi-

dates confused and in the dark about the process is to reinforce the view
that many candidates have that the process is unfair, unrealistic, and
cloaked in mystery. This is not an accurate perception, nor is it what we want
candidates to think about the process.
Chapter 3
WhY some PeoPle don’T like

AssessmenT CenTers1
A ssessment centers are not without their critics, but most of the common
complaints about assessment centers can be easily countered. For ex-
ample, I have listed below some of the typical complaints you might hear
about assessment centers, along with my own counterargument.
Complaint number 1. The “wrong” people come out on top and the
“good guys” finish last.
explanation: Because assessment centers measure future job perform-

ance rather than past performance, people too often lose sight of the fact
that people who have done well in previous positions may not be capable
of doing well in more demanding or complex assignments. Good patrol
officers don’t necessarily make good sergeants, and an excellent Deputy
Fire Chief may not perform well as the Chief of the Department. Assess-
ment centers focus on skills and abilities rather than on past performance.
Complaint number 2. i am not a good “role player” and don’t do well

in “make believe”exercises.
explanation: Candidates are asked to step into the “role” of the position
for which they are being considered (e.g., police lieutenant, fire captain,
etc.). They are asked to perform the duties of the position just as they
would in real life. What assessors actually see in these situations is the
1 I have borrowed some ideas for this section from an article by Dr. Walter S. Booth entitled “Ten Com-
plaints About Assessment Centers” that appeared in the October, 1997 issue of Law and Order magazine,
pp. 87–93.
14
Why Some People Don’t Like Assessment Centers 15
“real” person, acting just the way they really would in “real” life if they were
to be promoted. People who complain that they are not good “role play-
ers” are really saying that they don’t have the tools to do the job for which
they are being tested.
Complaint number 3. The assessors don’t get to know the “real me.”
explanation: As a matter of fact, the assessors get to know the “real”

candidate better than he or she might like. They learn quickly who can
make a decision under intense pressure, who can relate well to people,
who is able to make a decision even when it may not be the popular thing
to do, who can manage their time well, who can inspire others to get
things done, who can communicate effectively, both orally and in writing,
and who has the ability to plan and organize complex events. In a very
short time, assessors are able to make accurate and sometimes uncanny
predictions about who is able to do the job and who is not. Ultimately, the
“real person” does emerge, usually in vivid detail.
How do they get to know the “real” me?
Complaint number 4. The scenarios are not realistic.
explanation: Regardless of how much effort is put into the process, vir-
tually every part of an assessment center is a simulation, meaning that it
is not real but that it is intended to be as real-like as possible. If the con-

sultant or person designing the assessment center has done his or her job
properly, this complaint can be easily countered. For every person who
says, after an employee interview exercise, “We don’t have people like
that working here,” there are two or three others who say “I have a guy just
like that on my shift!” A good job analysis, combined with solid interaction
between the assessment center designer and a local Subject Matter Ex-
pert, will ensure that the exercises properly reflect local working condi-
tions and organizational policies and procedures (see Chapter 5). Often,
the ones who complain about the exercises not being “realistic” are those
who are not realistic about their own abilities. Moreover, candidates need
to accept the fact that the exercises are not real, but rather simulations,
and therefore must depart from reality in some aspects.
Complaint number 5. The assessors can’t judge me after seeing me for

only an hour.
explanation: Actually, if the process is well-designed and the evaluation

criteria and rating procedures are properly developed, the assessors are
able to get a very good understanding of the candidates’ skills and abili-
ties in a very short time. Each exercise should measure different attributes
and collectively allow the assessors to form a very reliable and accurate
image of each candidate and to judge them against the standards that
have been established for the position for which the candidates are being
considered. This assumes, of course, that the assessors are qualified by
virtue of training and experience and that they have been properly trained
in the assessment center method.
Complaint number 6. They are too subjective.
explanation: While assessment centers are not as objective as some

tests, such as multiple-choice and true-false examinations, they can be
highly objective if properly designed and administered. Trained asses-
sors, using consensus rating techniques and working with carefully-de-
signed evaluating procedures (see Chapter 8), can be nearly as accurate
in evaluating performance and measuring attributes as any paper-and-
pencil test. Where subjectivity does exist, it usually works in favor of the
candidate, since assessors are inclined to give candidates the benefit of
the doubt in nearly all cases. In addition, assessment centers usually are
free from the adverse impact against protected classes that affect many
paper-and-pencil tests.
Assessors achieve a high degree of reliability in their ratings.
Complaint number 7. They are too expensive.
explanation: There is no question that assessment centers are much

more expensive than other forms of tests. This is because they are highly
labor-intensive due to the time involved in designing and administering
them. There is very little that can be done to minimize the costs of an as-
sessment center without sacrificing the integrity and outcome of the
process. On the other hand, those who have used assessment centers
know that the results are much more satisfactory than other forms of test-
ing and that the costs can be easily justified when balanced against the
future of the organization. Ultimately, how much does it cost the police or
fire department to promote a mediocre or marginally-qualified sergeant
or lieutenant? How much can we afford to invest in the future of the organ-
ization? The real question is “How much does it cost the organization to
promote or appoint someone to a position for which he or she is not qual-
ified?” Successful selection devices such as assessment centers are a
wise investment in the future of the organization.
Complaint number 8. i would rather be judged by my own peers than

by “outsiders” who don’t know me.
explanation: Oddly enough, many people feel just the opposite. Most
people recognize that being judged by your own peers or superior offi-
cers will almost always be impacted by past allegiances, personal ani-
mosity, and biases and prejudices. Outside assessors, on the other hand,
are not allowed to know anything about the candidates and are expected
to judge them solely based upon what they say and do in the process,
not upon some preconceived belief or judgement about the candidate.

Candidates sometimes feel frustrated because assessors do not get to
know the “real me.” In effect, they are saying that they should be credited
with what they have accomplished in the past, when in fact they are being
judged on what they are capable of doing in the future. In fact, it is usu-
ally a good idea to keep any background information about the candi-
dates, including their length of service, educational level and past job
performance data, away from the assessors so that they can concentrate
on evaluating the candidates strictly on what they see and hear them do in
the assessment center.
Assessors work hard to render a fair evaluation of candidates.
Complaint number 9. The assessors will do whatever the Chief tells

them to. They all stick together.
explanation: Not if the process is properly controlled by the assessment

center manager. Indeed, most people involved in administering assess-
ment centers are careful to avoid even the appearance of conflict of inter-
est, or in being overly-friendly with the chief executive of the department.
Moreover, most police and fire chiefs are careful to keep a reasonable
distance between themselves and the assessment center process and
the assessors. If a chief executive officer is committed to the assessment
center process, he or she must allow the process to unfold without his or
her involvement one way or another. Assessors must be guided by their
own perceptions of the candidates, not by their relationship with the chief
of the department. This makes the impartiality of the assessors and their
ability to observe and evaluate candidates with total objectivity an essen-
tial consideration.
Complaint number 10. The role player treated me differently than mike
or sally.
explanation: Role players should be carefully trained and instructed to

treat candidates exactly the same way. A script should be created for each
role playing situation so that the role-player will say the same things in
the same manner and in the same sequence to each candidate (see Ap-
pendix J). What cannot be controlled, however, is the way the candidate
reacts to the role player. Each candidate will handle a role-playing sce-
nario differently, and the role player will be expected to react realistically
to the behavior of the candidate. Some candidates, who know how to deal
effectively with people, will find role-playing situations relatively easy, while
others may encounter many problems in the same scenario. This is a re-
flection of the individual candidate’s ability, not of the process itself. This
is one reason that it is a good idea to record all parts of the process on
videotape, DVD or other recording media so that, if challenged, the ulti-
mate fairness, objectivity, and consistency of the process can be demon-
strated.
In summary, assessment centers are not for everyone and will not fit per-
fectly into the testing program of every police or fire department. They are
not a panacea and, while believed by many to be superior to other kinds of
testing strategies, may not be right for all agencies. They do, however, offer
an attractive and useful alternative to most traditional testing programs.
Chapter 4
TYPiCAl AssessmenT CenTer eXerCises
O ne of the unique characteristics of the assessment center method is that

it can be adapted to meet an infinite variety of needs and can be tai-
lored to a multitude of positions and situations. Imagination and the practi-
cal limitations of time and resources are the only constraints on what can be
included in an assessment center.
The first step in designing an assessment center is to conduct a formal job
analysis, wherein the duties of the position are examined and the skills and
abilities needed to perform successfully in the position are identified. The
job analysis may be conducted on a very informal basis, involving simply a
brief interview with selected agency representatives, or it may be much more
formal and sophisticated, involving both interviews with position incumbents
and the completion of detailed questionnaires by incumbents and their su-
pervisors. If any part of the assessment process is later challenged in court,
the job analysis data linking actual job tasks performed by position incum-
bents and the performance dimensions measured in an assessment center
will be vitally important.
The more time and effort that goes into the design of the process, the bet-
ter the chance of its success. At the very least, the exercises selected to be
included in the assessment center should correlate with the actual duties of the
position. For example, one would not usually include an exercise requiring
candidates to develop a program budget for a particular operation unless this
was a requirement of the job for which the candidates were being considered.
As a practical matter, the In-Basket exercise is not recommended for first-level
supervisors in the police or fire service because this Exercise is designed to
test a higher level of administrative ability than is usually required for persons
in a first-level supervisor’s position. Similarly, it is not recommended that can-
didates for a Fire Chief position be given a fire problem as a practical exer-
20
Typical Assessment Center Exercises 21
cise, since the technical fire-fighting skills of the candidates would be less im-
portant than their administrative, managerial, and organizational skills.
The key point to remember is that there should be a strong relationship
between the actual exercises contained in the assessment center and the
duties of the position for which the candidate is being evaluated. The re-
mainder of this chapter describes a number of different assessment center
exercises and the manner in which they can be used to evaluate candidates
for various positions in police and fire departments.
The in-bAskeT eXerCise
The In-Basket Exercise is an excellent way to evaluate a candidate’s time

management ability, decision-making, problem-solving, and written commu-
nication ability. The object of the In-Basket Exercise is to test the candidate’s
ability to (1) assign appropriate priorities; (2) delegate to the proper persons;
(3) take required and appropriate action; (4) plan ahead; (5) keep neces-
sary personnel informed of events; and (6) communicate effectively. The
ability of the candidate to work and to make good decisions under pressure
is also an important consideration in this exercise. An example of the type
of items obtained in a typical In-Basket is shown in Appendix B.
The In-Basket Exercise is often used in an assessment center for high-
ranking positions in the police or fire department or other executive-level
positions. The In-Basket Exercise is not recommended for first-level super-
visory positions (e.g., police corporal or police sergeant or fire lieutenant or
company officer) since the nature of these jobs do not usually lend them-
selves to the kind of administrative matters that are typically found in an In-
Basket. For example, a first-level supervisor would not normally deal with
executives from other police or fire departments, department heads within
the same governmental unit, municipal officials, and the like. Typically, their
focus is on their subordinates, rather than on dealing with higher adminis-
trative officials.
The In-Basket is a timed exercise in which candidates are confronted with
a series of written memoranda, letters, telephone messages, and other
types of correspondence in which they are expected to take some form of
action. They are usually placed in a situation which requires them to be away
from the office for several days, thus requiring them to deal with as many
matters as possible before they leave. They are usually graded on the num-
ber of items that they successfully complete within the time provided. In
some cases, items may be assigned higher or lower priority, so that a fail-
ure to take action on one item could be more or less critical than a failure to
complete another item.
Good time management is essential in the In-Basket Exercise.
Candidates are usually provided with a personnel roster or organizational

chart that lists the key individuals with whom he or she will need to interact
in order to successfully complete the items in the In-Basket. In some cases,
this may be a fictitious organization, while in others, it may reflect the actual
organization of the agency in which the process is being conducted. In all
cases, the identities of actual persons are changed.
While many of the items in an In-Basket may be “stock” items used time
and time again, it is a good idea to change the items from time to time in
order to keep the material fresh and current. In addition, it is always recom-
mended that the items fit the actual position for which the person is compet-
ing as well as the job for which the candidate is being considered. For
example, it would not be appropriate for a candidate for a police chief posi-
tion to receive a memorandum from the city manager regarding an upcom-
ing budget meeting if the community involved does not have a city manager
but instead operates under a strong mayor form of government. To the ex-
tent possible, the situations presented in the In-Basket should reflect the
actual conditions and characteristics of the agency in which the assessment
center is being conducted.
It is always recommended that the In-Basket Exercise be reviewed by a
Subject Matter Expert before it is given to the candidates to ensure that the
items contained in the exercise are relevant and pertinent to the position for
which candidates are competing. The Subject Matter Expert may also be
asked to provide recommended actions and priorities to be assigned to each
of the items in the In-Basket (see Appendix C). This provides a standard
against which the candidates’ actions may be judged by the assessors. This
further helps to improve the objectivity of the process since assessors are
not making arbitrary decisions about how correct an action is, but are rather
comparing the candidates’ actions against those recommended by the Sub-

ject Matter Expert.
A ranking officer of the department should always review draft materials to ensure their rele-
vancy and accuracy. Photograph courtesy of Bartlett Fire Protection District, Bartlett, Illinois.
The Subject Matter Expert is usually a ranking member of the organiza-

tion in which the assessment center is being conducted. In a police or fire
department, this may be the chief or deputy chief or a division commander
having direct responsibility over the position for which candidates are being
evaluated.
Candidates should be provided with writing tools, such as pens, pencils,
and writing tablets to use in preparing their responses to the items in the In-
Basket. In some cases, prepared forms may be used to help insure unifor-
mity of responses and to ease evaluation by the assessors. A blank calendar
pad for the month in which the particular situation is taking place may also
be included as a way of assisting candidates in planning follow-up meet-
ings and activities.
The In-Basket should be a timed exercise. The amount of time allowed
will usually depend upon the number of items to be included in the In-Bas-
ket. This number may vary according to the nature of the position and the
complexity of the duties performed. The items should be sufficient in num-
ber and difficulty to test the candidates’ ability to deal with a variety of issues
and to schedule and coordinate different and conflicting activities.
The optimum number of items is between 15 and 20 and between ninety
minutes and two hours should be allowed for completing the In-Basket.
There should be just enough time to place most candidates under pressure
to complete all of the items and some candidates may find themselves run-
ning out of time before finishing all items. If a candidate finds that he or she
is running out of time, he or she should have completed all of the high-pri-
ority items and as many of the medium- and low-priority items as possible.
Failing to complete a low-priority item will not count as heavily against a
candidate as will failure to complete an item of considerable importance.
For example, an item regarding a cancellation or re-scheduling of a meet-
ing the week following the candidate’s return to the office would be less im-
portant than an item from a female employee complaining of sexual
harassment and demanding to be assigned to a different shift or division.
The In-Basket may contain items that are linked together by event or per-
sons involved. It is important that the candidate look for these items so that
the action taken on one item can be interrelated with the action on the other
item. For example, one item may be a memorandum from an employee who
is suddenly announcing his plans to retire and move to a South American
country. This may be related to a different item regarding drugs missing from
the evidence locker and indicating that the employee now planning on retir-
ing in South America was the last person to sign off on the missing drugs.
These two items are probably connected and need to be handled together
rather than separately.
Some items may be given to candidates at planned intervals during the
administration of the exercise to simulate telephone calls or other interrup-
tions. For example, one item may be a telephone call received late in the ex-
ercise that informs the candidate that a ranking member of the department
has been taken to the hospital with a possible heart attack. This may re-
quire the candidate to alter some of the actions already taken if they involve
the heart attack victim.
The items contained in the In-Basket should be straightforward, practi-
cal, and relevant to the position for which candidates are being considered.
There is no purpose to be served by trying to purposely confuse the candi-
date by inserting items in the In-Basket that would not actually be found in
the in-basket of an incumbent, or by purposely inserting erroneous data or
misinformation as a means of adding to the stress placed on the candidate.
The In-Basket is a difficult exercise for most people and it is important that
they treat it as a real experience rather than as a contest of wills or a psycho-
logical game. While the standard in-basket exercise is a paper and pencil
test, electronic in-baskets are also available in which candidates receive
and prepare responses to items by keyboard rather than in written form (see
Chapter 5).
If there is a key to success in the In-Basket Exercise, it is to read or scan
everything contained in the In-Basket before taking any action. Most candi-
dates like to take a few minutes to quickly look over everything in the In-
Basket and place them in two or three piles according to their relative
importance. Then they proceed to complete the most important items first,
followed by those of lesser importance, and finally those of least importance,
if they have time. This is a logical and common sense approach that will
usually yield satisfactory results.
One common error that many first-time candidates make in the In-Basket
is that they fail to use their imagination and do only what is specifically re-
quired in the instructions. For example, there is no instruction that a candi-
date place someone in charge during his or her absence, but this is
something they would normally do if they planned on being away for several
days. Similarly, it is unlikely that anyone would be away from the job for sev-
eral days and not notify their immediate supervisor. However, since this re-
quirement is not included in their instructions, many first-time candidates
overlook this necessary action.
We live in an age of technology, and even though an executive may be
away from his or her office for several days, they are never out of touch.
Modern technology offers us instant communication by way of facsimile ma-
chines, cellular phones, pagers, e-mail, the Internet and other media. These
can and should be used by a candidate when working an In-Basket Exer-
cise, if appropriate. In addition, few executives ever leave to go on a trip
with an empty briefcase. “I’ll call you Monday from Memphis,” or “I’ll fax you
my instructions from the hotel in Philadelphia” and similar instructions might
be appropriate when completing items in an In-Basket Exercise. This may
not be possible, though, if the candidate is headed for Tasmania or a simi-
lar remote location.
The GroUP Problem-solVinG eXerCise
The Group Problem-Solving Exercise, sometimes called the Leaderless

Group Discussion, is an exercise in which a group of candidates (usually
not less than three nor more than six), is assigned to work together for up
to an hour to solve a problem or to complete an assignment. If the candi-
dates are competing for ranking positions within the police or fire depart-
ments, they may be told to assume that they have been assigned to a
committee by the fire chief or police chief. The committee has been asked
to meet to discuss how a particular issue, or series of issues, might be re-
solved. An example of this exercise is shown in Appendix D.
The topics assigned to the group should be something with which they
can be expected to be familiar. For example, it would not be appropriate to
assign a group of sergeants a problem involving the departmental budget
unless they are expected to have a working knowledge of the budget and
how it is formulated. In other words, the assignment should be one that is
relevant to the position for which they are being considered.
Group consensus is a good way of making key decisions.Photograph courtesy of Joplin

Police Department, Joplin, Missouri.
If candidates are competing for a chief’s position in a fire or police de-

partment, they may be told to assume that they are all fire chiefs or police
chiefs from a particular region, or that they are serving on a committee of the
local or state police chiefs’ or fire chiefs’ association. Once again, the topic
assigned to the group should be one with which they can be expected to be
familiar.
In some cases, candidates may be assigned specific roles to play or tasks
to perform. In the assigned role format, the group may represent, for exam-
ple, various community organizations or interest groups such as senior cit-
izens, the youth, social services, downtown merchants, schools, or neigh-
borhood alliances. Candidates may be assigned to represent one of these
groups and can be given information about the composition of that group
and its particular interests. They may be assigned to work together to solve
a particular problem of interest to the particular agencies or organizations
represented by the group. This is an excellent way to see how well candi-
dates can appreciate the views and concerns of others and how they can
apply themselves to understanding and attempting to see problems from
another person’s point of view.
In the assigned task format, candidates may be assigned the task of “sell-
ing” a particular topic or project to the other members of the group. For ex-
ample, a typical assignment might tell the candidates to assume that the
fire department has received a federal grant of $50,000 to improve the level
and quality of fire department services in their community. Each member of
the group can be assigned a different project and will be expected to try to
earn the support of the other members of the group for that project. This for-
mat often puts the candidates in a very competitive posture since they feel
that their success in the exercise depends upon getting the other members
of the group to go along with their project.
In any group exercise, assessors are looking for a candidate to demon-
strate strong leadership ability. At the same time, they are looking for a can-
didate to demonstrate his or her ability to work within the framework of a
group to solve a problem. A strong candidate is often one who participates
throughout the exercise, and who encourages others to participate as well.
A strong candidate in this exercise is one who listens to what others have
to say rather than one who is more concerned about having his or her own
way or who tries to dominate the group.
Candidates in this exercise must understand that there is a very sharp
difference between leadership and domination. Some people incorrectly be-
lieve that if they speak loud enough and long enough and if they drown out
everyone else in the group they are the winner. The truth is just the oppo-
site. Listening to what others have to say, encouraging others to participate,
and helping to bring the group to consensus are the most important charac-
teristics a candidate can exhibit in this exercise.
Candidates should be given between 15 and 30 minutes to study their in-
structions before beginning the exercise. Candidates should be told to pre-
pare independently and not to discuss the assignment with each other
before the exercise begins. This helps to preclude candidates from conspir-
ing among themselves by establishing certain ground rules, such as who
will take notes, how much time will be allotted to each person to speak, and
so on. Whatever organizational issues that need to be decided by the mem-
bers of the group should be done before the assessors, since this is part of
the evaluation process.
The room may be equipped with a flip chart, easel, and marking pens or
a dry erase board. These are placed in the room for the group to use as
tools in the discussion. A candidate who seizes the initiative to use these
tools to facilitate the group discussion will probably be evaluated favorably
by the assessors for recognizing and seizing this opportunity.
Participation is clearly an important ingredient for success in the Group
Problem-Solving Exercise. Candidates whose participation is minimal —
who say very little and who contribute almost nothing to the final product of
the group’s efforts – will surely not be rated highly by the assessors. But
the quality of a person’s participation is just as important, if not more so, as
the quantity of his or her participation. What a candidate says or does to
help the group solve the problem is just as important as how much time a
candidate spends saying or doing it.
Some persons may try to place themselves in a leadership role in this ex-
ercise by organizing the group, assigning tasks, setting dates for future
meetings, and the like. This is a good strategy, but it can backfire if the other
members of the group resist such efforts. If it is done, it must be done in a
way that will not threaten or challenge other members of the group.
In addition, some persons may volunteer to keep the minutes of the meet-
ing. This is an excellent idea, but it is one that can lead to disaster if the
note taker becomes so involved in taking notes that his or her participation
in the discussion suffers. On the other hand, some candidates have effec-
tively used the note-taking role to become the informal leader of the group
by keeping the discussion on track, by reinforcing significant ideas, and or-
ganizing the discussion.
The Group Problem-Solving Exercise can be used for just about any po-
sition, but it is probably most useful when testing candidates who are not ac-
quainted with one another. In small organizations where candidates all know
each other quite well, we sometimes find that the results of the group exer-
cise may be influenced by seniority and other organizational variables.
Younger candidates may feel compelled to defer to older candidates who
are informal leaders in their agency. In addition, organizational alliances and
interpersonal biases, rivalries or disputes may intrude into the group
process. This is not to say that a group exercise should not be used in those
agencies where the candidates are known to each other, but rather to sim-
ply point out that organizational dynamics may affect the results.
The Group Problem-Solving Exercise, or Leaderless Group Discussion,

is perhaps one of the better exercises available to us to test a person’s lead-
ership ability, particularly in a group setting. Jansen and Stoop (2001), for ex-
ample, found that the Leaderless Group Discussion (LGD) had some of the
highest validity of any of the predictors they examined in their research.1
While strong leadership skills may be manifested in a one-on-one role play-
ing scenario, such as the Employee Meeting Exercise, or “Problem Em-
ployee” Exercise, displaying leadership among peers would appear to be a
greater challenge and it is one that can ably be demonstrated in a group
setting.
The TACTiCAl eXerCise
First-line supervisors in both police and fire departments need to be able

to think and act quickly and to make decisions under pressure. They need
to be able to see “the big picture” when dealing with tactical problems and
to use available resources effectively. These abilities can be measured very
successfully in a tactical problem designed to simulate conditions in the field.
The kinds of tactical problems used in the police and fire departments are
quite different, but they are also quite similar in the manner in which they
simulate actual field conditions. While the kinds of tactical problems pre-
sented to candidates in these exercises may not be something that they will
be faced with on a regular basis, their failure to respond to them properly can
have disastrous consequences for the agency.
The TACTiCAl fire Problem
While fighting actual working fires is not something that a firefighter will do
every day, it is one of the most important things he or she is trained to do.
Firefighters spend countless hours drilling in a variety of situations designed
to improve their ability in a live fire situation. On the fire ground, there is no
time to refer to a textbook or written procedure before taking action.
A Tactical Fire Problem is a useful exercise for both a company officer or
chief officer (e.g., battalion chief or district chief) position in the fire service,
although the kinds of problems presented to candidates for these two posi-
tions would be substantially different. In the case of a company officer ex-
ercise, the fire problem should usually be fairly simple involving one, two, or
1 P. G. Jansen and B. A. M. Stoop, “Dynamics of Assessment Center Validity: Results of a 7-year study,”
Journal of Applied Psychology (2001), 86, pp. 741–753.

three companies, since it would be unlikely that a company officer would be

in charge of a fire problem involving much more than this (see Appendix E
for an example of a Fire Tactical Problem). In the case of a chief officer ex-
ercise, the problem would be substantially more complicated and would
probably involve several companies as well as a more complex situation,
such as multiple injuries, explosion, hazardous materials, etc. A typical fire
problem for a company officer exercise would involve a small fire in a sin-
gle building such as a residence or commercial structure. A typical fire prob-
lem for a chief officer exercise might involve a much larger structure, such
as a multifloor apartment complex or nursing home, a large warehouse con-
taining explosives or hazardous materials, or a fire in a large retail establish-
ment with significant exposure problems.
Tactical fire problems endeavor to replicate reality as much as possible. Photograph cour-
tesy of Greater Brighton Fire Protection District, Greater Brighton, Colorado.
Locations selected for the Tactical Fire Exercise can be either actual lo-
cations in the jurisdiction in which the candidates are employed or they may
be fictitious structures. In some cases, it may be possible to use actual struc-
tures located in a different jurisdiction so that none of the candidates would

have prior knowledge of the building that might give them an advantage
over another candidate. The advantage of using an actual structure is that
preplan information is often available which can be used by the candidate
to prepare his or her approach to the problem. In addition, if a diagram of the
building is available, it can be projected onto a chalkboard or similar sur-
face by use of an overhead projector. This can then be used by the candi-
date to illustrate placement of apparatus, hose lines, water supply, etc.
In the Tactical Fire Problem, candidates will usually be given information
regarding the nature of the incident, to include building location, time of day,
weather conditions, and status of incident upon arrival. They will usually be
given a few minutes to study this information and then be asked to explain
to the assessors their actions upon arriving at the scene. They will normally
be told to assume that they are responding on the first (or second) arriving
engine and that they will assume responsibility as Incident Commander for
the duration of the incident.2 They will usually be instructed to assume that
they have all normally available resources at their disposal in this situation.
It is important that a Subject Matter Expert meet with the assessors be-
fore this exercise begins to discuss operating strategy and normal operat-
ing procedures during this incident. In this way, candidates may be
evaluated on the basis of the actions that would normally be expected in
this kind of situation in that particular community. Assessors need to have
detailed information regarding available apparatus, type of equipment, hy-
drant placement, alarm procedures, Incident Command strategies, and the
like when evaluating candidates in this exercise.
In some cases, a Resource Person may be assigned to work with the
candidate in this exercise. The Resource Person may be one of the asses-
sors, a staff person, or a ranking member of the fire department in which the
exercise is taking place. The role of the Resource Person is to simulate com-
munications between the candidate and central communications as well as
other units at the scene of the incident. The Resource Person may also help
to control the exercise by providing the candidate with progress reports on
the condition of the incident at specific intervals. In this way, the candidate
may have a mental picture of the incident scene and can thereby make de-
cisions based upon up-to-date information on what is happening at that time.
It is a good idea to develop a scenario providing for different problems to
be encountered during the exercise (see Appendix F). These problems
might include, for example, a victim trapped in a third-floor apartment, the
loss of water pressure due to a faulty hydrant, a structural collapse, or an
2 Some local policies provide for the first engine on scene to make a quick attack, thereby automatically
passing “command” to the second company arriving. This issue needs to be resolved in advance so that
the candidates are not confused on this point.
explosion from a ruptured gas line. These can be planned at predetermined

intervals to further test the candidate’s problem-solving skills. These events
should all be rehearsed in advance with a Subject Matter Expert to ensure
realism and so that assessors will understand the proper procedures for
dealing with them.
Another way to simulate reality is through the use of videotaped pictures
of the actual building involved. Several slides of the building, taken from dif-
ferent angles, can be projected on a screen and then videotaped. By using
very basic tools, flame and smoke can be imposed on the slides. This is
done in such a way that the fire problem changes every thirty seconds or so,
giving the candidate a simulated view of the building and the fire situation.
One of the problems that this poses is that the fire problem will continue to
escalate or change regardless of what actions are taken by the candidate.
However, if they are informed in advance that this will occur, it will help to
ease their frustration.
A further enhancement of this problem is the use of portable radios by
both the candidate and the Resource Person to simulate the company offi-
cer speaking with communications on the radio. Another staff person from
the agency may be assigned to play the role of other companies at the
scene and may also communicate with the candidate by way of the portable
radio. This helps to add to the realism of the exercise and allows the candi-
dates to more easily inject themselves into the role they are expected to
play.
At the conclusion of the Tactical Fire Problem, which will normally run for
about 10 minutes, time should be allowed for assessors to ask the candi-
dates questions about their approach to the problem. In this way, the as-
sessors can get a better idea of why certain actions were or were not taken
by the candidates. Candidates often appreciate the opportunity to explain
their rationale to the assessors, even though the assessors might not agree
with their strategy. Among other things, the assessors should be looking for
the candidate’s ability to set reasonable priorities, to develop a workable
plan of action, and to effectively coordinate the activities of units at the fire
scene.
The TACTiCAl ems Problem
Fire department personnel do more than fight fires. Indeed, most fire de-
partments spend far more time responding to emergency medical calls than
they do fighting fires. It is therefore appropriate that they be confronted with
an emergency medical problem as a part of the assessment center process.
The set up for the tactical emergency medical problem is very much like
that for the tactical fire problem with the obvious exception that the incident
involves a medical incident rather than a fire incident. Digital photos can be
used, for example, to show actual or simulated emergency medical inci-
dents, such as serious automobile accidents, train derailments, building ex-
plosions, and the like.
Emergency medical care is an important element of a firefighter’s daily work. Photograph

courtesy of Bartlett Fire Protection District, Bartlett, Illinois.
Candidates are placed into the situation as the Incident Commander and
are expected to act out the manner in which they would handle the incident,
to include making assignments, obtaining status reports, calling for addi-
tional resources, and so on. Like in the tactical fire problem, assessors are
provided with a checklist of items that candidates would be expected to deal
with or provide for during the emergency medical incident. This checklist
should be reviewed by a Subject Matter Expert to ensure that the bench-
marks used to evaluate candidates are relevant and appropriate for the po-
sition for which candidates are being evaluated and that they are consistent
with the Standard Operating Policies and Procedures of the department.
The TACTiCAl PoliCe Problem
One of the unique things about police work is that an officer never knows
what to expect when he or she leaves for work. No two days are alike, and
each situation the officer encounters offers different challenges. For the most
part, this is an advantage in that it helps to maintain a high level of interest
in the job and reduces boredom and monotony. Most successful police of-
ficers like the fact that they never know what to expect when they report for
duty each day.
On the other hand, this constant shift in the environment in which the po-
lice officer works, and the uncertainty behind each call to which an officer re-
sponds, can also create a level of anxiety which does not always lend itself
to job satisfaction or good job performance. Police officers and their super-
visors often work in situations where they must be able to make quick deci-
sions based on sketchy information. Some of these decisions must be made
in life or death situations and a poor decision can have disastrous conse-
quences. Working under these conditions can be quite stressful. The Tacti-
Officers in tactical Deployment. Photograph courtesy of Joplin Police Department, Joplin,

Missouri.
cal Police Problem is a good tool to measure how well a candidate can work
under pressure and his or her ability to make sound decisions in such situ-
ations.
In the Tactical Police Problem, candidates are usually placed in the po-
sition of a patrol supervisor and are given information concerning the day of
week and shift on which they are working, the number of officers available
to them and their assignments, and any other information that will assist
them in becoming familiar with the situation in which they are being placed.
They are then provided with information regarding some kind of tactical
problem that has just occurred in their zone of responsibility. This could be
a barricaded subject, an escaped prisoner, a lost child, a school shooting,
a major disturbance, or some other event. They are informed that they have
been requested to respond to the scene of the incident and assume com-
mand of the situation. They are also informed that, for the duration of the ex-
ercise, they will be the senior officer on the scene and will be responsible for
making all decisions regarding the incident and related incidents.
Candidates are usually given 10 or 15 minutes to study the material that
has been provided to them and then are asked to report to the exercise
room where they may find a large map of the area in question projected
onto a chalkboard or similar surface by means of an overhead projector.
They are asked to place themselves at the scene of the incident and to tell
the assessors what they are doing upon their arrival.
As in the Tactical Fire Problem, a Resource Person is assigned to com-
municate with the candidate. The Resource Person will assume the role of
the central communications officer and controls the movement of units into
the incident. One or more of the assessors may be assigned to play the role
of officers and units involved in the situation. For example, if the candidate
is assigned four district cars, one Community Service Officer, a traffic car
and one investigator, two of the assessors may be assigned the role of those
units.
The Resource Person will also have additional information and resources
that will be available to the candidate, but only if the candidate specifically
asks for them. For example, the Resource Person may be given a list of
other units and resources as well as resources from other agencies that
may be available to assist if requested. However, these are only provided to
the candidate if he or she specifically asks for them.
The Resource Person will also read from a prepared script and will an-
nounce new events occurring at specific intervals. These events may relate
to the incident in which the candidate is involved, or may be unrelated to
the incident, but may require some action on the part of the candidate. For
example, the candidate may be informed of a bank alarm activated in his or
her sector which may require him or her to have a unit dispatched to inves-
tigate. Some incidents may be relatively minor and may be “held” by the
candidate until sufficient resources are available. Failure to take appropriate
action on significant incidents, as well as the inappropriate use of resources
on incidents of little consequence may adversely affect a candidate’s score
in this exercise.
Police officers are often called upon to engage in high-risk tactical situations. Photograph
courtesy of Bloomingdale Police Department, Bloomingdale, Illinois.
The Tactical Police Problem will usually run 15 minutes, including a few
minutes reserved at the end of the exercise for questions from the asses-
sors. Assessors should be provided with a check list of actions that the can-
didate should be expected to take, such as calling for a K-9 unit (in the case
of a lost child); calling for an area-wide radio broadcast for information on a
possible suspect; requesting assistance from neighboring zones of police
agencies to have sufficient personnel at the scene; and the like. This list
should be reviewed in advance with the Subject Matter Expert to ensure that
the actions of candidates are consistent with local policies and procedures.
The Tactical Police Problem is an excellent way to test a candidate’s abil-
ity to make sound decisions under stress, to anticipate events, and to see
the “big picture” rather than to be narrowly focused on one event at a time.
It is also one of the most difficult exercises in an assessment center, particu-
larly for someone who has not participated in one previously. Among the com-
mon errors made by the first-time candidate in this exercise are the following:
• The candidate may simply minimize the significance of the problem and
therefore not take appropriate action as soon as the situation actually
dictates. For example, what may initially appear to be “only” a missing
child may later prove to be a child abduction with extremely adverse
consequences.
• Perhaps because a candidate fails to appreciate the potential serious-
ness of a problem, he or she will often fail to utilize a sufficient number
of personnel and resources to deal with it. Underutilization of resources
is a common problem and will often impede the candidate’s ability to
successfully solve the problem. Overutilization of resources in this kind
of exercise is a sin easily forgiven.
• Candidates often fail to keep track of their units and what is happening
around them. A successful candidate will keep a running log of all in-
volved units and what they are doing. This can be done by using a writ-
ing pad or by writing the location and assignment of all units on the map
that is projected on the chalk board. This helps the candidate to keep a
record of all personnel involved and to make changes in assignments
quite easily.
In constructing the Tactical Police Problem, it is important that the scenar-

ios be as realistic as possible and be based on actual locations in the com-
munity. Here again, a Subject Matter Expert from the department should be
asked to aid in providing actual street locations, addresses, and other infor-
mation such as number of units to be assigned, additional resources avail-
able, and the like.
In addition, assessors should be thoroughly familiar with the usual oper-
ating procedures of the department in similar situations. The Tactical Police
Problem should be reviewed by the assessors and the Resource Person
with a member of the staff prior to the assessment center so that candidates
will feel as comfortable as possible once the exercise begins. It is also help-
ful to conduct a “dry run” of the problem in advance so that the assessors
can become familiar with the timing and sequencing of events, radio proce-
dures, and unanticipated difficulties that may be encountered when the ex-
ercise begins.
The emPloYee meeTinG eXerCise
One of the most frequent and important tasks of any first-line supervisor
in either the police or fire service is to supervise his or her immediate sub-
ordinates, monitor their job performance, counsel them regarding poor job
performance, encourage and reward them when they excel, and recom-
mend disciplinary action when they commit serious breaches of rules and
regulations. A first-line supervisor is only as good as the subordinates he or
she supervises, and the performance of subordinates is often a direct reflec-
tion on the ability of the supervisor to get the most out of his or her employ-
ees.
The Employee Meeting Exercise is a very common exercise in just about
any assessment center for a first-line supervisor or a middle manager. In
some cases, it is also appropriate to use for an executive-level position.
There are few supervisory or management jobs that do not require a person
to deal with other employees and to work with their subordinates in resolv-
ing problems. See Appendix H for an example of this exercise.
In this exercise, candidates are given information regarding a particular
problem that requires the candidate to speak with one of his or her subor-
dinates. Candidates may be given basic information about the subordinate,
such as how long they have been employed, their family status, and their
previous job performance. Candidates may be told that they have just been
promoted to the position and have recently transferred to this particular unit,
so they have not had the opportunity to work with this employee in the past
and may only have background information on the employee.
In most cases, the “employee,” who will be a role player, will react rather
negatively or with a lack of interest or enthusiasm to the information and ad-
vice being offered by the candidate. The role player may try to place the
blame for the problem on someone else or simply suggest that the new su-
pervisor is picking on him or her and may not know enough about being a
supervisor to make an informed judgement about the problem. This places
the supervisor in the unenviable position of defending himself or herself
while trying to let the employee know who is in charge. A strong role player
may succeed in dominating the interview if the candidate does not have a
sound plan of action before the interview begins.
The role player may also try to place blame on the administration or other
staff personnel as a means of avoiding responsibility for his or her own poor
job performance. The candidate must be quick to defend the administration
as well as other supervisors and to make it clear to the employee that the
real problem is his or her own poor job performance and to accept respon-
sibility for his or her own actions.
This can be a difficult exercise for candidates who have little experience
in dealing with interpersonal problems. It may be difficult for a candidate to
accept the role player as a real person, or to place himself or herself into a
superior-subordinate relationship with the role player. It is important that the
candidate have the ability to step into the role and to accept the role player
Counseling a subordinate is an important element of a supervisor’s job. Photograph cour-

tesy of Joplin Police Department, Joplin, Missouri.
as a real person and not simply a role player. As in all simulations, the suc-
cess of a candidate depends, in part, on his or her ability to accept the sit-
uation as given and to handle each and every scenario as if it were the real
thing.
It is important that the role player not overplay the role or refuse to allow
the candidate to solve the problem. While the role player should not make
the task too easy for the candidate, he or she should also not make it impos-
sible for the candidate to solve the problem. If a candidate has a reasonably
good approach, is able to apply sound logic in attempting to solve the prob-
lem, and is able to motivate the role player to work together in solving the
problem, the role player should allow the problem to be solved. On the other
hand, a candidate who simply insists upon forcing his or her authority on
the role player and makes no effort to appeal to the role player’s intellect or
common sense is not solving the problem in a satisfactory manner.
It is important for candidates to approach this exercise with an open mind
and to be a good listener as well as a good speaker. Some candidates make
the mistake of entering into this exercise with the perspective that they know
what the problem is and that they have the perfect solution for it. A success-
ful candidate will be able to enter into the exercise with a good plan of ac-
tion, but that plan of action should include obtaining all pertinent facts before
making a decision on a definite course of action. It is also important that the
candidate keep a positive attitude throughout the exercise, as the role player
may very well try to provoke the candidate by using certain words or ac-
tions. It is clearly inappropriate for the candidate to lose his or her temper,
regardless of the level of provocation offered by the role player.
This exercise may be considered as having three tasks. The first task is
problem identification, in which the candidate sets out to identify the prob-
lem. This is usually easy enough, since the instructions often describe why
the interview is being held, and thus has already identified the problem.
However, it is up to the candidate to obtain additional information in order to
fully understand the scope and depth of the problem.
The second task is called problem resolution, in which the candidate
attempts to devise a plan to solve the problem. It is wise to avoid having
preconceived ideas going into the exercise. The plan of action needs to be
based upon a full understanding of the true scope and nature of the prob-
lem. This requires obtaining additional information from the employee dur-
ing the interview.
The third task, and the most difficult in some cases, is closure. It is not
good enough for the candidate to merely devise a plan of action if the em-
ployee refuses to buy into the plan. The candidate must be able to “sell” the
plan to the employee by gaining the employee’s agreement and accept-
ance. This is not always easy to do and requires the candidate to employ
logic as well as persuasion in gaining the confidence and voluntary cooper-
ation of the employee. Some candidates never achieve this goal and thus
fail to receive a satisfactory score from the assessors in this exercise.
Successful closure also requires the candidate to provide for a follow-up
meeting to review progress in meeting the goal(s) set forth during the initial
interview. The employee should have a clear idea of what is expected of
him or her at the conclusion of the interview as well as the consequences if

those goals are not met.
The CiTizen inTerVieW eXerCise
While the Citizen Interview Exercise may appear more germane to po-
lice than to fire personnel, it is used extensively in assessment centers for
both services. Although handling citizen complaints may seem like a task
more appropriate for police personnel, there are many instances in which
fire company officers and chiefs have to deal with an angry or frustrated cit-
izen. The bottom line is that a way needs to be found to solve the citizen’s
problem, if that is possible.
Good human relations skills are an essential characteristic of police work. Photograph cour-
tesy of LaGrange Police Department, LaGrange, Illinois.
The Citizen Interview Exercise usually places the candidate in the posi-
tion of a patrol supervisor, company officer, or shift commander who is in-
formed that a citizen has asked to speak with “someone in charge” about a
problem. An example of this exercise is shown in Appendix I.
It is important that the role player play the assigned role consistently from
one candidate to the next and not attempt to improve each time. It is also
important that the role player allow the candidate to solve the problem, but
not without effort. In other words, the role player should place enough ob-
stacles in the path of the candidate to make it difficult to succeed, but not im-
possible. A role player will usually play the role of the citizen and will be
provided with a script describing some kind of problem in which the candi-
date is asked to seek a solution (see Appendix J). This will often involve
some complaint or allegation regarding a specific police officer or firefighter
or may be about poor service of some type. For example, the role player may
complain that an officer was rude or discourteous during a routine traffic stop,
or that the officer declined to take a report or initiate an investigation of the
theft or loss of a bicycle.
The responsibility of the candidate in this exercise is to take the required
information and formulate a plan for dealing with the problem. Candidates
frequently neglect to ask pertinent questions, or to record important informa-
tion. In addition, they sometimes are defensive when the allegation is re-
vealed to them and may say something like “Well, there are two sides to
every story,” which amounts to saying, “I am not sure I believe everything
you are telling me.” Even though there are two sides to every story, and
even though the candidate must wait to obtain all the pertinent information
before making a decision, this is not what the citizen wants to hear. A better
way of saying it might be, “Well, this is certainly a serious matter, and I will
talk to Officer Jones (or Firefighter Green) immediately to find out what he
(or she) has to say about this.”
The time allotted for this exercise is usually 15 minutes, which is not a
great deal of time, but it is enough to get the job done if the candidate has
a good plan and follows the plan. It is important to greet the citizen warmly
and show genuine interest in his or her problem. A candidate may offer the
citizen a cup of coffee, a glass of water, or a soft drink as a way of making
the citizen comfortable. It is always a good idea to let the citizen speak freely
for the first few minutes to get an idea of the nature of the problem. A can-
didate should not rush the citizen or make the citizen feel as if they are in a
hurry, or that they have something more important to do than speak with
them. Rather, the candidate should make the citizen believe that dealing
with them is the most important thing they have done all day.
If the candidate plans on taking notes (and they should), they should do
this in an unobtrusive manner. They should first ask the citizen if he or she
objects. It is important that the candidate not interrupt the citizen, but that the
candidate keep them headed in a straight direction. He or she can do this
by asking a few clarifying questions, such as “Did you get the officer’s
name?” or “What did the firefighter say then?” Candidates should employ ac-
tive listening techniques, such as nodding their head, saying “I see” or “yes,
I understand.” This lets the citizen know that his or her message is being
received and understood and gives them greater comfort in their time of
need.
Even though the candidate may not be the person in the organizational
hierarchy who will eventually be asked to resolve the problem (for example,
some complaints may be referred to Internal Affairs Investigations for reso-
lution), it is important that the citizen feel that some action is being taken to
resolve the problem for them. Candidates should avoid acting as if they are
trying to pass the buck or let someone else make the decision. “You really
need to see Lt. Green in Internal Affairs about this” is not telling the citizen
what they want to hear. “I will speak with Lt. Green in Internal Affairs about
this immediately, and one of us will get back to you in a few days” is a much
better response. Citizens like to feel that the person to whom they are speak-
ing is going to take the initiative to get the problem resolved, even though
that person may lack the authority to ultimately resolve the problem.
When the citizen leaves the interview, he or she should feel as if they
came to the right place and they should feel confident that something will be
done regarding their concern. It is usually a good technique to ask the citi-
zen, “What would you like me to do?” if that is not already obvious, or to ex-
plain to the citizen what action a candidate plans to take and ask, “Is this
satisfactory?” Candidates must be careful not to promise too much or to
build up undue expectations in the mind of the citizen. Candidates should
not promise to do something that is clearly beyond their authority or make
promises that they cannot deliver.
It is a good idea to let the citizen know what will happen in the future.
Candidates may let the citizen know that they or someone else will get back
to them in a few days, if that is satisfactory. Candidates should leave no
doubt in the citizen’s mind (and in the minds of the assessors) what action
they plan to take to resolve the problem that has been presented.
Dealing with citizens is one of the more common exercises in an assess-
ment center. It is not a terribly difficult exercise for most candidates, but it
does require good interviewing skills, a logical plan of action, and the abil-
ity to be sensitive to the problem being presented. In this and other assess-
ment center exercises, candidates should always remember that half of
communicating is listening, and that they need to be a good listener as well
as a good problem solver.
It may be desirable to link the Citizen Interview Exercise together with the
Employee Meeting Exercise. For example, after a candidate has interviewed
a citizen and obtained the necessary information about a problem the citizen
has with the way he or she was treated by a police officer or firefighter, the
candidate may then be asked to interview the officer or firefighter about
whom the allegation was made. This creates a complex but realistic scenario
in which the candidate’s fate in the second exercise may be linked to how
well he or she does in the first one. If the candidate fails to obtain essential
details about the encounter during the interview with the citizen, he or she will
have a more difficult time in explaining the problem when speaking with the
employee. Even though these two exercises may be linked together, they
should still be treated as separate exercises and should be scored sepa-
rately by the assessors. It is sometimes the case that candidates will do quite
well in one of the exercises but rather poorly in the other. Each requires a
sightly different set of skills. Assessors need to be able to separate these two
exercises in their mind so that they do not allow a candidate’s performance
in one of the exercises to cloud their evaluation of the candidate’s perform-
ance in the other.
The fire insPeCTion eXerCise
Fire inspections are one of the more important non-emergency tasks per-
formed by members of a fire department. These may be performed by a
specialized unit of fire inspectors working within the Fire Marshal’s Office, or
by designated fire companies within the suppression division. Most fire de-
partments involve their fire companies in some aspect of fire prevention in-
spections, and thus it becomes important that the company officer be
thoroughly familiar with fire prevention principles and building codes as well
as electrical and safety codes. It is also important that the officer be capa-
ble of explaining these codes to the homeowner, business owner, and com-
pany management in order to gain voluntary compliance and to achieve an
optimum level of community safety.
In this exercise, candidates are told to assume that they have been di-
rected by a superior officer to meet with the officials of a local business to
discuss several problems that have been discovered during a recent fire in-
spection. Typically, the company in question would be a warehouse, retail
store, manufacturing plant, or some other type of occupancy in which there
could be code violations that pose a fire safety problem. A Subject Matter Ex-
pert should be asked to prepare a fictitious inspection report on the company
in question. The candidate will be given a few minutes to familiarize himself
or herself with the report. It is helpful if the building in question is an actual
location in the community and one with which the candidates would be fa-
miliar. See Appendix K for an example of this exercise.
Candidates are instructed that they are to meet with one, two or three
company representatives to discuss the violation discussed in the report.
The purpose of this meeting is to gain the company official’s voluntary and
willing compliance with the code requirements. This requires that the can-
didate be able to explain the reasons for the code requirements and the
benefit to be gained by the company by voluntary compliance.

The role of company officials may be played by the assessors or by role
players furnished either by the assessment center administrator or by the
Fire Inspections may be a necessary function of the fire company. Photograph courtesy of
Bartlett Fire Protection District, Bartlett, Illinois.
client agency. Role players should be familiar with the location, construc-
tion, contents, and characteristics of the company so that they can play the
role assigned to them in a realistic manner. They should also be familiar
with the code sections which will be discussed in the inspection report.
Role players will be expected to pose certain obstacles in the path of the
candidates in gaining voluntary compliance with the code provisions. They
might point out, for example, the costs involved in making the necessary
changes, or the fact that the chance of ever having a fire or other incident
in the building is so slight as to negate the advantage of compliance. How-
ever, the role players should not be unmovable or totally obstinate in their
objections so that the candidate is faced with a no-win situation. While the
role players should not be a passive audience, they should allow themselves
to be convinced by the candidate of the merits of voluntary compliance if
the candidate is able to mount a logical and persuasive argument for com-
pliance.
In this exercise, candidates are asked to demonstrate their ability to deal
with citizens in a somewhat or potentially confrontational situation while
maintaining their poise and self control. They are also asked to explain code
requirements that may be somewhat technical in nature to persons who may
have no technical background in this field and to help them understand the
need for compliance. Successful performance in this exercise requires ex-
cellent interpersonal skills as well as the ability to communicate effectively.
Technical knowledge of building code requirements is also helpful.
An important objective of this exercise is to gain the voluntary coopera-
tion of company management in making the required corrections. This re-
quires tact and “salesmanship” on the part of the candidate, as well as the
ability to objectively and rationally explain the basis for the requirements. It
is also helpful if the candidate can devise ways in which the city or the fire
department can assist the building manager in gaining compliance.
The shifT or ComPAnY meeTinG eXerCise
One of the basic tasks of any first-line supervisor in either a police de-
partment or a fire department is to meet regularly with members of their shift,
squad, company, or unit to discuss changes in procedure or policy, to assign
work, to review work in progress, and to exchange information to ensure
coordination of activities. The shift or company meeting exercise simulates
a meeting between a first-line supervisor and his or her subordinates to re-
view and discuss assignments as well as new policies or procedures. In a
police department, this meeting would be comparable to a roll-call briefing.
In a fire department, it would be called a company meeting.
In this exercise, the candidate will usually be provided with instructions in-
forming him or her that he or she is about to have a meeting with two or
three members of their company, shift, or unit for the purpose of discussing
new policies or procedures or information that has been handed down from
the administration. In most cases, some of the items to be discussed may
meet with resistance by one or more of the “subordinates.” For example,
the information to be discussed may include a new performance evaluation
system, or changes in the city’s insurance or benefits program, or a change
in shift scheduling that may adversely affect some members of the group.
An example of this exercise is shown in Appendix L.
Meeting with subordinate personnel to exchange information and to dis-
cuss changes in policy or procedure is not a terribly difficult assignment, but
it is one that can sometimes test the leadership ability of the supervisor. This
is particularly true when the information the supervisor has to disseminate
may not be well received by his or her subordinates. The subordinates may
The shift briefing is an important responsibility of the shift supervisor. Photograph courtesy
of LaGrange Police Department, LaGrange, Illinois.
attempt to test the supervisor’s leadership ability or his or her loyalty to the
organization or its administration by making disparaging comments about
the new policy or procedure or about the person (the chief or deputy chief)
who initiated the change.
The supervisor must try to explain the nature of the changes and to ex-
plain their purpose as well. In effect, the supervisor is being asked to not only
defend the changes but to gain the subordinate’s willing acceptance of them.
This is not always an easy task and requires a high level of leadership abil-
ity as well as human relations skills. The supervisor must be quick to de-
fend the actions of the administration, even though he or she may not
always agree with the instructions they receive. Subordinates may look for
an opportunity to have the supervisor reveal his or her own lack of support
for something the administration has done. This serves to strengthen the
bond between a supervisor and his or her subordinates, but it may also un-
dermine the supervisor’s ability to command or maintain the respect of his
or her subordinates.
The role of the shift or company members will usually be played by the as-
sessors, who will look for ways to test the candidate’s leadership ability. A
candidate must be able to confront things that are said or done, to challenge
his or her leadership ability or authority, and must take decisive action when
such things occur. For example, a candidate should not allow a subordinate
to refer to the supervisor or to anyone else in a demeaning or disparaging
way. If this does occur, the subordinate should be admonished and put on
notice that such conduct will not be tolerated.
Candidates sometimes do poorly in this exercise because they are unable
to gain or retain control over the subordinates in what is clearly a somewhat
chaotic situation. Candidates need to enter into the exercise with a positive
attitude and with confidence and poise. A candidate cannot allow the role
players to sidetrack him or her into meaningless arguments or to become
angry or frustrated. In some cases, it may be necessary to call a role player
aside and explain to them that their conduct is disruptive and disrespectful
and that further violations will not be tolerated. This will usually be seen by
the disruptive person as a signal to pay attention and go along with the rest
of the program.
It is important that candidates not overreact to remarks made by the role
players either. This can be just as bad as not reacting at all. Candidates
should be firmly in charge of the situation and set forth ground rules early in
the meeting. Continuous violations of those ground rules may be cause for
disciplinary action.
The shifT or ComPAnY TrAininG eXerCise
Providing in-service training to subordinates is an important and frequent

task of a first-line supervisor in any police or fire department. Both police
and fire departments are unique in that they are constantly being updated
in new techniques, laws, and procedures. Both police officers and firefight-
ers operate in environments that are constantly evolving and developing,
and it is important that they be kept abreast of these changes.
The Shift or Company Training Exercise is similar to the Shift or Com-
pany Meeting Exercise except that it focuses on the delivery of a brief train-
ing program for members of the supervisor’s unit, shift or company. As in the
Shift or Company Meeting Exercises, candidates in the Shift or Company
Training Exercise are likely to encounter some degree of resistance from
those persons who are playing the role of their subordinates. As in the Shift
or Company Meeting Exercise, candidates in the Shift or Company Training
Exercise are expected to gain and retain control of the group and to gain the
subordinate’s understanding and compliance with the material being pre-

sented to them.
In this exercise, candidates are usually given 10 or 15 minutes to prepare
a 15-minute training program to be presented to members of their company.
This may be an assigned topic or an unassigned topic, in which case they
are free to develop the training on any topic they wish. In the assigned topic,
the candidate will be given both the topic to be presented as well as suitable
materials to be used in preparing the training program. See Appendix M for
an example of this exercise.
In a fire department training program, for example, a candidate may be
assigned one of several basic topics such as use of knots, ventilation pro-
cedures, use of Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus, or other operations.
They may be given a reference book, such as the IFSTA Manual on Essen-
tials, or some other reference book to use in preparing for their presentation.
They may also be provided with a flip chart and marking pens or other suit-
able materials to use in making their presentation.
In a police department, the topic to be assigned may be an existing Gen-
eral Order or Standard Operating Procedure on such topics as high speed
pursuits, domestic violence, use of firearms, interviews and interrogations,
Staff meetings are often conducted on an informal basis. Photograph courtesy of Joplin Po-
lice Department, Joplin, Missouri.
and the like. While any one of these subjects may be quite complex, it is up
to the candidate to develop a training program that can be presented in a 15-
minute period. Thus, this training will usually be seen as refresher training
and the role players as veteran police officers rather than new recruits.
It is often a good idea to use several different topics for this exercise and
to assign them to candidates in a random fashion. The advantage of this
technique is that it keeps candidates from informing other candidates what
they should prepare for. This is particularly important if the assessment cen-
ter takes place over several days and candidates in the latter days have the
opportunity to prepare themselves on the basis of what they are told by per-
sons who have already been through the process. This requires the sub-
jects assigned to the candidates to be generally similar in terms of level of
difficulty and complexity. Otherwise, some candidates may later claim that
the topic they were assigned was more difficult than that given to someone
else.
Assessors should be given copies of the materials that will be assigned
to the candidates in advance of the exercise. This will allow them to famil-
iarize themselves with the material so that they may ask questions of the
candidates designed to test both the candidate’s knowledge of the subject
matter as well as their ability to answer questions under pressure.
In this exercise, candidates will be evaluated on their instructional abilities
and their use of instructional techniques, such as providing an overview of
the subject to be presented, providing learning objectives, involving mem-
bers of the “class” in the presentation, use of visual aids, organization of
ideas, time management, and the like. In addition, candidates may be eval-
uated on their ability to digest and explain complex and technical informa-
tion in a precise and timely manner and to think and act quickly under
pressure. Successful performance in this exercise requires a candidate to
have good organizational skills as well as the ability to communicate effec-
tively and to deal successfully with opposition and confrontation.
The CommUniTY meeTinG or PresenTATion eXerCise
Members of both police and fire departments are frequently called upon
to go before community groups to give public education programs or to an-
swer questions regarding the level or quality of police or fire services. While
this is a task often reserved for the chief of the department or other ranking
members of the department, lower-level supervisors may also be called
upon to perform this function.
In the Community Presentation or Community Meeting Exercise (see Ap-
pendix N), the candidate is placed in the position of appearing before a
group of community members to either present an educational program on
behalf of the police or fire department (e.g., crime prevention, fire safety ed-
ucation, etc.) or to meet with the community members to discuss problems
and concerns they have regarding the police or fire department. Role play-
ers may be used as community members or this function may be performed
by the assessors themselves, although it is difficult for the assessors to take
Careful planning is essential if desired goals are to be achieved. Photograph courtesy of

good notes when they are actively playing a role. In some cases, commu-
nity representatives may be asked to play themselves in this exercise. This
technique works extremely well, since no one else can speak better for the
community than people who reside there.
In most cases, the candidate will be given a topic on which to speak to
the group, and will be given a short time (15 minutes or so) to prepare a
brief address to the group. It is usually a good idea to allow the candidate
to set the stage for the meeting and to deliver the presentation he or she has
prepared, unless it appears that the candidate does not intend to allow time
for questions from the audience. Responding to questions from those in at-
tendance is a key component of this exercise and candidates should allow

for this. It is important that candidates understand that, regardless of the
topic on which they plan to speak. Nothing is more important than the
concerns of the audience. Shutting down the audience or ignoring their
questions or even minimizing their importance is a fatal mistake in this ex-
ercise.
Role players will usually be expected to raise issues designed to test the
candidate’s ability to think on his or her feet and to respond effectively to
“hot” issues. In addition, they may be placed in the position of defending the
administration of the department, particularly if they are told that the chief
had intended to attend the meeting but, at the last moment, found some-
thing more important to do.
If candidates encounter a hostile audience, they should allow those per-
sons the opportunity to vent their anger and frustration and express their
concerns. Candidates should not appear defensive nor should they try to
minimize the importance of the members’ concerns or frustrations. They
need to be empathetic and place themselves in the place of those in the au-
dience. Candidates should be open and flexible and should let the mem-
bers of the audience know that they are sincerely interested in working with
them and aiding them in solving their problems. They must let these per-
sons know that the police or fire department considers their problems impor-
tant and are willing to work with them to find solutions.
Candidates may not always have the answers community members want
or expect. They may be asked questions on topics with which they may not
be familiar. When this occurs they should honestly admit that they do not
have the answer but that they will be glad to look into the subject and get
back to the person later. It is always a good idea to identify people in the
group by their last name (Mr. or Mrs. Jones, etc.) and to take a brief note on
their question. Candidates may ask the person for their telephone number
and inquire whether they can get back to them or have someone else get
back to them in a day or two with information on their question.
Role players should be allowed to place obstacles in the path of the can-
didates by asking them questions for which they may not be prepared, but
they should not be unreasonable in their expectations of the candidates. In
many cases, the candidate may be appearing in a situation with which he
or she is not familiar and may be asked questions about which they are not
well informed. When this happens, role players should be tolerant and re-
spect the candidate’s lack of experience. On the other hand, a candidate
who appears to attempt to bluff the audience and try to act better informed
than he or she really is will usually not impress the assessors favorably.
If role players are being used in this exercise, they should be coached by
someone who is familiar with the community to raise issues that are perti-
nent to the community. They may wish to assume fictitious names or iden-
tities (“I’m Sam Brown and I own the hardware store on North Main Street”)
to inject a greater sense of realism into the exercise. It serves little purpose
for the role players to ask questions of candidates that are not relevant to the
community.
This may be a difficult exercise for candidates who are not comfortable
appearing before groups or who are not good public speakers. The ability
to communicate effectively, to think under pressure, and to deal sensitively
and effectively with the problems of others are important qualities for a suc-
cessful performance in this exercise. Candidates who have difficulty in this
type of exercise should be encouraged to take courses in public speaking
or to seek opportunities to speak before groups both inside the department
and in the community.
The PUbliC edUCATion eXerCise
Fire departments take their responsibility to inform and educate the pub-
lic about fire prevention methods and safety procedures during fires and
other emergencies very seriously. Typically, public education is a responsi-
bility of the Fire Marshal’s Office if the department is large enough to have
one, but in smaller departments company officers and chief officers from
suppression units may often be called upon to make presentations to the
Public speaking is an important skill in an assessment center.
public on a variety of topics relating to fire prevention and public safety. The
audience for these presentations can be as varied as the topics from which
the speaker may wish to choose and include senior citizens, elementary
school children, business owners and managers, homeowners, and other
stakeholders in the community.
In the Public Education Exercise, candidates are assigned to make an
impromptu presentation to a target audience and will usually be given 15
minutes or so to prepare for the presentation. Candidates may also be pro-
vided with information pamphlets, reference materials, flip charts and mark-
ing pens, and other resources that may prove useful in preparing for and
delivering the presentation.
Assessors usually play the role of the target audience and will behave
and ask questions typical of that audience. If the audience is a third grade
elementary school class, assessors will need to adjust their questions to
those typical of children of this age (i.e., where is your dog?). If the audience
is a group of local business people and the topic is fire prevention in the
work place, questions from the assessors would obviously be more directly
related to the topic.
Every interest group in the community has a different set of concerns that
may need to be addressed in an exercise such as this and it is important that
assessors, acting as role players, reflect the actual concerns that exist in
that community and that might be voiced by that particular interest group.
Homeowners and senior citizens, for example, will usually be concerned
about rising taxes while local merchants will be concerned about regula-
tions which may impact their profit margin.
A successful candidate in this exercise will be one who can respond sym-
pathetically and with understanding to the needs and concerns of the target
audience while at the same time deliver a clear and cogent message about
the importance of fire prevention in the community. Moreover, candidates in
this exercise need to conduct themselves in a professional manner that will
reflect positively on the image and reputation of the fire department.
This is an excellent exercise in which to test the public speaking skills of
candidates as well as their ability to think quickly and to respond effectively
to questions while under pressure.
The sTAff meeTinG eXerCise
The Staff Meeting Exercise is a variation of the Shift or Company Meet-

ing Exercise in that it involves the candidate in a meeting situation with two
or three subordinate personnel. This exercise is often used in an assess-
ment center for a middle management or executive-level position to simu-
late the interaction that might occur between a recently appointed command
officer and his or her immediate subordinate officers.
In this exercise, candidates are usually informed that they have recently
been appointed to the position for which they are being considered and that
they are about to have their first formal staff meeting with members of their
immediate staff. In a police department, this could be a lieutenant or com-
mander in charge of patrol having a meeting with two or three shift supervi-
sors. In a fire department, this could be a chief officer meeting with two or
three company officers. See Appendix O for an example of this exercise.
The purpose of the meeting may be for the newly-appointed commander or
chief officer to discuss his or her management philosophy with his or her
immediate subordinates, or to discuss other matters relating to the admin-
istration of the particular unit or division.
Assessors or role players may play the role of the subordinate officers
and will usually be expected to react in different ways to the information
being discussed. For example, one of the role players may respond to the
information being presented with indifference while another may be alto-
gether hostile in his or her attitude. Another role player may be either non-
committal or passive, or may attempt to win the favor of the commander by
feigning praise, admiration or support for the information being discussed.
Chief officers need to know how to get the most out of their staff. Photograph courtesy of
In some cases, the role players may demonstrate their dislike for or distrust
of each other by making rude or inappropriate comments or engaging in
other forms of unacceptable behavior. When this occurs, the candidate must
be quick to intercede and take action to ensure that this kind of behavior is
not allowed to continue.
The objective of this exercise is to allow the candidates to demonstrate
their ability to develop an effective working relationship with subordinate per-
sonnel. This requires that they be sensitive to the interests of others, be an
effective listener and communicator, and be a good problem-solver as well.
Candidates in this exercise should be aware that their leadership ability
will probably be tested by the role players and they should be alert for any
attempts to challenge their authority. Such attempts should be dealt with
firmly but not in a confrontational manner. On the other hand, they should
not overanticipate what may happen during the meeting, nor should they
enter into the exercise in a confrontational manner. They should have a pos-
itive attitude going into the exercise and should remain positive and open
throughout the meeting. Even if sanctions may be required against members
of the group, they should be done in such a way as to not alienate the other
members of the meeting.
For example, it is a good idea for the candidate to take a particularly un-
ruly subordinate aside and speak to that person in private to appeal to his
or her sense of fairness. In this way, the candidate may agree to work with
the subordinate once the meeting has ended. This is an effective way of
handling a disruptive person and will usually allow the candidate to regain
control of the meeting and bring it to a successful conclusion.
The Staff Meeting Exercise can be a difficult one for someone who has
problems dealing with a challenge to his or her authority. The best prepara-
tion for this kind of exercise is to develop techniques that will enable candi-
dates to deal effectively with a disruptive participant in a way that will help
them maintain control over the meeting while at the same time recognize
that even the most disruptive participant may have a valid point to raise and
should be recognized.
The neWs mediA eXerCise
One of the characteristics of police departments and fire departments is

that the work they do is not merely important, but is newsworthy as well.
People are always interested in what police officers and firefighters do,
whether it be apprehending a fugitive or rescuing an infant in harm’s way.
There are few things that police and fire departments do that are not of some
interest to the news media. As a result, dealing with the news media is an
everyday responsibility of someone in both the police department and the

fire department. This will often be a designated Public Information Officer,
but even in departments where such a position does exist, the ranking offi-
cer in the department cannot avoid dealing with the press on a regular basis.
In addition, any officer in command of a newsworthy event will usually have
to deal with the news media at least until the designated Public Information
Officer arrives.
Anyone who has had much exposure to the news media knows that
media representatives can often be difficult and sometimes impossible to
deal with. The media have a responsibility to get “the story” to their viewers,
listeners, and readers. Sometimes, in their quest to be the first with the story,
Most news reports can be a valuable ally to the police and fire service.
they use what we may consider to be ruthless or unethical tactics in getting

the information they need for their story. In addition, they may use pressure
tactics to get the information they are seeking. Also, they sometimes are not
too careful about verifying the accuracy or validity of the information they
obtain.3
Unscrupulous reporters can be a difficult problem for the police or fire ad-
ministrator or command officer. In their eagerness to obtain information that
may be translated into a sensational story, they sometimes go to any ends
and seem not to care about the people who may be adversely affected by
what they write in their story. Police administrators are especially vulnera-
ble to reporters who seem more interested in how sensational a story is than
they are about how truthful it may be.
3Most news media representatives are responsible and professional journalists. The criticism made here
applies to those few who create a “bad rap” for the entire industry.
The News Media Exercise is one in which the candidate is placed in a

situation of preparing for an impromptu news conference dealing with a sit-
uation which may prove embarrassing or damaging to the police or fire de-
partment. The candidate is provided with a description of the event in the
form of an incident report and then is given a few minutes to prepare a brief
news release. He or she is then asked to meet with members of the news
media to give the news release and to attempt to answer any questions they
may have.
The information that is being related to the press may involve, for exam-
ple, a shooting by a police officer under questionable circumstances, a per-
son killed in a traffic accident involving a fire truck responding to a false
alarm, or a similar situation. The circumstances should be such that a per-
son might question whether the actions of the police or fire department in the
situation were appropriate, which might lead the news media to place an in-
appropriate interpretation on the events being reported. The task of the can-
didate in this case is to release the essential information and to place it in
the context that the department was acting properly and that the incident is
currently under investigation.
Role players will usually be assigned to play the role of local media rep-
resentatives (television, radio, or newspapers). Role players may be pro-
vided with props such as camera, clipboards, microphones, press cred-
entials, and tape recorders to add to the realism of the exercise. In some
cases, actual media representatives may volunteer to play themselves in
this exercise. In one case, a local newspaper reporter played herself in a
news media exercise and then wrote a very favorable article of her experi-
ence in the local newspaper.
Role players will be provided with the same information that is given to the
candidates and will be ready to ask leading questions designed to place the
candidate under pressure or to defend the actions of members of their de-
partment. If a candidate denies that some action took place, the role player
may respond by saying that “according to our sources . . .” as a way of in-
jecting controversial facts into the situation. A role player may purposely
place the most unfavorable interpretation on a set of facts as a way of plac-
ing the candidate in a defensive position.
It is usually good practice in any matter under investigation to limit the
amount of information released to the news media. Otherwise, the investi-
gation itself may be compromised. In addition, there are certain privacy is-
sues that must be considered. On the other hand, police and fire depart-
ments have a responsibility to keep the public informed of information that
is important to them and have no right to hold back information that may be
of interest to them unless there is a sound reason for withholding such in-
formation.
Candidates who unnecessarily withhold information from the news media

in this kind of situation will usually regret that decision. Experience has
shown that the more open a candidate is in dealing with the press, the less
pressure will be exerted by the press to obtain still more information. An
open and cooperative attitude by the candidate in this exercise will gain
much more support than secrecy and any attempt to unnecessarily withhold
information. Unless there are sound investigative reasons for not disclosing
the information, candidates would be well advised to give the information to
the press. They will find the press much easier to deal with if they do so.
Role players should not make this exercise a “no-win” situation. While it
is appropriate to place pressure on the candidates, they should temper the
pressure according to the level of openness and cooperation expressed by
the candidate. This exercise requires the candidate to be able to communi-
cate effectively and to make sound decisions under pressure. Moreover, this
is an exercise in which the candidate must be able to deal with confronta-
tion and opposition with an even temper.
The ProGrAm deVeloPmenT eXerCise
The Program Development Exercise (see Appendix P) is an exercise that

is usually used for middle managers or higher-ranking members of a police
or fire department. In this exercise, candidates are given an assigned topic
and are asked to prepare a written report on that topic. The topic will usu-
ally be one of a fairly technical and complex nature. In some cases, the can-
didate may be given reference materials to use in preparing his or her paper,
while in other cases the candidate may be left to conduct whatever research
he or she may be able to in preparing his or her paper. This is an excellent
exercise to test a candidate’s ability to formulate a plan for dealing with a
specific problem, or to come up with creative ideas for consideration by staff,
as well as their written and oral communication skills.
The time allotted for the preparation of the paper will vary depending upon
the nature of the topic and the degree of sophistication expected in the final
product. In some cases, candidates may be given several days to research
the topic and turn in their completed paper. In other cases, candidates may
have overnight to prepare their paper and turn it in at the beginning of the
next day. In still other cases, candidates may be given their assignment at the
beginning of the day and may be required to turn it in later that same day. The
more time candidates have to work on their papers, the better the end result
Good planning is the key to writing a good report.
should be.
Candidates may be given the option of submitting a typewritten or com-
puter-produced paper or one that is handwritten. It is recommended that
candidates not be rated heavily on which option they choose, unless all can-
didates have access to computer terminals and printers and are expected
to be computer literate on the job, in which case a computer-generated
paper should be expected.
The nature of the topic to be assigned to the candidates should be rele-
vant to the position for which they are being evaluated and should be a sub-
ject with which all candidates are familiar. It would not be appropriate, for
example, to ask candidates to submit a budget proposal for upgrading the
department’s canine program, or DARE program, if only one or two candi-
dates are familiar with those programs. There are many topics that might be
assigned to candidates in this kind of exercise, including such things as:
• Enlisting community support in the investigation and eradication of ille-

gal drugs.
• Expanding the use of civilians and volunteers in police programs and
operations.
• Expanding the role and scope of the fire department’s public education
and fire prevention program.
• Gaining wider departmental acceptance for the Community Policing
Program.
• Finding a way to increase the frequency of inspections of commercial
occupancies.
• Implementing a productivity improvement program in the patrol division.
Candidates are usually instructed to limit their papers to five or six pages
which should be double-spaced if typewritten or computer-generated. As-
sessors are given a brief time to review the papers and then candidates are
scheduled to appear before the assessors to make an oral presentation to
them regarding their paper. They are instructed not to simply read the paper,
since the assessors have already read it, but rather to summarize the high
points of the paper. They are also instructed to leave ample time for ques-
tions from the assessors. Questions from the assessors are intended to clar-
ify or reinforce the points made by the candidate. In some cases, the
question and answer period will reveal that the candidate had not completely
thought out his or her proposal. In other instances, follow-up questions from
assessors may even reveal that the candidate’s paper was actually the work
of someone else.
In this exercise, candidates are usually rated on both written and oral
communication skills as well as their program analysis and organization and
planning skills. Relatively equal weight should be given to the effort that
went into preparing the paper as well as the candidate’s ability to orally pres-
ent and defend the ideas presented in the paper.
The CriminAl inVesTiGATion eXerCise
The Criminal Investigation Exercise, as its name implies, is an excellent

exercise to use for candidates who are being considered for positions in
criminal investigation or in command of investigators. Due to the fact that it
is specialized in nature, this exercise is not recommended for patrol super-
visors or for command officers or other persons who are not directly involved
in the field of criminal investigation.
In this exercise, candidates are given a “crime report” which contains in-
formation about a crime that has been recently reported. The report would
include several clues that, if properly interpreted, might lead to the identifi-
cation of the person(s) responsible for the offense. In addition, the report
will list several “witnesses,” who have additional information about the crime.
Each witness possesses different information regarding the crime. Pieced
together, the witnesses’ statements, along with the information contained in
the crime report, can lead to the successful identification of the offender(s).
However, the challenge for the candidate is to gain all the pertinent informa-
tion that is available and make the correct deduction from that information.
Two or three role players are used as the witnesses in this exercise. Each
Automation is an important tool of the modern police officer. Photograph courtesy of La-
Grange Police Department, LaGrange, Illinois.
“witness” is given a script that contains the information regarding the crime
scene that this witness can provide to the candidate, but the information is
provided only if the candidate asks for it specifically. In other words, the wit-
ness will not volunteer any information, but will only respond to the inquiries
made by the candidate. This requires candidates to ask the right questions
in order to get the correct information. They must also draw the correct con-
clusions from the information they receive.
Candidates are usually given 15 minutes or so to review the “crime report”
and then are given another 30 minutes or so to interview the three wit-
nesses. The candidate may spend as little or as much time as he or she
wishes with each witness, so long as the maximum allotted time is not ex-
ceeded. One or more assessors will be assigned to observe and evaluate
the witness interview by the candidate. Following the last interview, the can-
didate will be given 30 minutes to prepare a written supplemental report de-
tailing the results of the follow-up investigation; recommendations as to
additional investigation to be conducted as well as evidence to be obtained
and processed; and conclusions regarding the probable identification of the
person(s) responsible. The assessor assigned to observe the interviews will
also be assigned to review the follow-up report and will evaluate the candi-
date on the skill demonstrated in the interviews themselves as well as the
candidate’s conclusions contained in the written report.

This is an excellent exercise to evaluate personnel being considered for
investigative positions. However, one drawback is the length of time required
to complete the exercise, and the amount of time needed by the assessor
to observe and evaluate the candidate. For this reason, it is recommended
that only one assessor be assigned to this exercise, and that one hour be
allowed for each candidate participating in this exercise.
To do well in this exercise, candidates need to have good interviewing
skills as well as the ability to organize and plan their work. They also need
to have good analytical ability to aid them in arriving at reasonable conclu-
sions from complex or ambiguous information. Finally, good written skills
are required in this exercise.
The CAreer inTerVieW eXerCise
Most assessment center exercises place the candidate in the position for
which he or she is being considered so as to evaluate how the candidate
might react when confronted with situations that are common to that posi-
tion. In this way, candidates may be evaluated on their ability to do a job,
rather than on their past performance in a particular position. The Career In-
terview Exercise differs from most other assessment center exercises since
the candidate is simply being asked to tell the assessors about himself or
herself and to describe in their own words why they believe they are quali-
fied for the position for which they are being evaluated. In effect, the Career
Interview Exercise is similar to a structured oral interview in which candi-
The Career Interview Exercise gives candidates a chance to sell themselves.

dates are asked a series of questions designed to test their job knowledge
and decision-making ability. In the Career Interview Exercise, however, the
emphasis is placed on allowing the candidate to speak in his or her words
about why he or she is qualified for the position.
In this exercise, candidates should be given 15 to 30 minutes to prepare
a 15-minute presentation to the assessors focusing on their qualifications to
be promoted. They may be given flip charts to aid them in making their pres-
entation. Candidates should not be given the topic of the presentation until
they are to begin preparing for it. Otherwise, some candidates will have a
greater advantage over others by having more time to prepare their presen-
tation. In addition, candidates should not be allowed to bring prepared re-
sumes, college transcripts, copies of papers they have written, awards,
certificates, or other materials with them to give to the assessors. The only
thing they should be allowed to present to their assessors is the material
they prepare during the preparation period immediately before the exercise.
Candidates should be admonished to allow time for questions from the
assessors, and their failure to do so should go against them in the asses-
sors’ evaluation of them. Assessors should be allowed to ask questions lim-
ited to the information contained in their presentation and should not be
allowed to ask questions of an unrelated nature. However, one or two “stock”
questions may be asked, such as “Describe your strengths and your weak-
nesses” or “What have you done to prepare yourself for promotion?” as long
as these same questions are asked of all candidates.
There are three distinct advantages to this exercise. One is that candi-
dates sometimes feel that the assessors did not really get to know them. “I
would like to have been able to tell them something about myself” is a com-
mon complaint. In addition, assessors are often curious, after seeing a can-
didate in several role-playing exercises, about a candidate’s background,
experience, education, or training. This exercise sometimes helps to give the
assessors a more rounded and complete picture of the candidate. Finally,
this exercise may be an advantage to the candidate who has truly prepared
himself or herself for promotion through study and various job experiences.
The candidate who is simply going through the process and who has not re-
ally made an effort to prepare himself or herself for promotion will find them-
selves at a disadvantage in this exercise.
In this exercise, candidates should keep the following points in mind. First,
they should never hesitate to talk about their strengths, but they should also
not try to hide their weaknesses. The candidate who says, “I can’t really
think of any weakness” is not being honest with the assessors, and they will
know this. Second, since time is limited, candidates should not try to list
every specific accomplishment of their career, but rather hit only the high-
lights. Third, they should keep in mind that they are being considered for
promotion to a higher position. They should therefore frame their experi-

ences in terms of how they have prepared themselves for a position of
higher responsibility in the organization. The fact that they made more ar-
rests for driving while intoxicated last year than anyone else speaks to their
initiative, but not necessarily to their ability to be a good supervisor. Finally,
they should keep in mind that the assessors are not their enemies, but are
simply people who have been selected to evaluate them and their potential
for promotion. Most of them have gone through the same thing they are
going through and understand their anxiety, fear, and frustration. Rely on
the assessors to be fair in their evaluation and the candidate will not be dis-
appointed.
Good planning is the key to writing a good report.
The ACCidenT reVieW boArd eXerCise
Police supervisors as well as fire company officers are often called upon
to investigate accidents involving their subordinates and to make recom-
mendations to higher authority concerning corrective action as well as dis-
cipline. In the Accident Review Board Exercise, candidates are placed in
the position of investigating an accident involving one of their subordinates
and making both a written and an oral report to an Accident Review Board
(the assessors). This exercise is somewhat time-consuming and compli-
cated to administer since it involves several role players as well as time for
the candidates to write their report.
Candidates are first given a copy of an accident report submitted by one

of their subordinates. After they have had the opportunity to review the re-
port thoroughly (usually 10 minutes), they are then allowed 10 minutes to in-
terview the officer or firefighter who was involved in the accident. They are
allowed an additional 20 minutes to interview two different witnesses to the
accident, each of whom saw the accident from a different vantage point and
presumably may have different information about the accident. After the can-
didate has interviewed the officer or firefighter and both witnesses, he or
she has an additional 30 minutes to complete their written report. This report
is then reviewed by the assessors, sitting as an Accident Review Board. Fi-
nally, the candidate is expected to make an oral presentation to the Accident
Review Board to explain and justify the conclusions reached and recom-
mendations made in the written report.
This is an excellent exercise to test a candidate’s problem-solving skills
as well as his or her ability to conduct interviews and to draw reasonable and
logical conclusions from the information obtained as a result of these inter-
views. However, time considerations make it difficult to administer this ex-
ercise to more than a few candidates at one time.
Chapter 5
AssessmenT CenTer desiGn

And AdminisTrATion
T he design and administration of an assessment center are tasks that are

normally assigned to Personnel Specialists or consultants who are
trained and have extensive experience in this field. Due to the complex na-
ture of the process and the importance attached to the results to be
achieved, it is always recommended that someone who is familiar with the
assessment center process and who has had experience in designing and
administering assessment centers be assigned this responsibility. In addi-
tion, there is usually more credibility attached to a process if it is designed
and administered by someone from outside the police or fire department and
who has no vested interests in the outcome. In most cases, however, it will
be desirable to have available assistance from one or more staff persons
from the police or fire department to assist in administrating the process.
The imPorTAnCe of Good PlAnninG
Few good things happen accidentally and a successful assessment cen-

ter is virtually impossible to achieve without good planning, Well-designed
plans are necessary to ensure that the assessment center is content-valid,
job-related, and properly executed and that the results can be defended if
they are legally challenged. A number of things must be considered in the
planning process, including the following:
1. The scope, nature and method of the job analysis that will be needed
to support the design of the exercises.
67
2. The number of candidates to be evaluated and the time frame in which

the process will be completed.
3. The facilities that will be required for the administration of the assess-
ment center.
4. The selection and training of the assessors.
5. Methods of candidate preparation and feedback.
Good planning is the key or a successful assessment center.
These are but some of the issues that must be considered well in ad-
vance of the design of the assessment center process. Failure to adequately
take these issues into consideration will almost surely result in problems ei-
ther while the process is being administered or subsequent to the process.1
eXerCise desiGn
The exercises included in the assessment center should be based upon

either a thorough job analysis or a firm understanding of the duties and re-
sponsibilities of the position for which candidates are being evaluated. If no
job analysis has been conducted for this position within the last five years,
it is recommended that a formal job analysis be conducted. This can be per-
formed by members of the Human Resources Division staff or by the con-
sultant who has been retained to administer the assessment center.
The job analysis should produce information about the typical tasks per-
formed by persons in the position as well as the critical skills and abilities
needed to perform the duties of the position in a satisfactory manner. For ex-
ample, the typical tasks that may be identified in a job analysis for Police
Sergeant might include counseling subordinates on their performance, inter-
1 See Cam Caldwell, George C. Thompson and Melissa L. Gruys, “Ten Classical Assessment Center Er-
rors: Challenges to Selection Validity,” Public Personnel Management (Spring, 2003), Vol. 32, No. 1., pp.
73–88.
Assessment Center Design and Administration 69
viewing crime victims and witnesses, training new officers, disseminating

information and policies to subordinates, and preparing written reports. Sim-
ilarly, the typical skills and abilities needed to perform in this position might
be human relations ability, judgement and reasoning, decision-making, oral
communications, and problem analysis. These tasks, skills and abilities form
the basis for an assessment center for the position of Police Sergeant.
These same skills might be needed by persons competing for the position
of Fire Lieutenant or Captain. It is important to keep in mind that if the pro-
motional process is ever challenged, it will be necessary to demonstrate a
link between the exercises included in the assessment center and the crite-
ria upon which they are being evaluated and the tasks actually performed
by persons in that position.
A job analysis helps us know what the job is all about.
It is important that a relationship can be demonstrated between the tasks

performed by persons in the position for whom candidates are being tested
and the performance dimensions or evaluation criteria used in evaluating
candidates.2 For example, if one of the performance dimensions used in
evaluating candidates in an assessment center for police sergeant is “prob-
lem analysis,” it must be demonstrated empirically that there is a relationship
between that dimension and specific job tasks. A well-designed Job Analy-
sis Questionnaire can provide the information needed to establish this rela-
tionship. Figure 5.1 illustrates how a relationship between job tasks and
performance dimensions can be demonstrated through job analysis data.
2 Ibid, p. 75.
The number of exercises to be included in an assessment center should

be based upon two factors. First, the exercises should be sufficient to rep-
resent generally the typical tasks performed by a person in the position for
which candidates are being evaluated. The more exercises that are in-
cluded, the better will assessors be able to evaluate the suitability of the
candidates for the position. The second factor to take into consideration is
the number of candidates to be evaluated, the length of time available to
evaluate them, and the costs involved. Time is money and the more time
that is devoted to the process, the more costly the process becomes.
Figure 5.1. Relationships between Performance Dimensions and Job Tasks.

As a general rule, no less than three exercises, and no more than five,
should be included in the assessment center. More than five exercises may
be desired in some cases for executive-level positions such as Fire Chief,
Police Chief, or City Manager. Four exercises are about the optimum num-
ber of exercises to use in most promotional processes.
Every effort should be made to design exercises around the actual or-
ganization and the community in which the position is being performed. It is
important candidates feel that they are dealing with things, persons and sit-
uations that are pertinent to their own organization. Candidates for the po-
sition of Captain in a Sheriff’s department, for example, should not be given
an In-Basket Exercise in which their immediate superior is shown as the
Chief of Police or City Manager, since these positions would not be pertinent
to a Sheriff’s department.
If a candidate is being asked to have a shift or company meeting with
subordinate personnel, he or she should be given information and directives
that are relevant to the actual police or fire department, as opposed to top-
ics that are merely generic in nature. This reinforces the value of the job
analysis as a means of ensuring that the process is as realistic and job-re-
lated as possible. It also reinforces the need to have all exercise materials
reviewed by a Subject Matter Expert before they are used.
If the candidate is assigned to go over an unsatisfactory performance
evaluation report with a subordinate, a staff person should be asked to pre-
pare an actual performance evaluation report on a fictitious employee. The
performance evaluation report would be identical to that actually used by
the organization. On the other hand, if the Department does not use a stan-
dardized performance evaluation report, the candidate may simply be given
a narrative description of an unsatisfactory employee and told to speak with
the employee about his or her poor job performance. Candidates need to
feel that the process was a true and accurate reflection of the requirements
of the job for which they were being evaluated. Good planning and thorough
preparation can help to make sure this happens.
CAndidATe orienTATion
An assessment center is a difficult and challenging process and there is

no need to go out of the way to make the process even more difficult than
it already is. If anything, the assessment center administrator should try to
provide as smooth a road as possible for the candidates who are about to
participate in the assessment center. This is not to say that the process
should be made too easy or that there should be no pressure applied, but
rather the process should be designed in such a way as to allow each and
every candidate the opportunity to do his or her best in the process. One
way to do this is to have an orientation session for the candidates before the
process begins.
The orientation session helps candidates get ready for what lies ahead.
During the orientation session, it is a good idea to have a copy of the ex-
ercise schedule available and review it with the candidates so that they will
know exactly what will be expected of them, where they need to be, for how
long, and at what time. It is also a good idea to review each of the exercises
with the candidates in order to let them know something about the exercise
itself so that they will have a better understanding of what is expected of
them before they arrive. If possible, candidates should also be provided with
information on the criteria upon which they will be evaluated so that they
will have a good understanding of what dimensions of their performance will
be evaluated by the assessors.
Copies of recent articles about the assessment center process may also
be provided to the candidates. As a general rule, the more information about
the process that can be given to the candidates during the orientation ses-
sion, the greater degree of acceptance and satisfaction with the results of
the process can be expected from the candidates. However, it should be
pointed out to the candidates that it is just as bad to overprepare for an as-
sessment center as it is to fail to prepare at all. Candidates who enter into
an assessment center process thinking they know all the answers and an-
ticipating the likely outcome of an exercise may often fail to listen to or read
instructions carefully. As a result, they may fare very poorly. Thus, while
preparation is important, candidates should be instructed to keep an open

mind as they enter into the process and not assume anything.
There are those who feel that candidates should be told as little as pos-
sible about the process before it begins because they believe that “battling
the unknown” is one of the real challenges in an assessment center. Can-
didates who have been through the process often share this view because
they do not want to lose the edge they may have over other candidates with
no experience with assessment centers. Both of these views seem short-
sighted, however, because an assessment center is a test of what a person
can do, not what they know or do not know about the process. Even when
very specific suggestions are provided to candidates beforehand, experi-
ence has shown that some of them will perform well and that others will not.
This is more a reflection of their skills and ability rather than anything pro-
vided to them in an orientation session.
Should the orientation session be optional or mandatory? This is a good
question and the answer depends on your own point of view. It seems rather
foolish to require a person to attend a session that is intended to help that
candidate prepare for a very important event in his or her career. Candi-
dates with good potential and initiative and who are career-oriented proba-
bly will not need to be required to attend an orientation session just as
candidates preparing for a written examination do not usually wait until
someone provides them the books they need to study for the examination.
They do it because they are highly motivated and are looking for every ad-
vantage they can get in preparing for the examination. Candidates who at-
tend an orientation session for an assessment center solely because they
are required to will probably realize little benefit from the information pro-
vided to them.
As a part of the orientation session, candidates should be instructed on
what tools they may need to bring with them to the assessment center. At a
minimum, these would include writing tablets and pens or pencils, unless
these will be provided for them. A calendar, a spell-checker, and a diction-
ary or thesaurus may also be helpful.
fACiliTies And eqUiPmenT
The success of any assessment center depends, in part, upon having

suitable facilities in which to conduct the assessment exercises. In some
cases, these facilities may be found within the police or fire department or
in the city hall. If not, it may be necessary to procure suitable space in other
community buildings, such as the public library, school classrooms, parks
and recreation buildings, community centers, and the like. In still other
cases, private organizations, such as churches or church-affiliated confer-
ence centers, may provide the necessary space. In still other cases, the de-
sired space may need to be procured for a reasonable fee from local restau-
rants, hotels, or banquet halls.
It is important that the assessment center administrator determine the de-
sired number and type of rooms needed for the assessment center well in
advance so that the necessary arrangements can be made without a prob-
lem. If possible, it is always a good idea for the assessment center admin-
istrator to personally inspect the proposed facilities in advance so that there
will be no unpleasant last minute surprises.
The kinds of facilities needed to successfully conduct an assessment cen-
ter will vary with the number of candidates involved and the number and
type of exercises to be included in the process. In general, however, the fol-
lowing would be considered the minimum necessary requirements:
• The Exercise Room is where all or most of the exercises are con-
ducted. As such, it should be ample in size and configuration to accom-
modate a variety of purposes. A large conference room or small
classroom measuring approximately 20 by 40 feet in dimension would
normally be suitable for this purpose. If more than one exercise is tak-
ing place at the same time, such as under the “dual panel” approach
described elsewhere in this chapter, two rooms of the same size would
be required for this purpose. This room should be furnished with a suit-
able number of chairs and tables for the assessors and the candidates,
as well as with other needed equipment, such as a podium, a dry erase
board, an overhead projector, and the like. There should also be a
workplace for the assessment center administrator and a chair for the
video camera operator, if someone other than the assessment center
administrator is assigned to operate the video camera. Appendix Q con-
tains recommended room configurations for several of the exercises
contained in this book.
• The Preparation Room is a room where two or more candidates may
be seated during the time they are preparing for their next exercise. A
medium-sized conference room would usually be suitable for this pur-
pose. This room should be equipped with individual tables and chairs
or desks and chairs for two or three candidates. Flip charts, marking
pens, and other materials that may be needed by the candidates in
preparing for the next exercise should also be provided.
• The Break Room is a place where candidates may gather while they
are not actually engaged in or preparing for an exercise. This room
should normally be comfortably furnished to allow candidates to relax
as much as possible before they are needed to begin preparing for their
next exercise. Coffee, soft drinks, rolls and other refreshments may be
provided in the Break Room.
Figure 5.2 provides an example of a simple checklist that may be used to

identify the facility and equipment needed for an assessment center.
Figure 5.2. List of Facilities and Equipment.
sChedUlinG meThods
One of the disadvantages of the assessment center method is that it is

time-consuming and therefore costly. The more people there are to be in-
cluded in an assessment center, the greater the cost will be. There are, how-
ever, ways to increase the number of candidates to be evaluated without
substantially increasing the total costs.
A typical assessment center will usually involve three or four different ex-
ercises and can normally accommodate five or six candidates in a single
day. Between 15 and 20 minutes should be allocated for each candidate in
any individual exercise. An additional 10 to 15 minutes need to be allowed
for candidate evaluation and scoring by the assessors. As a result, one in-
dividual exercise involving six candidates would require between two and
one-half and three hours to complete. In this way, three or four individual
exercises, or three individual and one group exercise, could be accommo-
dated in a single day (realizing that a full day for the assessors is usually
more than eight hours). Appendix R provides an example of a typical one-
day assessment center for five candidates involved in four exercises.
Plan ahead when preparing for an assessment center.
Additional candidates can be included in an assessment center either by

increasing the time allowed, by reducing the number of exercises, or by in-
creasing the number of assessors assigned. Most assessor panels include
three or four assessors, but assessor panels involving two assessors or
even one is not unusual, depending upon the nature of the exercise. For
example, one assessor might be assigned to evaluate and score written pa-
pers or in-baskets, while another panel of two or three assessors might be
evaluating candidates in other exercises at the same time. This would in-
crease the number of facilities required, but that is a minor logistics problem.
It is also possible to double the number of candidates by having two pan-

els of two or three assessors each and assigning each panel to observe
and score candidates in one or two exercises. For example, eight candi-
dates could be evaluated in a single day by assigning one panel to evalu-
ate them on two exercises and another panel to evaluate them on two other
exercises. Since each panel sees all candidates on the same two exercises,
consistency of scoring is maintained. Scores for the four exercises are then
combined to produce a final overall score.
The number of candidates can be increased by a magnitude of two, once
again, by doubling the number of assessor panels and assigning each panel
to a single exercise. In this way, 16 candidates can be evaluated in a single
day using four different panels of two or three assessors each. Once again,
this creates a problem of having suitable facilities, since four different Exer-
cise Rooms would be required and two or more Preparation Rooms would
also be required.
mAinTAininG TesT seCUriTY
As in any other kind of examination, test security is important in an as-

sessment center. Due to the fact that candidates in an assessment center
are free to mingle between exercises, there is an opportunity for them to
share their experiences with each other. This may lead to one candidate re-
vealing to another candidate what to expect in a particular exercise. This is
undesirable because it may allow one candidate to have an unfair advan-
tage over another, even when it is the candidates themselves who create
this problem.
Test security is very important when administering an assessment center.
During the candidate orientation session, the importance of test security

should be stressed. It should be pointed out to the candidates that they are
only creating problems for themselves if they discuss the exercises with
other candidates during the process. It is also not a good idea to change ex-
ercises from one group to the next. It is therefore to everyone’s advantage
if the candidates do not reveal details of the exercises to other candidates
until the process has been completed. In some agencies, candidates may
be issued a direct order by the Chief of the Department not to discuss the
exercises with any candidate who has not completed the process. It may
also be a good idea to have each candidate sign a statement agreeing not
to discuss the results of the process with anyone else until after the last can-
didate has been evaluated. Violation of this agreement may result in charges
being filed against someone and could lead to that candidate being elimi-
nated from consideration for promotion. This is a rather forceful way of try-
ing to get candidates to do something that is for their own good.
When large numbers of candidates are being tested over two or three
days, it may be possible to change certain aspects of the exercise so that
one group of candidates will not have more time to prepare than another. For
example, in the case of a Company or Shift Training Exercise, different top-
ics may be randomly assigned to candidates so that they will have no way
of knowing what topic they may be assigned. It is important, though, that all
topics are equally difficult.
sTAff sUPPorT
Local staff support is absolutely essential to the successful administra-

tion of any assessment center. In some cases, local staff may be unable or
unwilling to assist in the administration of the exercises because they de-
sire to keep the process “untainted” by local involvement, or because they
lack the personnel necessary. In such instances, the assessment center ad-
ministrator will need to provide the support staff, which will usually result in
greater costs to the client agency.
In a small assessment center involving only a few candidates, the require-
ments for support staff will be minimal. However, there are several functions
in which the assessment center administrator may not wish to or be able to
become involved.
Video Camera operators. If the exercises are to be videotaped, some-
one will be needed to operate the video camera. Since the assessment cen-
ter administrator has many other duties to perform, it is always good to have
someone else assigned to operate the video camera and maintain custody
of the videotapes.
It is a good idea to record all parts of the assessment center.
resource Persons. If a tactical fire or police problem is to be included,

one person will need to serve as the Resource Person. This person should
be knowledgeable about the local department’s standard operating proce-
dures and radio protocols. In some cases, the assessment center adminis-
trator or one of the assessors may perform this duty, but it is preferable to
have someone else to be assigned to this function. For example, it may be
possible to use a retired police officer or firefighter or communications op-
erator from the same department to serve in this capacity. In any event, it
should be someone who is thoroughly familiar with the manner in which that
department operates so that they may respond accurately to requests for in-
formation and assistance from the candidate during the exercise. In addition,
the Resource Person can assist the assessors in determining if the actions
taken by the candidates during the exercise were logical and appropriate.
role Players. Role players are absolutely essential in nearly all assess-
ment centers. Role Players may be used to play the role of police officers
or firefighters in a Shift or Company Meeting or Training Exercise; as news
media representatives in a News Media Exercise; as community represen-
tatives in a Community Meeting or Presentation Exercise; as business own-
ers and managers in a Fire Prevention Inspection Exercise; or as staff
members in a Staff Meeting Exercise. While assessors may be used as role
players, it is difficult for them to remain objective and impartial if they are
participants in an exercise. In addition, it is difficult for them to take accurate
notes when they are involved as role players.
It is important that role players not “overact” their assigned role to the
point that the candidate finds it impossible to achieve the desired goal of
the exercise. In a Shift or Company Meeting Exercise, for example, role
players should not be so belligerent or obstinate that the candidate is not
able to maintain control of the meeting no matter how hard he or she tries.
While it is permissible to place obstacles in the path of the candidate, it is
important that these obstacles not be so difficult as to be insurmountable.

While role players should not be passive in their interactions with the can-
didates, they should not be so difficult as to make it impossible for the can-
didate to perform satisfactorily in the exercise. The process is difficult
enough on the candidates without making it impossible for them to perform
satisfactorily regardless of what they do.
Role players are often used to inject realism into the exercises.
Use of modern TeChnoloGY
It is important that assessment centers, to the extent possible, accurately

and realistically reflect the actual working conditions surrounding the posi-
tion or positions for which candidates are being evaluated. While it is not
possible to test the firefighting skills of candidates for Fire Lieutenant, Cap-
tain, or Battalion Chief by setting fire to an actual structure, it is possible to
simulate this by using computer software. This is but one example of how
modern technology can be used to enhance the realism of assessment cen-
ter exercises. This and other examples will be discussed below.
fire simulators
Computers are often used to create realistic simulations of fire-related

and EMS-related problems. There are several different commercial software
programs available, averaging about $1,000 each, that can be used for this
purpose. Most of these programs come with a series of photographs of res-
idential, commercial, and retail structures, but most departments opt to im-
port photographs of local structures using digital photography. The software
allows the computer operator to display a photograph of the building on a
large screen and to place fire, smoke, victims, and other objects on the
screen. Both fire and smoke can be either animated or static images. In the
former case, they can be made to grow larger or diminish, based upon the
candidate’s tactical decisions. Audible features, such as radio traffic, sirens,
cries for help, or power saws, can also be employed. The computerized sim-
ulation offers an advantage over other forms of tactical problems inasmuch
as the condition of the fire can be changed to fit the candidate’s actions.
Computerized fire simulators enhance the tactical fire problem.
The electronic in-basket
Although most In-Basket exercises are of the paper-and-pencil variety, it

is possible to create a computerized In-Basket whereby candidates receive
all or some items in the form of e-mail messages and are required to re-
spond to them in the same way. Since most police and fire departments are
computer-oriented and utilize electronic mail extensively, candidates may
be expected to be computer-proficient and thus it would not be unreason-
able to expect them to respond to all messages by way of the computer.
This would require a sufficient number of computer work stations for candi-
dates to use simultaneously. If there were a large number of candidates,
this might pose a problem unless the exercises are administered at differ-
ent times for different groups of candidates.
Setting up and administering the electronic in-basket will usually require
the assistance of an Information Technology (IT) staff person. This person
may be assigned to the City’s Information Technology staff or may be a staff
person assigned to the police or fire department. In any event, this person
will be needed to convert in-basket items into e-mails and to design the
method by which the electronic in-basket can be administered. For exam-
ple, it may be necessary to set up “dummy” email accounts for candidates
to use during the In-Basket Exercise. In addition, an IT staff person will usu-
ally be networked with the candidates’ work stations so that during the ex-
ercise the IT staff person can send additional e-mail messages to the
candidates and can receive and store email messages received from the
candidates so that they can later be retrieved and evaluated by the asses-
sors.
The obvious advantage of the electronic in-basket is that it allows the can-
didates to work in an environment that is more like the way they actually do
business. With the traditional pencil and paper in-basket, candidates often
complain that they spend too much time writing out lengthy memoranda
which is “not really like the way we work.” An added advantage of the elec-
tronic in-basket is that, since most or all of the messages prepared by the
candidates are typewritten, they are much easier to read and assessors
spend relatively little time trying to figure out what a candidate wrote or what
they meant. Candidates also report that they are able to work quicker with
the electronic in-basket, thus helping to ensure that they complete the ex-
ercise in the allotted time.
The in-Car Camera
Many police departments have by now recognized the value of installing

audio-video recording devices in marked police cars so that critical encoun-
ters with the public can be recorded for later evaluation. While some em-
ployee groups have objected to these devices as an “invasion of privacy,”
the reality is that these devices, more often than not, are responsible for au-
thenticating and documenting an officer’s actions in a critical situation and
have cleared many police officers of unjustified and malicious charges of
misconduct and police brutality. These same devices can be useful in pro-
viding additional information for a candidate to view and evaluate during a
role playing exercise in an assessment center.
In an assessment center, candidates are often confronted with a role-
playing situation in which they are expected to interview a “citizen” who may
have some kind of complaint about the level or quality of police services. In
many cases, the officer, playing the role of a supervisor or command officer,
will be told a story by the citizen in which the citizen alleges improper con-
duct by an officer (e.g., unprofessional, rudeness, name-calling, etc.). The
candidate may then be expected to interview another role player playing the
role of the officer in question. In the second interview, the candidate is ex-
pected to try to make an independent determination about whether the al-
legations made by the citizen are justified. One critical piece of evidence
would be the recording made by the in-car camera during the police-citizen
In-car cameras have become a valuable tool for the police officer today. Photograph courtesy
of LaGrange Police Department, LaGrange, Illinois.
encounter.
For this technology to be used successfully, it is necessary to first of all
prepare a script that will outline the role, actions, and statements of the of-
fending officer as well as the actions and statements of the citizen making
the complaint. It is then necessary to find persons who will be willing to play
the role of the offending officer as well as the citizen during the recording
session. These same two role players must also be available during the ac-
tual assessment center because they will be expected to role play with the
candidates during the assessment center.
The host agency will be asked to provide a police uniform to be worn by
the person playing the role of the offending police officer. In addition, the
host agency must be willing to provide a marked patrol car equipped with an
in-car recording device as well as a ranking officer to assist with the video-
taping process. One typical scenario is for the person playing the role of the
citizen to be stopped by the officer while driving his car in an apparently
legal and proper manner. Once the emergency lights and equipment of the
police car are activated, the audio and video recording device is activated
and the entire encounter between the “officer” and the ”citizen” will be
recorded.
During the encounter, the person playing the role of the officer will en-
gage in certain behavior that is clearly inconsistent with the policies and pro-
cedures of the police agency (e.g., making an illegal search of the car, using
unnecessary force against the citizen, being rude and using derogatory lan-
guage toward the citizen, etc). It may take several “takes” to get the desired
effect and to ensure that the actions that will be complained of later by the
citizen role player are clearly documented in the audio and video recoding.
The candidate will first be expected to interview the “citizen,” who will al-
lude to the candidate some, but not all, of the things the officer did during the
encounter that upset the citizen to the point that he or she decided to make
an official complaint against the officer. After interviewing the citizen, the
candidate will be allowed to view the video and audio recording of the event
and to make notes on what he or she sees and hears while watching the
recording. Finally, the candidate will be expected to interview the person
playing the role of the officer and will be expected to use the information
provided by the citizen as well as the information provided by the video and
audio recording to critique the officer’s performance and to formulate a plan
for correcting the officer’s behavior.
UsinG VideoTAPe or dVds To simUlATe reAliTY
As I have said before, an assessment center attempts to simulate real-

ity, but none of the situations created in an assessment center are real. How-
ever, video and audio recording media such as videotape and DVD can and
have been used successfully to enhance the realism of some of the exer-
cises used for testing police and fire candidates for promotion. One way
these recording media may be used is to record a role-playing situation that
a candidate will later be asked to view and evaluate. For example, a candi-
date for fire captain may be shown a scenario recorded on videotape or
DVD in which a male firefighter makes unwelcome advances toward a fe-
male firefighter. After watching the videotaped or DVD recording, the candi-
date may be asked to meet with the offending firefighter to discuss the
department’s policy on sexual harassment and point out the firefighter’s mis-
conduct.
ConClUsion
If assessment centers are to continue to receive the support they have

earned over the years, they must continue to be relevant and contemporary
in nature. This can only happen by plan and by design, as is the case of just
about anything worthwhile.
Chapter 6
seleCTion And TrAininG of Assessors
T he selection, training, and supervision of assessors have a direct and

important impact on the quality and results of the end product of the as-
sessment center process. Regardless of how well an assessment center is
designed, the assessors are the keys to ensuring that the process comes to-
gether. The single objective in any assessment center process is to render
a fair and objective evaluation of the candidates. Only the assessors can
make this happen. While other things, such as a well-designed job analy-
sis, or the proper design of the exercises, contribute to an accurate evalua-
tion of the candidates, only the assessors can assure that candidates are
accurately and fairly evaluated.
Assessor seleCTion
Typically, assessors are persons who have relevant experience and train-
ing in the field in which the candidates are employed. In most cases, an as-
sessment center for a Police Sergeant or Police Lieutenant examination will
employ persons who have served in those positions. It is usually desirable
that assessors have experience in a position one step higher than the rank
for which candidates are being considered. In a fire department, for exam-
ple, an assessment center for a Fire Captain or Fire Lieutenant would usu-
ally employ assessors who are currently serving, or who have previously
served, as Battalion, Division, or District Chief Officers.
Whenever possible, assessors should come from outside the agency in
which the assessment center is conducted, unless the agency is so large—
such as a state police agency or a police or fire department having more
than 1,000 commissioned personnel—that assessors do not personally
85
know the candidates or have any direct working relationship with them. Po-
lice and fire departments that have used internal command personnel to
serve as assessors for their own promotional processes have experienced
the age-old problem of claims of bias and favoritism that tend to erode con-
fidence in the process. This should be avoided at all costs.
Assessors should represent the diversity of the community.
If retired persons are used as assessors, it is important that they have

maintained their knowledge of and familiarity with the field in which they
were formerly employed either through continuing education programs,
training seminars, or membership in professional organizations. A retired
Deputy Chief who is out of touch with current trends and practices in either
the police or fire service may not be the best person to evaluate the skills
and abilities of a candidate for promotion in that field. The lack of current
knowledge and familiarity with contemporary practices could very well be-
come the basis for a challenge against the validity of assessment center re-
sults.
It is not necessary that assessors be either trained or experienced, al-
though this is always preferable. While mandatary certification of asses-
sors is not yet widespread, it has begun in at least one state and may
eventually become more common. Public Act 95–956, which became effec-
tive in 2008, made Illinois one of the first states to enact legislation requir-
ing state certification of assessors used in fire department promotional
assessment centers. This legislation, which amended the Illinois Fire De-
partment Promotion Act (50 ILCS 742), now requires all assessors used in
fire department promotional assessment centers to be certified through the
Illinois Fire Marshal’s Office. In addition to certain minimum standards of ex-
perience and education, assessors must receive specialized training which
meets the standards imposed by the Fire Marshal’s Office. In the long run,
this kind of certification should serve to raise the standards governing the
manner in which candidates are evaluated and will thus prove to be a ben-
efit to the profession.
The most important qualification for being an assessor is to be able to
make sound and impartial judgements concerning the performance of can-
Selection and Training of Assessors 87
didates. Assessors need not be trained in psychology or any of the behav-

ioral sciences, nor do they need to be experts in personnel evaluation. The
most important qualification is that they have an understanding of and ex-
perience in the position for which candidates are being evaluated and that
they are diligent in applying the evaluation techniques and procedures that
are specified by the assessment center administrator. It is also important
that the assessment panel reflect diversity, even if the pool of candidates
does not. Diversity is a fact of life in the world in which we work and in the
workplace, and it is important that the diversity of the community be reflected
in the assessment center panel. Having diversity among assessors is not
only the “right thing to do,” research has shown that it increases the validity
of the results and decreases sub-group differences.1
Assessors may be either paid by the firm conducting the assessment cen-
ter or by the client agency, or may serve without compensation. In the lat-
ter case, arrangement for assessors will usually be made by the client
agency on a reciprocal basis. A police or fire department will sometimes
agree to provide one or two personnel to serve as assessors if that jurisdic-
tion will repay the favor sometime in the future. In many parts of the coun-
try, this is a common practice.
From the point of view of the assessment center administrator, however,
it is usually best if the arrangements for the assessors are made by the per-
son conducting the assessment center and that they are compensated for
their services. This is the best assurance that the assessment center admin-
istrator has that the assessors will be qualified and will be able to perform
their assigned duties in a professional and competent manner. Assessors
who are “volunteered” by their own agencies may or may not be qualified
and may or may not be able to properly perform the duties assigned to them.
Some assessment center administrators would prefer not to take this
chance, since their reputation, as well as the integrity of the process, de-
pends on this unknown quality of volunteer assessors.
Assessor TrAininG
The length and type of training needed by assessors will depend upon
their experience in the field as well as whether they have served previously
as assessors and the number and type of exercises that will be involved in
the assessment process. Some exercises, due to their technical nature, will
require more assessor training than others. For example, a tactical police or
land, June, 2003.
fire problem will require assessors to have a good working understanding of

how that particular police or fire department responds to the kind of tactical
situation portrayed in the exercise. Since police and fire departments vary
considerably in the way they handle tactical problems, assessors should
take nothing for granted in this regard.
Similarly, how a candidate responds to items in an In-Basket Exercise,
and the priorities the candidate assigns to those items, should be judged by
the assessors on the basis of how such matters are handled by the local po-
lice or fire agency, not how the assessors might expect such matters to be
handled in their own department. Generally speaking, the more technical
the exercise, the greater the level of training of assessors that is required.
Training can be provided by some combination of the following methods:
• The Assessor manual. The Assessor Manual, as the name implies, is

a manual given to the assessors several days in advance of the as-
sessment center. It contains detailed descriptions of the exercises to
be included in the assessment center as well as information on candi-
date rating procedures, to include the criteria upon which candidates
will be evaluated. In addition, the Assessor Manual should contain
background information about the police or fire department for which
the process is being conducted and a job description of the position for
which candidates are being evaluated. Any other technical matter to be
made a part of the assessment center, such as General Orders, Em-
ployee Evaluation Forms, Inspection Reports, Incident Reports, and
other documents, should be included as appendixes. Finally, copies of
the rating forms that will be used in evaluating the candidates and other
relevant forms and documents can also be included as appendixes.
• Assessor orientation. An orientation session should be held for the
The Assessor Manual serves as the reference guide for the assessment center.
assessors prior to the assessment center. By this time the assessors

should have reviewed the Assessor Manual and may have questions
concerning one or more of the exercises. It is a good idea to have
someone from the client agency on hand during the assessor orienta-
tion to answer any questions the assessor may have. If technical exer-
cises, such as the tactical fire or police problem, are to be included in the
assessment center, the orientation session affords the assessors the
opportunity to review the problem with a member of the agency’s staff.
This helps to ensure that the assessors will keep local operating proce-
dures and practices in mind as they evaluate the candidates.
• Assessor Training. Depending upon the expectations of the client
agency, the skill and experience of the assessors, and the nature of
the exercises, between two hours and eight hours may be set aside for
assessor training. Assessor training is especially helpful when new as-
sessors are involved, or when experienced assessors are involved but
have never worked with the assessment center administrator. The fol-
lowing areas should be addressed during the assessor training ses-
sions:
• Organization and structure of the Agency

• Duties and responsibilities of the position(s) for which candidates are
being assessed
• A review and discussion of each of the exercises
• A review and discussion of evaluation criteria and rating methods
• Instructions on assessor feedback methods2
• A review of the “Guidelines and Ethical Considerations for Assess-
ment Center Operations” (see Appendix A).
One author has offered the following as a model for assessor training:3
• Focus on dimensions and behaviors related to each dimension

• Define behaviors along the continuum within each dimension
• Focus on recording behavioral observations for feedback
• Conduct practice sessions using “live” mock candidates
• Provide feedback to the assessors regarding rating accuracy
• Debrief practice exercises
If role players are to be used in the exercises, they should attend the train-
ing session to rehearse their roles in exercises in which they will be in-
2 It may be helpful to show assessors a videotape of a previous candidate feedback session so that they
will know what is expected of them.

volved. If possible, agency staff should be available to answer questions

and to participate in mock sessions allowing assessors to observe each
of the exercises and to practice using the evaluation criteria and the scor-
ing instruments. This will help to ensure consistency in the candidate
evaluation process.
Assessor training should be documented either by videotape or a written

record of the training provided, the persons attending, and the amount of
time devoted to different parts of the training program. This is helpful in
setting up future training programs and may also be useful in the unlikely
event that the validity of the assessment center is later challenged.
CAre And nUrTUrinG of Assessors
The care and nurturing of assessors is an important responsibility of ei-

ther the Exercise Coordinator or the host agency. Assessors may or may
not be compensated for their services, but the work they perform is very im-
portant and the manner in which they perform their duties is directly related
to the success of the final outcome. Every effort should be taken to treat the
assessors with courtesy and helpfulness throughout the process.
Assessors should be provided with writing tablets, pens and pencils, sta-
plers, calculators, stop watches, paper clips, pencil sharpeners, and other
supplies that will be needed through the day, along with candidate rating
forms and instructions for their preparation. Depending upon the exercise,
it may also be useful to provide assessors with copies of the department
operating policies and procedures (e.g., the Fire Department’s Incident
Command System, the Police Department’s Citizen Complaint Policy) as
well as applicable rules, regulations, and labor contract provisions.
The exercise schedule should not be so demanding that the assessors
are physically and emotionally exhausted at the end of the day. If possible
assessors should not be required to work longer than a normal working day
(8–10 hours), nor should they be required to work after hours preparing nar-
rative reports recording their observations and evaluations of candidates.
Mid-day meals should be provided for assessors as well as coffee, tea,
and rolls in the morning and water, soft drinks, and a light snack at the end
of the day. Assessors may be expected to provide their own dinner but may
be reimbursed for this cost by the host agency unless this provision is al-
3. Blair, op. cit.

ready included in the vendor’s contract.

If assessors are to commute from a long distance (an hour or more), hotel
rooms should also be provided. A two-hour commute on top of a ten-hour
work day plus meal breaks makes for a very long day, especially if the
process is to run for several days.
rUles of CondUCT for Assessors
The professional conduct of assessors is to be assumed and most as-

sessors who have served in this capacity know that their conduct through-
out the entire process must be above reproach. One false move by an
assessor is enough to cast doubt and criticism on the entire process and no
one wants this to happen. As a result, it is a good idea to issue “rules of con-
duct” for assessors. If they are experienced assessors they will not mind
being reminded of what is expected of them, and if they are not experienced
they will appreciate knowing what is expected of them. Assessors should
remember at all times that the credibility of the assessment center will de-
pend, in part, on the professional conduct and deportment of the assessors.
Here are some general rules for assessors:
• Personal Breaks. The schedule we follow is often a busy one and does
not allow a great deal of time for personal breaks. Always check with the
exercise coordinator to see if there is enough time for a break before
taking one. Failure to do so may cause the process to become unnec-
essarily delayed.
• Appearance of the workplace. You are expected to keep the workplace
free from newspapers, magazines, personal correspondence, food con-
tainers and other material that leaves the candidate or the client with
the impression that we are anything less than neat and orderly in our ap-
proach to our work.
• Cell phones. We recognize that cell phones, pagers, and beepers are
your lifeline to your office and home, but it is very distracting to have re-
peated interruptions of this nature during an assessment center. We
must insist that during the administration of the assessment center you
remain focused on your role and that you deal with these distractions in
a manner that does not interfere with your work as an assessor.
Chapter 7
CAndidATe eVAlUATion,
sCorinG, And feedbACk
T here are several methods that can be used to score candidates in an as-
sessment center. The method of choice depends upon the experience
and preference of the assessment center administrator as well as the needs
of the client organization. For example, some local jurisdictions may have
civil service or local personnel rules that specify that candidates are ranked
on an eligibility list for promotion, while others simply employ a “pass-fail”
method whereby all candidates who receive a passing score are placed on
an unranked list and are eligible for promotion based upon the preference of
the appointing authority. In still other cases, the assessment center score
may be a weighted part of the total examination score and thus may be only
one component of the overall promotional process. Regardless of the end
product of the evaluation process, it is important that assessors use some
standardized and logical method of evaluating, scoring or ranking the can-
didates. To this end, candidates must be evaluated on some objective crite-
ria which can be linked to the basic dimensions of the job for which they are
being evaluated. There must also be a standardized rating scale to use in
scoring candidates.
Assessor noTe-TAkinG
It is important that assessors take accurate and detailed notes concern-

ing what they see, hear and surmise during the assessment center exer-
cises. Assessor notes become the foundation upon which the assessors’
evaluations are based. Assessors may use lined pads to take “free form”
notes, or they may be provided with standardized forms or checklists to as-
92
Candidate Evaluation, Scoring, and Feedback 93
sist them in their note taking. The evaluation criteria that will be used in scor-
ing the candidates should be available to the assessors so that they will have
a clear understanding of what is expected of the candidates in each exercise.
Assessors do not need a crystal ball to learn about the candidates.
Assessor notes are intended to aid the assessors in recalling pertinent

indicators of a candidate’s performance. It is not necessary that assessors
record verbatim everything a candidate says or does, but rather to record
those significant indicators that relate directly to the candidate’s overall per-
formance. The benchmark characteristics described later in this chapter are
a good way to focus on these significant performance indicators. Assessor
notes should be retained by the assessment center administrator as a per-
manent part of the test record. They may be affixed to the examination
record and should be retained as long as may be statutorily required.
WeiGhTinG of eXerCise ComPonenTs
Should all components of the assessment center be weighted equally?

The answer to this question will come from the results of the job analysis,
which should be able to link exercises to job tasks and required skills and
abilities. If the job analysis clearly shows a difference in the importance be-
tween some job tasks and others, and between some job dimensions (e.g.,
skills and abilities) and others, this would indicate that some exercise com-
ponents may be weighted heavier than others. Assuming that no such dif-
ferentiation is indicated by the job analysis, an equal weighting of exercise
components would be preferred.
For example, it might be determined that, since a Fire Captain spends a

great deal more time in quarters supervising personnel than on the fire
ground, an Employee Counseling Exercise should be given greater weight
than a Tactical Fire Problem. On the other hand, it could be argued that
there is greater potential liability associated with a fire than with a “problem
employee.” Other reasons for weighting separate parts of the assessment
center differently could include provisions in the labor contract, civil service
rules and regulations, or court-ordered provisions governing the process.
However, unless there are compelling reasons to do otherwise, and unless
disparate weighting can be supported by a reliable job analysis, equal
weighting of all components of the process is advised.
mAinTAininG ConsisTenCY
It is essential that assessors maintain consistency in the evaluation of

candidates. This is especially critical when multiple panels of assessors are
used, or when a large group of candidates is being assessed by the same
panel. Assessors cannot be too harsh or critical in their rating one day and
more easy-going and considerate the next day. The very first candidate the
assessors score in a process, in effect, sets the standard for the remainder
of the process. While it is not necessary that assessors compare one can-
didate against another, they should remember the standards they used in
the beginning of the process as they are nearing the end of the process.
To this end, it is useful, if time permits, to have mock sessions or “dry
runs” using position incumbents in exercises evaluated and scored by the
assessors during the assessor orientation. This allows assessors to “get the
feel” of the scoring system and rating scale and become comfortable with
each other. In this way, if they see that their initial ratings are too high or too
low, they can make adjustments before the actual exercises begin. When
multiple assessors are employed, they have the advantage of multiple sets
of eyes and ears and can pool their observations. What one assessor sees
as “too rigid,” another may see as “firm.” What one assessor sees as “cold
and dispassionate,” another may see as “cool and reserved.” In the end,
they come up with the right assessment!
The exercise coordinator should also carefully observe the scoring
process and inform assessors if they appear to be deviating from the stan-
dard that has been established for the process. For example, if the asses-
sors remark that a candidate did “very good” or “excellent” in an exercise,
and then assign scores which are in the “average” or “acceptable” range, the
assessment center administrator should point out this apparent discrepancy.
While the assessors are expected to exercise their own judgment in scor-
ing the candidates, it is the role of the exercise coordinator to ensure that
they are evaluating the candidates in a fair and consistent manner and in the
manner required by the established rating scale. In this way, the assess-
ment center administrator functions as a quality control manager, ensuring
that the standards that have been established for the process are met.
seleCTinG The eVAlUATion CriTeriA
The criteria by which candidates are being evaluated should relate to the
skills, abilities and characteristics that have been determined to be neces-
sary for successful performance in the position for which the candidates are
being considered. In most cases, these criteria will be determined through
a job analysis of the position. If no formal job analysis is conducted, essen-
tial skills and abilities can usually be determined by reviewing the job de-
scription for the position, or by interviewing position incumbents or their
supervisors. Still another way is to identify the most important tasks per-
formed by position incumbents and determine the skills and abilities needed
to perform those tasks. For example, a first-line supervisor in a police depart-
ment or a fire department is often expected to counsel subordinate person-
nel regarding their job performance and to attempt to obtain their voluntary
compliance in improving their job performance. Skills in problem-solving,
human relations, and interpersonal communication would seem to be nec-
essary for a person to be able to successfully perform this task. There must
be a logical, if not documented, relationship between the criteria upon which
candidates will be evaluated and the tasks performed by persons in the po-
sition. In addition, criteria must be clear and unambiguous and must be de-
fined in such a way as to leave no misunderstanding by the assessors of
what is meant by them. In addition, there must be a way to differentiate be-
tween superior, average, and unacceptable performance.
In some cases, it may be desirable to design evaluation criteria, perform-
ance benchmarks and rating forms specifically based upon particular tasks.
In this way, the evaluation criteria and performance benchmarks can be cus-
tomized to meet specific local conditions and operating policies. An exam-
ple of this is in the design of evaluation guidelines for the In-Basket Exercise
(see Appendix C), discussed in Chapter 4. Here, a Subject Matter Expert
(a ranking member of the agency) has been asked to review each item of
the In-Basket and to prepare recommended actions and priorities for them.
These recommended actions and priorities are used as guides by the asses-
sors when evaluating the completed In-Baskets.
Another example of how these evaluation criteria and performance
benchmarks can be customized is in the Tactical Fire Problem. In this case,
candidates may be judged on such criteria as organization and planning,

problem analysis, and decision-making, but these are generic criteria. To
make them more reflective of local conditions and expectations, a Subject
Matter Expert might be asked to rate specific tactical considerations that
may be essential to the particular problem. These will almost always vary
from one agency to the next. After a Subject Matter Expert has been asked
to evaluate each of the possible tactical considerations (see Appendix G),
weights can be assigned to them on the basis of this evaluation. These
weights can then be factored into the candidate evaluation form.
The following are examples of criteria that might be used in evaluating
candidates in an assessment center, along with a list of typical exercises in
which these criteria might be used.
Performance dimension Typical exercises
leadership: Skill in motivating others to- • Group Problem-Solving

ward the accomplishment of goals and in • Employee Meeting
exerting a positive influence on their be- • Shift or Company Meeting
havior. • Staff Meeting
human relations: Skill in establishing • Group Problem-Solving

and maintaining effective working relation- • Employee Meeting
ships with subordinates, superior officers • Shift or Company Meeting
and other persons • Citizen Interview
• Community Presentation
oral Communication: The ability to ex- • News Media

press ideas and to communicate orally in a • Fire Inspection
clear and understandable manner and in • Shift or Company Training
correct grammatical style. • Citizen Interview
• Community Presentation
Written Communication: The ability to • In-Basket

express ideas and to convey information • Program Development
in written form in a clear and understand- • Criminal Investigation
able manner using correct grammar, sen- • Employee Meeting (with a report
tence structure and punctuation. detailing the results of the interview)
decision-making: The ability to make • Tactical Fire or Police Problem

sound decisions and to commit oneself to • Citizen Interview
a defined course of action. • News Media
• Criminal Investigation
• Employee Meeting
Problem Analysis: The ability to correctly • Tactical Fire or Police Problem

recognize and identify a problem and to • Citizen Interview
develop reasonable and effective ways of • In-Basket
solving the problem. • Criminal Investigation
• Group Problem-Solving
• Program Development
initiative: The ability to actively influence • Tactical Fire or Police Problem

events, to initiate required action, and to • Citizen Interview
think and act independently. • Community Presentation
• Criminal Investigation
• Group Problem-Solving
• Program Development
Judgment and reasoning: The ability to • Tactical Fire or Police Problem

reach logical conclusions from incomplete • Employee Meeting
or ambiguous information and to use • Community Presentation
sound judgment in formulating plans, mak- • Criminal Investigation
ing decisions or taking action. • Program Development
stress Tolerance: The ability to maintain • Tactical Fire or Police Problem

an acceptable level of performance under • Shift or Company Meeting or Training
pressure and/or opposition. • Staff Meeting
• News Media
This list is obviously not all-inclusive but it does serve to reflect the
tremendous versatility of the assessment center process.
PerformAnCe dimensions And benChmArks
If assessors are to reliably and consistently evaluate candidates on these

evaluation criteria, they must be given guidelines so that they will know what
to look for. It is essential that assessors have a thorough understanding of
the criteria upon which candidates are to be evaluated and that they know
what those criteria mean. As Maher and Michelson point out, different peo-
ple may have different ideas of what “leadership” means to them.1 For this
1 Patrick T. Maher and Richard S. Michelson, Preparing for Fire Service Assessment Centers (Bellflower,
Ca: Fire Publications, Inc., 1992), p. 21.

.
reason, it is necessary to provide “benchmarks” to indicate what to look for

in evaluating the candidates. The use of benchmarks, or “behavioral check-
lists,” has been shown to increase the accuracy, reliability and validity of rat-
ings and allows assessors more time to observe actual behavior.2 The
following are examples of such benchmarks.
leadership: Skill in motivating others toward the accomplishment of goals and in ex-
erting a positive influence on their behavior.
benchmarks: In evaluating performance in this dimension, assessors should deter-

mine whether the candidate:
1. Maintained a positive attitude throughout the exercise.
2. Exerted a positive influence over others.
3. Maintained an attitude of poise and self-confidence during the exercise.
4. Offered positive and constructive suggestions for dealing with the problem.
5. Took steps to maintain control of the exercise.
human relations: Skill in establishing and maintaining effective working relation-

ships with subordinates, superior officers and other persons.

1. Listened thoughtfully to what others had to say.
2. Solicited ideas and suggestions from others.
3. Demonstrated a concern for the views, opinions, and feelings of others.
4. Maintained a friendly and cooperative attitude during the exercise.
5. Remained tactful when presenting his own point of view or when arguing against
the views of others.
land, June, 2003.
oral Communication: The ability to express ideas and to communicate orally in a

clear and understandable manner and in correct grammatical style.

1. Spoke clearly and distinctly.
2. Used proper grammar, vocabulary, and syntax.
3. Expressed ideas clearly, completely, and intelligently.
4. Conveyed thoughts in a logical and well-organized manner.
5. Maintained good eye contact with others.
Written Communication: The ability to express ideas and to convey information in

written form in a clear and understandable manner using correct grammar, sentence
structure, and punctuation.

1. Used proper grammar, spelling, and sentence construction in his/her written com-
munications.
2. Wrote neatly and legibly.
3. Conveyed information in a clear and understandable manner.
4. Presented his/her ideas in a logical and well-organized manner.
5. Used proper format in conveying information.
Problem Analysis: The ability to correctly recognize and identify a problem and to de-
velop reasonable and effective ways of solving the problem.

1. Indicated a thorough and complete understanding of the problem.
2. Identified components of the problem as well as its symptoms.
3. Explored various alternatives for dealing with the problem.
4. Made logical and rational decisions based on a full understanding of the problem.
5. Offered unique or innovative ways for dealing with the problem.
The rATinG sCAle
In order to ensure uniformity in rating candidates, it is important that as-

sessors use a structured method of scoring the performance of candidates.
This can be done in several ways. The assessment center administrator
must design a uniform method for scoring candidates on the evaluation cri-
teria, however.
The numerical scale
Perhaps the simplest scale to use, the numerical scale simply assigns
numerical values to evaluation criteria ranging from “Not Qualified” to “Out-
standing” or “Superior.” A simple four-point scale, such as the one shown
below, serves this purpose quite well.
• 1.1 to 2.0—not qualified: The candidate has failed to demonstrate the

minimum level of skill or ability believed to be necessary to successfully
perform the duties of this position.
• 2.1 to 3.0—minimally qualified: The candidate has demonstrated a

level of skill or ability that is consistent with minimally acceptable stan-
dards of job performance in this position.
• 3.1 to 4.0—Well qualified: The candidate has displayed a level of skill

or ability consistent with an average to above-average level of job per-
formance in this position.
• 4.1 to 5.0—superior: This candidate has displayed a level of skill or

ability that is consistent with an excellent or superior level of job per-
formance in this position.
Using this scale, assessors should be free to assign scores within each
of the categories according to their judgements concerning the level of skill
or ability demonstrated by the candidate. For example, assessors may as-
sign a score of 4.1 to a candidate who is clearly better than well qualified,
but who has not achieved the top of the superior range. Assessors should
also be free to rate a candidate somewhere between 0.0 and 0.9 if they be-
lieve that his or her performance is clearly less than acceptable. They must
use their own judgment in deciding just where, in that range, to score the
candidate.
It may be desirable to provide assessors a greater range of choices than

is possible with a three-point scale. For example, a five-point scale, such
as that shown below, allows assessors greater specificity in evaluating can-
didates.
5 The candidate’s performance clearly exceeds the requirements for

this position. This candidate has displayed superior knowledge
and/or ability in this area and would be able to perform all of the du-
ties of the position ably and without exception.
4 The candidate’s performance somewhat exceeds the requirements

for this position. This candidate has displayed above average knowl-
edge and/or ability in this area and would be able to perform all or
most of the duties of the position in an acceptable manner and with-
out major difficulty.
3 The candidate’s performance meets the minimum requirements for

this position. This candidate has average knowledge and/or ability
in this area and should be able to perform most or all of the duties of
the position in an acceptable manner and with minimum difficulty.
2 The candidate’s performance fails to meet the minimum require-

ments for this position. This candidate has below-average knowledge
and/or ability in this area and might not be able to perform some or
all of the duties of the position in an acceptable manner and without
minimum difficulty.
1 The candidate’s answer or performance fails to meet the minimum

requirements for this position. This candidate has substantially
below-average knowledge and/or ability in this area and would not be
able to perform most or all of the duties of the position in an accept-
able manner and without minimum difficulty.
The rating scale must be designed in such a way that assessors are of-
fered clear choices in rating the performance of the candidates.
The raw score method
Another way to score the assessment center is to use the raw scores
achieved by a candidate in any one exercise divided by the maximum raw
score for that exercise expressed as a percentage score. For example, let’s
say that there are four dimensions in a single exercise and that there are five
benchmarks for each dimension. Using a two-point scale in which candi-

dates are given 2.0 points for each benchmark they achieve, 1.0 point for
each benchmark they partially achieve, and 0.0 points for each benchmark
they failed to achieve, the maximum raw score for the exercise would be 40
(4 performance dimensions times 5 benchmarks times 2 points for each
benchmark). A candidate who receives a total raw score of 30 points in this
exercise would receive a final score of 75 percent in this exercise (30 di-
vided by 40 equals 75%).
Let’s assume that there are four exercises in the assessment center and
that each exercise is worth 40 points each and that each of the four exer-
cises is to be weighted equally. A final raw score of 120 in the four exercises
(an average of 30 points on each exercise) would result in a final assess-
ment center score of 75 percent (120 divided by 160 equals 75%).
Let’s now say that there are four exercises in the assessment center but
that they are not weighted equally. The results might look something like
Figure 7.1.
Figure 7.1. Example of Calculating Weighted Scores.
rePorTinG CAndidATe sCores
The Assessment Center Administrator is responsible for tabulating can-

didate scores, checking them for accuracy, and reporting them to the agency
where they will presumably be posted along with other promotional criteria
in the form of a final eligibility list for promotion. Each agency will have dif-
ferent requirements in terms of how the assessment center scores are
posted, but in most cases, they will be reported as a final percent or raw
score that can be combined with other elements such as written score, sen-
iority, and performance evaluation to create a final promotional score.
Figure 7.2. Example of a Detailed Breakdown of an Assessment Center Score.
Depending upon the agency, it may be either necessary or desirable to

provide additional details about how the candidate’s final assessment cen-
ter score is calculated. Figure 7.2 provides one example of how this infor-
mation may be presented, but there are many other possibilities as well.
It may also be useful to provide candidates with an indication of how their
scores compare to others in their group or to the average of the group as a
whole. Figure 7.3 shows how such a comparison might look.
Figure 7.3. Sample Group Comparison of In-Basket Scores.
Assessor CommenTArY
Assessor comments are intended to provide candidates insight into how

they were scored as well as to provide them with important information con-
cerning how they may improve in the future. It is important that these oral
comments be consistent with the candidates’ scores. If, for example, asses-
sors gave a candidate an average score, or one that is below average, as-
sessors should not describe the candidate’s performance as “very good” or
“quite good.” Such a comment would imply a better than average score,
which was not the case. Instead, assessors should use phrases such as
“needs more work,” “minimally acceptable,” or “relatively weak” to describe
performance that is only average or slightly above average. Here are some
additional examples:
overall Performance Typical Comments
not qualified: This person demonstrates • Failed to perform at an acceptable level.

a level of skill or ability that is below aver- • Well below the standard expected for
age for this position. Further development this position.
of this skill or ability is required in order to • Failed to adequately recognize and deal
achieve satisfactory job performance. with the problem.
minimally qualified: This person has • Performed at an acceptable level for this
demonstrated an average to above aver- position.
age level of skill or ability for this position. • Performance was minimally acceptable
The level of skill or ability exhibited indi- for someone in this position.
cates that the person should be able to • The candidate performed at a level that
perform in this position in an acceptable, was only average for someone in this
but not highly proficient, manner. position.
Well qualified: This person has demon- • The candidate performed at a level well
strated an above average to very good above the minimum standard for this
level of skill or ability for this position. This position.
person should be able to perform the du- • The candidate’s performance was well
ties of this position in a proficient manner. above average in this area.
• The candidate did a very good job of
dealing with the issues.
superior: This person has displayed an • The candidate did an exceptional job of
excellent level of skill or ability in this area. dealing with the issues.
The person’s performance revealed very • The candidate displayed a rare ability in
few flaws in this behavioral dimension. handling the problem.
The candidate should be expected to per- • The candidate performed at a level
form the duties of the position in an ex- much higher than the standard for this
ceptional manner. position.
ProVidinG feedbACk To The CAndidATes
Candidate feedback is an important element in any assessment center.

Candidates have a great stake in the outcome of any assessment center
and they deserve to be informed of how well or how poorly they performed.
In addition, they should be given some indication by the assessors of their
strengths and weaknesses and how their performance may be improved in

the future.
Candidates appreciate receiving feedback on their performance in an assessment center.

Photograph courtesy of LaGrange Police Department, LaGrange, Illinois.
There are several ways to provide feedback to candidates. One way is to

simply allow candidates to review the notes and scoring sheets prepared
by the assessors. However, this method is not recommended since candi-
dates would probably not be able to properly interpret assessors’ raw notes,
nor are such notes intended for this purpose.
A better way of providing candidate feedback is to have assessors com-
plete standardized forms which describe significant characteristics of the
candidate’s performance in each exercise. Such forms may contain a series
of checklists to show whether the candidate did or did not do something that
was to be expected, or they may simply ask the assessors to respond to
specific questions about the candidate’s performance. Examples of these
forms are shown in Appendix T. One disadvantage of this method is that
checklists are not terribly descriptive and may leave questions in candidates’
minds about “what does this mean?” or “how can I improve?”
A much better method of letting candidates know how and why they were
rated in the assessment center process is to have assessors videotape their
comments and later allow candidates to view these comments during sched-
uled debriefing sessions. In this way, assessors can speak directly to the
candidates and provide constructive criticism about their performance in the

exercises. These comments may be on the same videotape used to record
the candidate in the exercises.
In any videotaped candidate feedback session, assessors should be
asked to review and comment on specific aspects of performance in each
of the exercises, referring specifically to the evaluation criteria used in eval-
uating the candidates. For example, if the assessors are evaluating leader-
ship, oral communication, and human relations skill in one of the exercises,
they should be asked to provide feedback about particular things the can-
didate did or did not do that influenced their evaluation of the candidate. As-
sessors should ensure that their videotaped comments agree with the
scores assigned to the candidate.
If candidate debriefing sessions are used, they should be scheduled as
soon after the assessment process as possible so that the experience is
still fresh in the minds of the candidates. Debriefing sessions should be con-
ducted by either the assessment center administrator or a member of his or
her immediate staff who was involved in the design and administration of the
assessment center. This helps to ensure that candidates understand that
the person who designed and administered the assessment center is pre-
pared to accept responsibility for the results and is willing to meet with the
candidates and discuss the process with them.
Candidate debriefing sessions are an excellent way to help candidates
learn from the process and to reinforce their understanding of and support
for the process. It provides them with insight into how their performance was
rated and gives them excellent feedback to enhance their opportunity for
future growth and development. In addition, it gives them the opportunity to
vent their concerns or complaints about the process to the person who was
directly involved in the design and administration of the process. Even
though a candidate may not have fared well in the process, he or she will
usually feel good about the opportunity to see and hear for themselves why
the assessors rated them the way they did.
It is important that debriefing sessions not be allowed to turn into gripe
sessions. The purpose of these sessions is to allow candidates to know how
and why the were scored by the assessors so that they may gain from this
experience. It should be made clear to the candidates that these debriefing
sessions are not intended to allow candidates to challenge the results of the
process or to argue against the views of the assessors. While the agency
may provide other opportunities to challenge the process, this is not the pur-
pose of the debriefing session and candidates should be made aware of
that in advance so that they will have no false expectations about what they
are to derive from the session.
Chapter 8
PrePArinG for An AssessmenT CenTer
A ssessment centers have gained a great deal of credibility in recent years

as a valid, useful and fair means of evaluating the qualifications, skills,
and abilities of persons for advancement within the police and fire service.
A growing number of communities have come to the realization that advanc-
ing someone in rank represents a significant investment in the future of the
agency, and that the costs associated with designing and implementing a
reliable method of predicting who will do well in a higher position is a sound
investment in the future of the agency. Today, many communities have made
the assessment center an integral part of their promotional process in the po-
lice and fire service. Assessment centers are also widely used in selecting
police chiefs, fire chiefs and other municipal department heads.
There is no substitute for good preparation.
Even though the assessment center process differs considerably from

other kinds of testing methods, candidates should not be intimidated by what
they have heard about the process from someone else. The process is de-
108
Preparing for an Assessment Center 109
signed to be challenging, difficult, and demanding, but it is also intended to

represent a fair, objective, and unbiased test of a candidate’s ability to per-
form the job for which he or she is being considered. There are no magic for-
mulas or mystic potions to assist candidates in the process. The most
important tools are simple common sense and the native ability they have
developed over the years as they have studied and prepared themselves for
advancement.
Those seeking promotion in the police or fire service know also that, if
they have not participated in an assessment center in the past, the chances
are good that they may have the opportunity sometime in the future. As a re-
sult, they are naturally curious and anxious to know as much as they can
about the assessment center process so that they can better prepare them-
selves for the time that they may be a participant. To meet this demand, a
number of consultants, training institutions, and others have offered classes
on “how to prepare yourself for an assessment center,” and a number of ar-
ticles have appeared in professional magazines on the same subject. In-
deed, there is no limit on the amount of background information that can be
obtained, or the instructional material that is available, for those who want
to do their best when their time comes to participate in an assessment cen-
ter. Unfortunately, much of the time and money spent by a prospective can-
didate to prepare himself or herself to participate in an assessment center
is of little value and may even be detrimental. While the desire of persons
to prepare themselves to perform at their best in an assessment center is
certainly understandable, a few words of caution are in order.
It should be remembered, first of all, that an assessment center is not like
any other kind of test for which someone can truly prepare themselves. It is
not like a written examination, where long hours of studying books and ref-
erence materials may help to assure a passing grade. Nor is an assess-
ment center like an athletic competition where weeks and months of long,
grueling workouts and physical conditioning will assure a participant of earn-
ing a first place medal. Instead, an assessment center is not really a test at
all, but rather a process of evaluating the extent to which candidates pos-
sess (or do not possess) certain skills and abilities and how well they can (or
cannot) perform certain tasks.
There are no “right” or “wrong” answers in an assessment center although
some behaviors are more acceptable than others. For example, it is always
”wrong” to lose your temper in any assessment center exercise, because
such behavior indicates an inability to think and act effectively under stress-
ful conditions. Similarly, it is equally “wrong” to fail to participate fully in any
Group Problem-Solving Exercise, since this exercise is designed to see how
well candidates can work with others to solve a problem. Performing well in
an assessment center usually means choosing behaviors that are appro-
priate for the situation. Therefore, understanding the scenario and the ex-
pected outcome is much more important than trying to second guess the
assessors.1
An assessment center is hard but rewarding work.
While the kind of skill or ability being evaluated in an assessment center

can be developed and refined, it cannot be acquired from reading a book or
watching a videotape or even from attending classroom lectures. The kinds
of skills and abilities measured in an assessment center are those that are
developed over a period of time through experience and hard work. Some
individuals possess some of these skills naturally, and refine them to a fine
edge over time, while others simply never master them. Just as many of us
were never destined to be big league baseball stars, astronauts, or world-
famous entertainers, not all persons have what it takes to be a supervisor,
middle-manager or chief executive officer in a police or fire department.
There are also many different versions of what constitutes an “assess-
ment center.” While a true assessment center must meet certain exacting
standards (see Appendix A), no two designers of assessment centers do
things exactly the same way. Some assessment centers, for example, are
very generic and consist of a standard set of exercises that are used almost
without alteration from one place to another, regardless of the unique char-
acteristics of the position or the organization. I like to call this the “one size
fits all” type. Others, however, are much more position-oriented and are
carefully designed so as to emulate the duties and responsibilities of the po-
1 See Patrick T. Maher and Richard S. Michelson, Preparing for Fire Service Assessment Centers (Bell-
flower, CA: Fire Publications, Inc., 1992), pp., 28–29.
sition and the characteristics of the organization. As a result, the exact na-
ture of an assessment center will vary from one place to another and will de-
pend largely upon the experience, training, and bias of the person or
persons responsible for its design and administration.
Accordingly, someone who wants to learn more about an assessment
center will be heavily influenced in his or her beliefs about what constitutes
successful performance in an assessment center by the person imparting
the information, whether it is from an article in a professional journal, book,
videotape, or classroom presentation. This information, instead of helping
the candidate prepare for the process, may cause him or her to develop cer-
tain biases or misconceptions which may eventually prove fatal to his or her
performance.
For example, a “Leaderless Group Discussion” is a common part of many
assessment centers. In this exercise, candidates are gathered into small
groups for the purpose of discussing a topic or issue and trying to come up
with an acceptable solution. There are many ways to “play” this exercise.
Some candidates may try to jump out in front early on and establish a strong
leadership position and channel the discussion toward a specific goal. An-
other person may be much more cautious and wait to see how the discus-
sion is going before making a move. In the end, the more successful
candidate is the one who has the most to do with how the group eventually
solves the problem. It is not usually the person who dominates the group or
who talks the loudest or the longest. In this exercise, what a candidate does
is often more important than what (or how much) they say.
People often do poorly in an assessment center because they enter into
an exercise with a preconceived notion about what is expected of them. Pre-
conceived ideas about what is expected, or what kind of behavior is desired,
or how the problem can best be solved, often run contrary to the beliefs and
philosophy of those responsible for designing and managing the process.
Ultimately, such false beliefs may lead to a negative or poor evaluation by
the assessors. For example, a candidate who comes into an Employee
Counseling Session with a copy of the department’s Employee Assistance
Program (EAP) is well-prepared, since this program may be exactly what is
necessary to get the employee back on track. However, when the problem
turns out to be something quite different, such as being disappointed over
the last promotional process, the candidate must be prepared to put aside
the Employee Assistance Program and think of other ways to get the em-
ployee motivated.
This being the case, then, what, if anything, can a candidate do to pre-
pare to participate in an assessment center in a manner that will ensure his
or her best performance? Is it impossible to prepare for an assessment cen-
ter? Is there nothing a hopeful candidate can do to ensure that he or she
does the best they can do? Actually, there are several things that someone
can do to improve his or her performance in an assessment center.
Active participation is required in the Group Discussion Exercise. Photograph courtesy of

Bloomingdale Police Department, Bloomingdale, Illinois.
First, candidates should learn as much about the idea behind assess-
ment centers as possible. Read up on how they were first developed, how
they were used, and the reasons they are used. There are many useful ar-
ticles on assessment centers in professional journals and these can be very
helpful in learning more about the process and becoming more familiar with
the various methods that are used in assessment centers. At the same time,
they should stay away from attempting to learn the “ins” and “outs” of as-
sessment centers, since these often depend upon who designs and admin-
isters the assessment center.
Second, candidates must carefully study the criteria which are frequently
used in assessing performance in an assessment center. They will proba-
bly find that they tend to include such things as leadership, communication
skills (both written and oral), organization and planning, human relations,
judgment and reasoning, problem analysis, decision-making, and similar di-
mensions that have been found through a job analysis to determine or in-
fluence successful performance in a position. These traits will not be the
same for all positions but there is a great deal of crossover among posi-
tions.
Once a candidate has studied those criteria commonly used in an as-
sessment center, they should evaluate themselves on each of these crite-
ria. They should honestly and completely assess their own strengths and
weaknesses. Are they a good public speaker? (Nearly all assessment cen-
ters feature some form of public speaking). Do they have strong leadership
ability or are they easily manipulated by peers or subordinates? (The “Prob-
lem Employee Exercise” or “Employee Counseling Exercise” is a common
scenario in many assessment centers and will be used to test their leader-
ship ability). Do they organize their time and work well, and can they use
available resources effectively? (The In-Basket Exercise is an excellent
method of evaluating how well one can solve problems with limited time and
resources.)
Third, candidates should learn as much as possible about the position for
which they are competing. In the case of internal promotions, they may
think they know all they need to know about the position, but they may be
wrong. What does someone in this position do? What distinguishes between
superior or only average performance in this position? What skills are
needed to perform in this position? What are the characteristics of people
who do well in this position? These are all important questions that candi-
dates should be able to answer if they are to be a viable candidate for the
position. Knowing the answers to these questions will enhance their per-
formance in an assessment center.
Fourth, candidates should maintain a positive attitude and be self-confi-
dent (not cocky or overbearing) as they enter into each of the exercises.
Candidates should not have a chip on their shoulder or dare someone to
knock it off. It is said in life that attitude is everything, and this is nowhere
more important than when participating in an assessment center. Candi-
dates should not condemn or criticize the process or blame someone else
or the process for their failure. If they err, they should accept responsibility
for their error and not try to cover up their mistakes. Assessors will spot this
immediately and will recognize it as a sign of weakness on the candidate’s
part. The ability to recognize and accept responsibility for their own errors
and failures, on the other hand, is a sign of strength to most assessors.
Fifth, candidates should keep an open mind going into the process. They
should not “over prepare” or anticipate what may lie in store for them. They
should eliminate any preconceived notions or biases that they may have
picked up in their research about what will or will not happen to them or
about what the assessors are looking for as they evaluate their perform-
ance. Instead, they should pay close attention to the instructions that are
given to them, approach each and every exercise as if it were their one
chance to show that they have what it takes to do the job, and handle each
and every scenario as if it were a real live situation. In addition, candidates

should not confuse play acting with role playing. They should not try to be
something that they are not. Being themselves is the easiest thing in the
world to do and will enhance their performance. Trying to be something that
they are not often results in failure, and never increases their chances of
success.
Sixth, candidates should come to the process on time and prepared.
Know where you are supposed to be and get there in plenty of time so that
you will not be rushed. Get a good night’s sleep (if possible) before the
process begins so that you will be rested physically, emotionally, and men-
tally. You cannot do your best when you are fatigued or worried about some-
thing else. Be sure to bring with you any necessary supplies such as a
notepad and pens and pencils. You may be required to take notes and these
materials are not always provided to the candidates.
Finally, and most important, candidates must be able to learn from their
mistakes. Whether they are participating in their first, second, or tenth as-
sessment center, the chances are good that another one will be lurking
somewhere in the future. They may make other mistakes in the future (we
all do!), but they should try to not make the same ones again. They should
learn as much as possible about what they failed to do in this assessment
center so that they don’t make the same mistakes in the next one. Even
though the exercises may be completely different, chances are good that
some of the same characteristics will be evaluated by the assessors, and
they need to know how they stack up in these areas. If a debriefing session
or other feedback process is offered, candidates should take advantage of
it and learn as much from it as possible. Even if they do not agree with what
the assessors say, they should bear in mind that these are independent
evaluators whose only mission is to give them an impartial, objective eval-
uation. The assessor’s perception of the candidate’s strengths and weak-
nesses are vitally important if they are to improve their performance in the
future.
In summary, it pays to know what to expect in an assessment center, but
it does not pay to assume anything. Candidates may or may not be suc-
cessful their first time around but there is no question that they will learn
and profit from their experience, and that they will be a better candidate for
having been through the process.
Chapter 9
besT PrACTiCes in
AssessmenT CenTer eXerCises
E xperience is the best way to learn how to do well in an assessment cen-

ter, but there are some basic common-sense principles that can be
learned and utilized by candidates to help them achieve good performance
in an assessment center. Creativity and originality are also important. Can-
didates should remember that they are looking for ways to set themselves
apart from the rest of the candidates so they should never be content with
just doing well. Their goal should be to excel!
This chapter describes some of the best practices that candidates can
and should not do in presenting themselves in the most favorable light in an
assessment center. Only a few suggestions are listed for each exercise dis-
cussed, but candidates can find many more ways to perform well in an as-
sessment center if they just think about what they are doing and ask
themselves, “How do I separate myself from the rest of the candidates in
this exercise?”
There is no single, sure-fire way to prepare nor is there a single best strat-
egy to use in the exercises. The best course of action is for candidates to be
themselves and to handle things just the way they would do in real life. Try-
ing to be something they are not almost always works against them.
in-bAskeT eXerCise
The In-Basket Exercise is time-oriented and therefore requires a candi-

date to read and analyze a great deal of information in a limited period of
time. Effective time-management, the ability to properly prioritize, effective
delegation and sound organization and planning skills are absolutely essen-
tial for success in this exercise.
115
The following suggestions are offered to assist you in competing effec-

tively in this exercise:
scan items before taking action.
The In-Basket Exercise is designed to put candidates under pressure and

one way of doing this is to include more items in the In-Basket that an av-
erage candidate can reasonably be expected to complete in the allotted
time, thereby forcing them to turn their attention to the most important items
and leave routine items undone. A successful candidate will quickly scan all
items in the In-Basket and sort them into three piles: (1) those they must do
immediately; (2) those they should do as soon as possible; and (3) those
they can afford to do later or leave undone if time expires before getting
them all done. Simply working from the top down in an In-Basket Exercise
is a clear path to disaster.
Scan items before you act.
establish reasonable priorities.
In the real world, some things are more important than others. In an In-
Basket Exercise, those items which, by their nature, may somehow bring
discredit to the agency or to the municipality if not handled at once, deserve
top priority and must be handled immediately. Other, less important matters,
such as those with deadlines that must be met, should be completed next
while other items, routine in nature, may be left to be completed last, if time
permits. Routine items are those things in which delayed action will not ad-
versely impact their outcome.
Best Practices in Assessment Center Exercises 117
keep other people informed about what you are doing.
Bosses don‘t like surprises so it’s important to keep them informed about
what you are doing. If, in the In-Basket Exercise, you are informed that you
are going to be leaving town for a week to attend to a family emergency,
make sure to let your immediate superior (e.g., police chief, fire chief, mayor
or city manager) know where you are going, how long you will be gone and
how you can be reached during your absence. You should also appoint
someone to take your place while you are gone, even if this is done auto-
matically in your absence. Everyone needs to know who is in charge while
you are away.
In addition, if you receive a memorandum or email from your boss telling
you to do something during your absence, you must do two things: (1) find
someone else to do what you have been instructed to do (e.g., delegate)
and (2) let your boss know that someone else will be doing what you were
instructed to do. The rule of thumb is to keep everyone who needs to know
informed of what you are doing before you leave and let them know when
you expect to return.
delegate appropriately.
The art of effective delegation is an essential management tool and suc-

cessful managers and supervisors are those who know how to delegate ef-
fectively. The In-Basket Exercise is usually filled with more items than a
person can reasonably be expected to complete within the time permitted so
it is important that you be able to hand off some of those items to others to
complete in your absence. It is important, though, that you delegate the right
things to the right people. Do not, for instance, delegate something to some-
one beyond their level of competency or authority. If you need another rank-
ing officer or chief officer to do something, go directly to that officer, not
through an intermediary such as a secretary. While it is acceptable to ask a
secretary to send a letter in your name or to convey information to someone
or to arrange for a meeting to be rescheduled, do not ask the secretary to
exercise authority that he or she does not have.
look for linkages between items.
A common characteristic of the In-Basket Exercise is to have items that

are, in one way or another, linked together in such a way that they may pose
some sort of conflict or common theme. For example, you may receive a
telephone call from a local news reporter wanting to know something about
an internal Investigation that you have just initiated in response to an alle-
gation of sexual harassment or some other breach of conduct. It may be

possible to combine these two items so that they can be handled with a sin-
gle response rather than separately, thereby reinforcing the linkage between
the two items. In other cases, related items may pose a scheduling conflict,
in which case you will need to recognize and find a way of avoiding the con-
flict. This will often be in the form of one item informing you that someone
has requested a day off for personal reasons and another item informing
you that this same person is required to be in court or in training or doing
something else that same day, thus requiring you to deny the time off re-
quest so that the other requirement may be fulfilled.
The TACTiCAl fire/ems Problem eXerCise
It is probably more difficult to demonstrate your true firefighting skills and

knowledge of incident command procedures during a simulated fire incident
than on a real fire ground incident. In a simulated fire incident, you do not
have the advantage of dealing with real live people and you do not have the
same powers of observation and deduction that might be possible at a real
fire. In a fire simulation, you can take nothing for granted and things just
don’t happen quite the same way they do at a real fire. Nevertheless, there
are some ways you can overcome these obstacles.
Utilize all available resources in a timely manner.
Due to the fact that the fire simulation usually runs no more than ten min-
utes or so, it is important that you act promptly and decisively. It is also im-
portant that you have sufficient personnel and apparatus on the scene to
handle the incident effectively. Candidates will almost never be criticized for
having too many people and too much equipment on the scene (you can al-
ways turn them around and send them back), but you will frequently be crit-
icized for trying to accomplish too much with too few resources. Once you
make your initial size-up, determine what level of response will be necessary
to handle the problem at hand and ask for additional resources if necessary
and within reason.
The Incident Commander will be in charge of the emergency fire or EMS situation. Photo-
graph courtesy of Bartlett Fire Protection District, Bartlett, Illinois.
Take nothing for granted and assume nothing.
You need to remember that the assessors can only give you credit for
what you say and do in this exercise. They cannot give you credit for what
you think or what you meant to do. Even if something ordinarily happens
“automatically” in real life (e.g., command page, notification of Public Infor-
mation Officer, designation of Rapid Intervention Team, etc.), you must make
sure that these things get done if you expect the assessors to give you credit
for them. Remember that if you did not say it, you did not do it, and if you
did not do it, the assessors cannot give you credit for it. Nothing happens au-
tomatically in this exercise.
follow your incident Command Procedures.
You can be sure that assessors will be thoroughly briefed on your depart-
ment’s Incident Command Procedures and will probably have read them
over so you should expect them to know what actions are required by those
procedures and you should act accordingly. These procedures are an impor-
tant part of your department’s operating policy and you will be expected to
demonstrate your understanding of and compliance with those procedures.
Good teamwork is essential in conducting firefighting operations. Photograph courtesy of

remember to do a 360.
It is usually standard procedure for the Incident Commander to do a walk-

around or to have someone check all four sides of a structure to get a full
view of what is occurring. Without seeing all sides of the structure, you can-
not have a full understanding of the fire situation. If a fire simulator is used,
requesting a 360 will usually allow you to see all four sides (A, B, C, and D)
to gain a better understanding of the fire situation.
be proactive, not reactive.
In this exercise you must be continually focused on the future and must
be able to anticipate what might lie ahead. Your actions should be designed
to deal with the immediate situation in such a way that it does not escalate
or that, if it does escalate (often it will, regardless of what you do), you have
taken all reasonable and necessary actions to mitigate the impact of further
escalation. Candidates should be continually probing, asking questions,
checking on the progress and status of companies, and planning ahead for
future actions that may be required. A good candidate in this exercise will
stay ahead of the action, not behind it.
The GroUP Problem-solVinG eXerCise
The purpose of the Group Problem-Solving Exercise (also known as the

Leaderless Group Discussion) is to see how well candidates can work within
the framework of a group to solve common problems. Consensus and team-
building are important considerations. Active participation is an essential re-
quirement of this exercise. Candidates who are unable or unwilling to take
an active role in the group exercise will usually not fare well. Some candi-
dates find this to be a very challenging exercise and may struggle to keep
up with the discussion while other candidates may find this exercise an ex-
cellent way to showcase their leadership skills.
establish an effective working relationship with group members.
You must remember that this is a group exercise and you will be evalu-
ated by the assessors on how well you work with other members of the
group. Your entire focus in this exercise should be to find ways to contribute
to the success of the group rather than to bring credit to yourself. Team-
work, cohesiveness, and consensus-building are important objectives in this
exercise.
It is important to maintain effective working relationship with others.
develop consensus of ideas and decisions.
Each action you take in this exercise should be calculated to bring the
group to consensus. This sometimes requires compromise and a bit of give
and take. Even though the final outcome of the discussion may not be ex-
actly as you would like to have it, the important thing is that the group has
arrived at a decision that all members of the group agree with and can sup-
port. This may mean that you will need to subordinate your own views and
expectations so that group consensus can be reached.
Work to get the group heading in a single direction.
Some groups seem to stray from the objectives of the discussion and get
bogged down in meaningless trivia that contributes nothing toward the so-
lution of the problem under discussion. One of the things the assessors will
be looking for is someone who will keep the group heading in the right di-
rection. This can be done by volunteering to serve as the note-taker (an as-
signment than may become overwhelming at times) or as the group
moderator or time-keeper. Others do this by tactfully reminding the group of
the purpose and objectives of the assignment and offering suggestions that
will help the group remain focused on its central mission. Anything you can
do to contribute to keeping the group on track and focused on its principal
assignment will bring credit to you in the eyes of the assessors.
have someone take notes and keep track of the time.
In a group problem-solving exercise, a candidate may offer to serve as the

chairperson or the timekeeper or the note-taker as a means of facilitating the
group’s accomplishment of its assigned task. Each of these is an important
role and each can be used to the advantage of the candidate if done prop-
erly. However, volunteering to serve as note-taker can sometimes be prob-
lematic in that the candidate gets so deeply involved in note-taking that he
or she fails to remain active in the discussion. On the other hand, some can-
didates can perform this role well and help lead the group to consensus at
the same time. You must decide whether you are capable of being a note-
taker without negatively impacting your group participation.
lead, don’t push.
Some candidates are so anxious to impress others with their vast knowl-
edge of a particular subject that they cannot wait their turn to speak. Instead,
they continually cut off others just to get their own point across. This is not
a trait that assessors appreciate and it is something to be avoided. More
important, however, is the need to listen intently to what others have to say.
Candidates who spend more time speaking than they do listening usually
have very little to say and spend too much time saying it. You can demon-
strate much more leadership by engaging in active listening skills than by
speaking a lot and saying very little.
The Employee Meeting Exercise is an exercise requiring sensitivity to the

needs of employees as well as strong leadership ability and a commitment
to the goals of the organization. Candidates are expected to meet with a
role player to discuss some kind of performance issue (e.g., poor atten-
dance, poor attitude, lack of motivation or productivity, etc.) and find a way
to get the employee “back on track.”
begin and end the exercise on a positive note.
It is important to get the discussion started on a positive note in order to

develop an open frame of mind by the role player so that he or she will be
willing to accept the constructive criticism that will come during the meeting.
Candidates should open the meeting with a warm greeting and positive
statement to gain the confidence of the employee, thereby making it easier
to get into the core purpose of the discussion. By the same token, candi-
dates should end the meeting on a positive note in order to reinforce what
was discussed during the meeting.
make your expectations very clear.
In this exercise, you will be confronted by a role player whose job per-
formance, behavior, or conduct is creating a problem of such magnitude that
you have decided to meet with the employee to discuss the situation. One
of your responsibilities will be to factually and completely explain the nature
of the problem being discussed and to make your expectations clear to the
employee. Vague or poorly-defined statements such as “some improve-
ment” or “just a little better” accomplish nothing and may leave the employee
uncertain about what you expect in the future. You should leave nothing to
the imagination of the employee in this exercise.
Make your message very clear.
do not negotiate.
Role players in this exercise will sometimes attempt to negotiate a solu-

tion by saying “I’ll do this for you if you’ll do this for me.” This is something
a candidate must avoid because it weakens the candidate’s power base
and makes it more difficult for the candidate to impose his or her will over
the subordinate. Candidates need to work from a position of authority when
dealing with “problem” employees and they cannot afford to allow the em-
ployee to manipulate them by attempting to get the candidate to enter into
a negotiation session.
be a boss, not a buddy.
The Employee Meeting Exercise (or Employee Counseling Exercise) is

designed to test a candidate’s ability to meet with an employee, discuss a
serious performance problem, and devise a solution that will eventually
solve the problem. Becoming an effective supervisor is often difficult for a
person who is reluctant to impose his or her authority over persons with
whom he or she has worked for some time. Employees will often play upon
a supervisor’s past allegiances, loyalties, and relationships to get them to re-
linquish their authority and to avoid criticism or correction. This exercise is
sometimes like a psychological tug of war or arm wrestling contest and there
can be only one winner.
The CommUniTY meeTinG eXerCise
The Community Meeting Exercise is often used in an assessment center

to test a candidate’s ability to speak extemporaneously before community
groups, to make a favorable impression on the public and to communicate
orally in an affective and intelligent manner. Role players or assessors may
be used to simulate community groups and the candidate is usually given
information about the specific problems or issues that he or she will be ex-
pected to address during the meeting. Assessors or role players are briefed
ahead of time on the demographic characteristics of the neighborhood in
which the community meeting is taking place and on the types of problems
and issues that might be raised during such a meeting (e.g., speeding cars,
drug sales, loud noises, parking problems, etc.).
Here are some things a candidate might want to do to enhance their per-
formance in this type of exercise:
listen to what the residents have to say.
The purpose of this meeting is not to hear candidates make long-winded

speeches but to see how effectively they can deal with real-life community
issues. Candidates should spend most of their time listening and less time
speaking. They should listen intently to what the residents have to say,
process the information being received, formulate a plan for dealing with
the issues presented and then tell the residents what they can or will do to
solve the problem.
offer to get back to the residents with answers or solutions.
It’s a good idea for a candidate to let residents know that he or she will get
back to them with answers to their questions. A candidate may wish to give
residents his or her business card, telephone number, or e-mail address so
that they may contact the candidate in the future for further assistance. A
candidate may wish to simulate bringing someone along as a note-taker
and promising to send everyone in attendance copies of the minutes of the
meeting. One way or another, it is important that candidates let the audi-
ence know that they will make a concerted effort to solve their problems to
the best of their ability.
be willing to accept responsibility.
Community residents expect representatives of their police and fire de-

partments to be accountable for their own actions as well as the actions of
their respective agencies. Sometimes mistakes are made despite our best
efforts to deliver quality services in a prompt and efficient manner. Some-
times members of our agencies don’t always do what we expect them to
and the reputation of the department may be brought into question. If a can-
didate is confronted with a situation in which something was not done that
should have been done or that was not done the way it should have been,
the best course of action is to admit the error and promise to do better in the
future. The worst thing a candidate can do is to try to justify the actions or
to make feeble excuses that only make the candidate or the department
look worse.
Dealing with citizen complaints about the level or quality of police or fire
services is a basic responsibility of any police or fire supervisor. The basic
mission of a police or fire department is public service and first-line super-
visors have an important role to play in seeing to it that citizens are well-
served by their agencies. This is an exercise in which candidates are
evaluated on their ability to be sensitive to the needs of others, to obtain es-
sential information, to identify and analyze a problem, and to reach logical
and appropriate solutions to problems.
The following suggestions are offered to assist a candidate in competing
effectively in this exercise:
Greet the citizen warmly and make him or her feel welcome
We sometimes forget that a citizen lodging a complaint about the level or

quality of police or fire services may feel awkward and ill at ease in the sur-
roundings in which the meeting is conducted. It is important that the candi-
date make every effort to make the citizen feel at ease and welcome so that
the citizen will know that the candidate is clearly concerned about the prob-
lem(s) presented by the citizen. If, at the conclusion of the meeting, the cit-
izen feels good about the experience and is comfortable with the solution
offered by the candidate, the candidate will have accomplished a great deal.
Be sure to greet the citizen warmly.
remember to sell yourself and your department.
Any citizen contact is an opportunity for a police or fire supervisor or chief

officer to sell the programs and services of their department. In this exercise,
candidates are something like sales people and the product they are selling
is community service. Candidates need to make every effort to convince the
citizen that the department is concerned about his or her problem and that
it will do whatever can be done, within reason, to see that the citizen’s prob-
lem is satisfactorily resolved.
don’t make promises you can’t keep.
There is nothing worse than telling someone you will do something and
then not keeping your promise. While it is important that citizens feel that a
police or fire supervisor or chief officer is truly concerned about their prob-
lem, candidates should never make promises that they can’t keep because
that is the same thing as lying to the public. Let the citizen know what you
can and will do for them, but be careful not to promise more than you can
deliver. False promises raise false expectations which will eventually come
back to harm the cooperation and support police and fire departments need
from their constituencies.
The ComPAnY or shifT TrAininG eXerCise
The object of this exercise is to put candidates under a certain amount of

pressure to see how they handle it and to determine how well they can think
and act “on their feet.” Candidates will usually be given a topic to be pre-
sented to the company or shift (the assessors) and will be expected to pres-
ent information on the topic in a training format. Role players will often en-
gage in behavior designed to either get the candidate sidetracked or to test
his or her patience and composure. There are several things a candidate
should remember when participating in this exercise.
Effective police work requires a strong partnership between the police and the community.
Photograph courtesy of Joplin Police Department, Joplin, Missouri.
maintain your composure.
Assessors may deliberately say and do things to provoke you, such as

reading newspapers, talking among themselves, or being otherwise unruly
and obnoxious, and they do these things to see whether you can work ef-
fectively under pressure. You should not take these actions personally and
remember that they do what they do for a reason and that all candidates
will be treated the same way. Don’t lose your temper and don’t allow them
to sidetrack you from your course of instruction.
Get the role players involved.
A good way to counter the interruptions and distractions of the role play-
ers is to get them involved in the class. Ask them questions on the subject
matter, have them come to the front of the room and write something on the
board or use them to demonstrate a technique (e.g., proper pat down and
handcuffing procedures). Getting them involved in the class takes them out
of their role playing persona and makes them easier to deal with. It also
helps to increase their interest in the subject matter.
don’t ignore criticism or unprofessional conduct.
If a role player makes a disparaging remark about you or a senior officer

or about the department administration, you cannot afford to ignore the re-
mark because it may appear to the assessors that either you agree with the
comment or simply do not know how to deal with it. When these kinds of
negative remarks are made, you must be quick to put a stop to them and let
the person who made the remark know that such comments are off limits
and will not be tolerated.
begin and end the session on a positive note.
It is important that you demonstrate a positive attitude during the meeting

and that you convey to the members of the audience a positive and upbeat
attitude about the topic being discussed. Positive attitudes can be conta-
gious and so can negative ones. If you tell the audience, “You probably will
not like what I have to say,” you can be assured that they will definitely not
like what you have to say. If, on the other hand, you can find a way to get
them interested and motivated in the topic being discussed, they will have
fewer reasons to object and more reasons to go along with the program.
Chapter 10
some of The GreATesT blUnders
P articipating in an assessment center is, or should be, a learning experi-

ence. How much candidates learn from the process depends upon their
attitude going in and their willingness to admit errors and to accept construc-
tive criticism. A small number of those who participate in the assessment
center process will never learn because they will never admit that they erred.
In their mind, it was the process that was flawed, not what they did (or failed
to do). These same people will always find something or someone to blame
for their mistakes and will never learn from the process. There are a few oth-
ers who simply, because of their own inadequacies, never get better and are
what they are. This does not make them poor performers, but it does indi-
cate that they will probably never move ahead or progress in their careers
except by good fortune or attrition.
An assessment center can be very stressful.
130
Some of the Greatest Blunders 131
For the most part, however, participating in an assessment center can be

an invaluable experience, even if they do not measure up or don’t do as well
as they had hoped. Candidates should endeavor to make it a learning ex-
perience. They should try to profit by their mistakes and seek out and con-
sider constructive criticism. For most candidates, there will be a next time,
and they will be better prepared the second or even third time around.
Chapter 9 includes a suggested list of things to avoid and things to try to
accomplish in several different exercises. This chapter provides a discussion
of some of the biggest blunders I have witnessed in more than 25 years of
designing and administering assessment centers. Some of these are clas-
sic and some may seem even ridiculous, but each blunder described here
actually occurred. I have attempted to record the details as accurately as
possible and not embellish the description in any way. Each of these blun-
ders contains a lesson to be learned, and I hope that these examples serve
this purpose.
The orienTATion session
I have stressed the importance of the orientation session for candidates

several times in different chapters of this book, but I want to reinforce what
I have said previously. Candidate orientation sessions have but one pur-
pose: to provide candidates with necessary insight into the process and to
allow them to perform to the best of their ability. No one else gains from the
orientation session, and it is only the candidate who loses by not attending
or by not paying attention. Later on, they make the very mistake they were
warned about during the orientation session. What’s worse, they will blame
that mistake on someone other than themselves.
Example One: On two separate occasions (one for police and one for
fire), one candidate out of all those eligible to participate in the process failed
to attend the orientation session. Since it was not mandatory, no one made
much of this fact. One fellow was in a class and made a decision that com-
pleting the class was more important than attending the orientation session
for the Police Sergeant assessment center. Another fellow had made other
plans for that day and decided that it was more important to keep the plans
he had made than attend the 90-minute orientation session for Fire Lieu-
tenant candidates. By the time these two individuals arrived for the assess-
ment center, they discovered that they were several paces behind the rest
of the candidates, all of whom knew what to expect when the process
began.
These two situations have something else in common. In addition to the
fact that these two individuals made a decision that something else was
more important to them than finding out what they could about the assess-
ment center process, both of these individuals scored lower than all other
candidates and failed the process! Did the orientation session make a dif-
ference? Draw your own conclusions!
The lesson candidates can learn in this example is that they

should be sure to attend the orientation session (if there is
one), to take notes, pay attention, and ask questions. No
one else will do this for them.
The In-Basket Exercise is particularly difficult for the first timer, and this
is especially true if a candidate is not accustomed to handling a lot of paper-
work, setting priorities and working under time constraints. First timers rarely
do well in this exercise, and some experienced administrators sometimes
have problems due to the time constraints.
Example One: In one case, a relatively bright individual fared poorly in
the In-Basket Exercise primarily because he failed to complete half the
items. When he was asked why he had been able to complete so few of the
items, he said that he had read a book on assessment centers in which the
author advised that the first thing to do in an In-Basket Exercise was to pre-
pare a detailed outline of the contents before proceeding. “I spent so much
time working on the outline that I did not have time to complete all the items!”
I suppose preparing an outline before beginning the In-Basket Exercise
is a good idea if time constraints allow. But in this case, the candidate had
only 90 minutes to complete 18 items. This averages out to five minutes for
each item. Preparing an outline probably took him 20 or 30 minutes, which
reduced his available time by one-third. He would have been better off sim-
ply doing a preliminary sort to determine priorities and then to begin work-
ing on the highest priorities and working his way down to the lowest ones.

should be mindful of their time limitations and don’t be con-
fused by what others have suggested.
Your first in-basket may be somewhat overwhelming.
Example Two: There was another case in which a person got through
most of the items in the In-Basket but failed to complete some of the most
important items. When asked about his strategy in doing the In-Basket, he
said that he decided to start with all the “easy” items (e.g., those having the
least importance) to get them out of the way and then go on to complete
the more difficult items. It was explained to him that the easiest items are
also the least important and should therefore be left to do after the most dif-
ficult items (e.g., the most important) have been completed. Failing to com-
plete the most important items cost this person dearly in this exercise.

should think about their priorities and get the most impor-
tant ones done first and then finish with the least important
ones if they have time left.
The Employee Meeting (or Counseling) Exercise is a basic exercise and

one that may be encountered in any assessment center. It falls into the cat-
egory of what I call “Supervision 101,” meaning that it is intended to simu-
late a fundamental responsibility of every police or fire supervisor. This does
not mean that it is an easy exercise, because experience has proven that it
is not. There are many ways to do poorly in this exercise. Some of these are
described below.
Example one: I recall one case in which a candidate for Police Sergeant
was told that he was about to conduct an interview with an officer who was
performing poorly. This officer was coming in late for work, failing to get his
reports done on time, leaving critical information out of those reports, and
doing very little in the way of self-initiated activity. The candidate, who was
to assume the role of a new shift sergeant, was asked to speak with the of-
ficer, find out why these problems were occurring, and attempt to bring about
an improvement in the officer’s performance. As the candidate was brought
into the exercise room, the role player was standing near the desk and was
greeted by the candidate saying, “Sit down and be quiet. I have something
to say to you.” The candidate went on to tell the officer, as if he were a three-
year-old child, what was expected of him. There was no dialogue, no prob-
ing for facts, no attempt to discover if there were reasons for the officer’s
behavior. Instead, the candidate chose to adopt a dictatorial posture when
dealing with the officer, which merely resulted in hostility by the officer and
the creation of even more serious problems in the future.
Candidates sometime seem to anticipate that they will be given a rough
time by role players and therefore want to try to gain the upper hand early
by letting the role player know who is in charge. This is a tactical error since
it suggests that the candidate already knows the problem before beginning
the interview and has chosen a solution before knowing all the facts. It is
much better to keep an open mind until the candidate knows the entire sit-
uation and then choose a course of action appropriate for the facts they
have uncovered.

should keep an open mind when beginning the exercise. They
should not form preconceived opinions before they know the
facts. They should ask good questions, find out what is going
on, and then choose an appropriate course of action.
Example Two: In another case, a candidate for Fire Lieutenant was in-
structed to speak with a firefighter on his crew who had a bad attitude about
women. The firefighter was supposedly known to have a poor regard for
women in the fire service and to make a number of derogatory remarks
about the ability of women to do the job. The candidate was instructed to
speak with the firefighter to let him know that this attitude has no place in the
fire station and that future acts of this kind might lead to disciplinary action.
The candidate began to explain the purpose of the interview to the role
player, but within two or three minutes the role player had completely taken
over the exercise. The candidate listened quietly as the role player man-
aged to steer the conversation away from what the candidate was supposed
to be discussing. By the time the exercise ended, the role player had totally
dominated the conversation and the original purpose of the meeting had
been lost somewhere along the way.
Strong role players can be very skilled in gaining control of this exercise
and getting the conversation to go in a different direction from that intended.
Candidates need to be alert to this possibility and to find a way to gain con-
trol of the exercise early on and to retain control so that the purpose of the
meeting is eventually satisfied. At the same time, it is important to allow the
role player the opportunity to say what is on his or her mind and to partici-
pate in the conversation. Being in control of the exercise is not the same
thing as dominating it. Candidates must be able to recognize the difference.

should find a way to establish control of the exercise early
on and to make sure that the role player does not get them
to deviate from the original purpose of the meeting. Candi-
dates should remember that on the highway of life, there
are drivers and passengers, and in this exercise, they need
to be behind the wheel.
Example Three: Problem-solving is a key component of the Employee

Meeting Exercise. A candidate is given a problem and is expected to resolve
it during the exercise. The manner in which a candidate intends to solve the
problem is manifested by explaining to the employee (and thereby, to the as-
sessors) what actions they plan to take in dealing with the problem. Failure
to make this clear to the employee (and to the assessors) will inevitably
cause them many problems in this exercise.
In one case, a candidate did a very good job of explaining his concerns
to the role player, in asking questions designed to find out what the em-
ployee knew about the problem and in establishing a good rapport with the
employee. Unfortunately, after about seven minutes of conversation, the
candidate closed his notebook and terminated the meeting, telling the em-
ployee he would get back to him later. After leaving the exercise room, the
candidate asked me when he would be allowed to go back and explain to
the assessors how he planned to deal with the problem. “That was your
chance,” I said as the color drained from his face and he realized his error.

should make it perfectly clear to the employee what course
of action they intend to follow when dealing with the prob-
lems presented. In most cases they will not be allowed to go
back later and tell the assessors what they plan on doing.
Example Four: A favorite strategy of the role player in the Employee

Meeting Exercise is to say and do certain things during the interview that will
challenge the authority of the candidate and perhaps provoke him or her to
say or do something which they may later regret. A good role player can be
very successful in using certain terms and engaging in certain types of be-
havior that will provoke the candidate into losing his or her temper, which
would be a critical error in this exercise.
In one case, a candidate for Police Lieutenant was dealing with a recal-
citrant sergeant who had failed to do a proper job of handling a citizen com-
plaint the previous day. Candidates were expected to explain to the sergeant
the proper way to deal with citizens and to let him know that he had mishan-
dled the incident in question. Finally, candidates were expected to gain ac-
ceptance by the role player of a course of action leading to a more accep-
table way of dealing with such complaints.
The role player in this exercise was very consistent among all candidates
in his statements and behavior. At one point during the interview, he said to
the candidate, “Well, now, lieutenant, I’ve been taking these complaints
since you were in the academy!” The obvious intention of this remark was
to provoke the candidate into losing his or her temper. For the most part,
candidates found an acceptable way of dealing with this remark, although
some handled It much better than others. One candidate, however, who was
obviously getting more and more frustrated as the interview progressed,
slammed his fist down on the table when the role player made his insulting
remark and yelled something very unflattering to the role player and pointed
his finger at him in a threatening manner. At that very moment, the tone and
tenor of the exercise changed dramatically. The interview went from one of
counseling an employee to one of threat and intimidation, and the candi-
date fared poorly at the hands of the assessors.

should maintain control of their temper and not allow them-
selves to become provoked. When they lose control of their
temper, they lose control of the situation. Candidates must
remain in control, not by threat or intimidation, but by their
sheer command presence and attitude of confidence.
The TACTiCAl fire Problem
In my mind, fighting a real fire, where you have the advantage of sight,
sound, touch, smell, and dealing with real, live, tangible objects, is easier in
some ways than trying to fight a fire under the artificially controlled conditions
imposed within the framework of an assessment center exercise.
Experienced firefighters at the scene of a real fire know instinctively what
to do and what to expect from other crews at the scene. Unfortunately, things
don’t often work that way in a simulated fire problem.
One of the ways to do very poorly in this exercise is to fail to get enough
help on the scene as quickly as possible. Because the scenario moves so
quickly, many candidates don’t realize until it is too late that they simply don’t
have enough personnel and equipment to do the job expected of them. Few
candidates have ever been criticized for having too many personnel and
pieces of apparatus at a fire scene, but many have been criticized for not
having enough. As they often say, “You can always turn them around!”
Example One: In one case, a candidate was assigned to handle a fire in
a first-floor apartment unit in a three-floor, twelve-unit apartment complex.
The first alarm to this location provided him with two engines, one truck and
one squad. No ambulance was assigned on the initial alarm. The time of
the fire was 6:00 a.m. on a weekday, which meant that there was a strong
possibility of life safety as an issue.
Most strategies would call for one engine to make a quick attack and a
second to provide a backup line while the truck crew conducts primary
search and rescue. This leaves one squad to either begin ventilation once
the seat of the fire has been discovered, or to begin a primary search on the
second and third floor or to be assigned as a Rapid Intervention Team (RIT).
In short, all companies are committed almost immediately upon their arrival
at the fire scene.
In this particular case, the candidate waited more than seven minutes to
call for a second alarm, which would have brought in three additional en-
gines, one truck, and one ambulance. An even smarter move would have
been to call for an ambulance due to the potential number of casualties.
This candidate did neither and was faced with an escalating fire problem,
causing him to split his companies, assign them multiple tasks, and wear
them out in a hurry.

should call for help early in the process and anticipate all
possible contingencies so that they can be proactive in
their tactical approach rather than reactive.
Example Two: In another case, a candidate was assigned to respond to

a fire in a two-story wood frame house having balloon frame construction.
Upon arrival, the candidate saw smoke showing from the roof in the rear of
the building. He established command at the front of the building and never
did a walk-around or “360,” nor did he assign anyone to go to the rear of the
building to get a better view of the fire. In actuality, the fire was in the base-
ment of the building and the smoke was venting through a chase in the walls
and into the roof. A quick walk-around by the candidate would have pro-
vided him with a view of the rear of the building, which would have revealed
the true location and nature of the fire. In this case, most of his tactical de-
cisions were poor because he was making an incorrect assumption about
the location and nature of the fire.

should do a walk-around very early in the exercise. This will
normally give them additional views of the fire building
which in turn will provide them with a much better idea of
the scope and location of the fire.
The CommUniTY meeTinG eXerCise
The Community Meeting Exercise can be difficult for those persons who
are unaccustomed to speaking before groups or who have a hard time think-
ing on their feet. While formal training in public speaking is not required, it
would be helpful to anyone who is expected to participate in this kind of ex-
ercise.
One of the keys to this exercise is being able to listen to what others have
to say and to answer questions asked by members of the audience. In most
cases, the questions will be developed in advance of the exercise and will
be geared to actual issues in the community. For example, role players act-
ing as community members may be prompted to ask questions about gang
problems in the area, speeding cars, or juveniles creating a disturbance in
the parks and playgrounds. Candidates would be expected to respond with
answers which are appropriate for the issues presented to them.
It is important that candidates keep an open mind when participating in
this kind of exercise and that they do not attempt to impose their own
agenda or ideas upon those in the audience. Otherwise, they may very well
lose the interest of the audience and find that what they have to say has
fallen on deaf ears.
Example One: In one situation, a candidate for Police Lieutenant was
asked to meet with a group of community residents to discuss a number of
issues that they had previously complained about. The candidate was ex-
pected to listen to what the residents had to say and attempt to formulate a
plan of action that would address the problems and concerns of the resi-
dents. In this particular case, a candidate “over prepared” for the exercise by
preparing a detailed presentation covering all the major points that he thought
needed to be addressed during the meeting. The problem was that he was
so intent on telling the residents what he had come to talk about that he failed
to listen to their questions. In fact, he refused to allow them to ask any ques-
tions, telling them instead that he would address their questions when he
was finished giving his presentation. Even when the role players persisted
and threatened to walk out of the meeting, the candidate would not capitu-
late and insisted upon completing his presentation. By the time he had fin-
ished, the audience had left and he was speaking to a row of empty chairs.

should not attempt to impose their own agenda on the au-
dience. Even though they might have something important
to say, it is not nearly as important as what the people in
the audience want to know. Candidates must listen to what
the audience has to say and tailor their presentation accord-
ingly.
The ProGrAm deVeloPmenT eXerCise
The Program Development Exercise is an excellent way to test a candi-

date’s ability to conduct original research, to tackle tough and complex tech-
nical issues, to prepare a well-written and properly-documented written
report, and to make an impressive oral presentation to an audience of crit-
ical assessors. In this exercise, candidates are often given a topic to re-
search and then are asked to prepare a written report to the “City Council,”
or the “Ways and Means Committee” or to a “Program Review Committee”
consisting of senior members of the police or fire department command staff.
Present your ideas in a skillful manner.
Candidates are sometimes given several days to work on their paper,

which allows them sufficient time to conduct original research, collect and
analyze data, and prepare one or more drafts before putting the final
touches on a final work product. The problem lies in the fact that there are
no controls to ensure that a candidate does his or her own work. Candi-
dates are, in effect, on the “honor system” and are expected to do their own
work and not rely upon a family member, a friend or acquaintance, or even
another candidate to do the work for them. Experience has shown, how-
ever, that a candidate who relies upon another person to do the work for
them will usually be discovered and will pay dearly for his or her transgres-
sion.
Example One: In one case, a candidate was given several hours to de-
velop a proposal for the adoption of a new policy dealing with referral of ju-
venile offenders by the police department. One particular candidate
submitted a very well-done paper, but during the oral presentation, the can-
didate had to continually refer to his paper and it became clear that he was
not familiar with the material. When asked by the assessors, the candidate
eventually admitted that he had not written the paper but that he had asked
his secretary to copy the paper from material that he had found on the topic.
His excuse was that the assignment was too difficult and that it was not re-
alistic to expect a completed work product in the time available. In view of
the fact that the other five candidates were given the same assignment and
were able to prepare their own papers, the assessors were not particularly
sympathetic to this candidate’s rationale. He failed the exercise.
The lesson that can be learned from this example is that you
should always do your own work. You may be pleasantly
surprised with the results, and you always enjoy the results
of your own efforts more than if someone else did the work
for you.
For the average police officer, handling citizen complaints is about as

basic as anything he or she will ever be called upon to do. To complete this
exercise successfully, however, candidates need to have good listening
skills. While it is not necessary that candidates be trained interviewers, they
do need to be able to listen thoughtfully to what people have to say and then
to formulate a plan of action that will solve whatever problem has been pre-
sented to them.
One of the errors that candidates sometime make in this exercise is to
treat the matter as “just another complaint,” when in reality, to the person
making the complaint, it is a very serious problem. Candidates need to show
the role player (and the assessors) that they are truly interested in what the
citizen has to say and that their complaint is the most important thing they
have to do at that very moment.
Example One: In one situation, a candidate showed very little sensitivity to
the citizen and very little interest in her complaint. Instead, the candidate
treated the scenario as an exercise in how to fill out a police report. He made
a point of asking all the questions necessary to complete the complaint form.
He showed absolutely no interest in what the citizen had to say. It was as if
the candidate was emulating Detective Joe Friday in the old “Dragnet” televi-
sion show. “Just the facts, ma’am, just the facts.” When the exercise was over,
the candidate had a perfectly completed report and a very angry citizen!

should practice active listening skills and let the citizen
know they are concerned about their problem. Candidates
should not write anything down—not even the citizen’s
name—until the citizen has had a chance to tell his or her
story. Then the candidate can go back and retrace the story
and begin to capture the essential points for their report.
Example Two: In another case, a candidate came to the Citizen Interview

Exercise with no paper or pen, even though he had been told that he would
be conducting a citizen interview and that he should “come prepared.” Those
instructions should have been sufficient, but apparently they were not.
Midway through the interview, the role player looked skeptically at the
candidate and asked him, “Aren’t you going to write this down?” She was ob-
viously very concerned about his failure to take any notes, as anyone in that
situation would be. The candidate replied, “No, I’ll remember everything.”
This was totally unbelievable and the candidate lost a great deal in the eyes
of the assessors, and the role player later reported that she felt the candi-
date was insincere and uncaring. She was probably right!

should come prepared for the exercise. If they know they
will be conducting an interview, they should bring a pad and
pen or pencil with them. It is their responsibility to come
prepared for the exercise.
The STaff MeeTing exerciSe
In nearly all assessment centers, there will almost certainly be one exer-
cise designed to test a candidate’s self-control as well as his or her ability
to deal effectively with thorny interpersonal problems. The Staff Meeting Ex-
ercise is one that often contains these elements. Typically, the candidate is
meeting with two or three staff personnel to talk about current issues or prob-
lems and one of the staff personnel engages in certain behavior designed
to provoke the candidate. How the candidate handles such a situation will
often reveal much about his or her character or style of leadership.
Group exercises are often included in an assessment center.
Example One: In one situation, a candidate for Chief of Police was meet-
ing with his senior management people during his first week on the job. One
of the senior commanders was also the president of the police union. Dur-
ing the meeting, the union president made it a point to let the new chief know
that the union was a force to be reckoned with in the department and he ex-
pected to have a voice in major policy matters. After about five minutes of
hearing more than he wanted to from the union president, the chief ejected
him from the meeting with a stern warning not to attempt to threaten or in-
timidate him again!
While the behavior of the union president was clearly out of line and
needed to be handled firmly by the Chief, there were many other ways that
this situation could have been handled. Instead, this candidate chose to
alienate the union president (and thus, a large majority of the department)
during his first week on the job. It would not take many more meetings like
this for the Chief to alienate just about every other member of the depart-
ment!

should seek conciliation rather than retribution when deal-
ing with provocative issues. Making enemies of respected
leaders is not the way to earn respect.
ConClUsion
While participating in an assessment center can be a challenging and ar-

duous process, it can also be a valuable learning experience, but only if you
are willing to admit your mistakes and have the capacity to learn from those
mistakes. There is no perfect candidate and it is by making mistakes that we
learn, develop, improve, and sharpen our skills. The only person who makes
no mistakes is the person who does nothing. The only person who cannot
learn from his mistakes is the person who is unwilling to admit and accept
his or her own imperfections.
Chapter 11
ensUrinG CAndidATe sATisfACTion WiTh

AssessmenT CenTer meThods
D espite some arguments to the contrary, assessment center methods

have proven to be a reliable, cost-effective, and valid means of predict-
ing future job performance. They are, in many municipalities, an integral
component of the public safety promotion or selection process. This is par-
ticularly important in view of the fact that police and fire promotional examina-
tions are often troublesome, owing to rather rigorous civil service requirements
and the rather strong unions representing members of these departments.
Getting candidates to believe in the fairness and validity of the process is an
important part of ensuring the success of any promotional examination. Expe-
rience has shown that candidates who believe that they have been fairly
treated and that the process in which they participated was a reasonable test
of their ability to perform the required duties of the position for which they were
being examined are much less likely to challenge the results of the examina-
tion, regardless of what score they received. There are, of course, exceptions
to this rule, and there are those persons who will never be satisfied with a pro-
motional examination unless they receive the top score.
There are six basic ways in which to ensure a reasonable level of candidate
satisfaction with a promotional examination based upon assessment center
methods. These should be considered basic to any assessment center in
which there is a belief that the results might be challenged, although there is
no guarantee that these safeguards, in and of themselves, will guarantee
against a challenge by a candidate. The experience of the author in conduct-
ing several hundred assessment centers involving more than a thousand can-
didates has demonstrated the value of the methods described below.
145
CAndidATe orienTATion
Although assessment centers are more common today than they were
ten years ago, many people find themselves participating in an assessment
center for the first time. This can be a very traumatic experience, particularly
when compared with other, more traditional, promotional examination meth-
ods. Chances are, a candidate has read about assessment centers or has
talked with a friend who has participated in an assessment center. The in-
formation received by these means may only increase a candidate’s fear of
the process. This fear can be lessened, but not altogether eliminated, by
conducting a brief orientation session prior to the assessment center. Gen-
erally, this session should take place no more than one week before the ac-
tual assessment center.
Make sure to attend the orientation session if there is one.
During the orientation session, the assessment center administrator

should explain the basic purposes of the assessment center, how it com-
pares with more traditional testing methods, and the advantages of the as-
sessment center over other methods. Generally, it is good to explain to the
candidate exactly how their performance will be evaluated, to include the
dimensions upon which they will be rated. The nature of the exercises may
also be discussed, although it is important not to provide too much detail
about the particular exercises.
It is a good idea to videotape the orientation for the benefit of those who,
through no fault of their own, are unable to attend. Some agencies make it
mandatory that candidates attend the orientation session. My own belief is
Ensuring Candidate Satisfaction with Assessment Center Methods 147
that it should not be necessary to coerce someone to do something that is

for their own benefit. If they choose not to attend, they have no one to blame
but themselves if they are poorly prepared for the process.
Some prefer to keep the orientation simple and basic without providing
candidates much insight into the scope and nature of the exercises or the
manner in which their performance will be evaluated in those exercises. This
attitude seems to grow out of the “shock philosophy” in which outwitting the
candidates seems to take precedence over evaluating candidates’ skills and
abilities. This notion is rather outmoded today and has been replaced by a
philosophy of openness and transparency in favor of fairness to the candi-
dates. An attitude of openness and honesty concerning the process will do
much to lessen candidates’ fear about what they are about to encounter and
will help them to prepare for what lies ahead. In the long run, this will also
help to avoid any complaints about unfair treatment.
CUsTomizinG The ProCess
One of the complaints most often made by fire or police personnel about
promotional testing is that it “wasn’t practical” or that it “had nothing to do
with my job.” This often occurs when agencies attempt to purchase generic
assessment center scenarios as a way of saving money or when they hire
a consultant to design a process who does not take the time to carefully
study the agency. When this occurs, it is often discovered that exercises
have little relevance to the agency or to the position for which a candidate
is being evaluated. For example, in one actual case, candidates for Sheriff’s
Captain were given an in-basket designed for a police chief who reported to
a city manager, mayor, and city council. As another example, it would not be
appropriate to assign candidates to present a speech to a local “community
group” on fire prevention or crime prevention if persons in that position are
not regularly expected to make such presentations.
A thorough job analysis should always precede the development of any
assessment center. This job analysis will help to ensure that the exercises
selected for the process are both agency-specific and position-relevant. The
job analysis should also provide sufficient information concerning the skills
and abilities needed for successful job performance which can be evalu-
ated during the assessment center exercises. Without a thorough job analy-
sis, the validity of any assessment center may be questionable.
Those interested in implementing the assessment center as a part of their
promotional process are urged to avoid the “cheap and easy” approach in
which “canned” exercises are used. Customized exercises which bring re-
alism and relevance to the process will cost more in the long run but are
worth every penny spent on them in terms of good results and satisfied can-
didates. On the other hand, nothing can be more frustrating and disappoint-
ing to a candidate than the realization that the process that will determine
their future in the department was done with an eye toward saving money
rather than finding the most qualified candidate for the position.
keePinG The eXerCises reAlisTiC And releVAnT
Candidates appreciate the fact that the exercises in which they partici-
pate are realistic, practical and related to the position for which they are
being evaluated. They do not appreciate a process in which they feel that
they have been taken advantage of by the assessors or in which they feel
that the odds are stacked against them. Unnecessarily adversarial role play-
ing, unrealistic time limits, and uncaring or obnoxious assessors all con-
tribute to an “I can’t win” feeling by a candidate. Realistic and relevant
exercises, on the other hand, help ensure a greater degree of comfort by
candidates and stimulates their interest in and satisfaction with the process
and the end results of that process.
Conducting a thorough job analysis, carefully studying job descriptions
and other pertinent data, observing position incumbents as they preform
their duties, and interviewing subject matter experts and other department
staff are the best ways to ensure that the exercises selected for the process
are relevant and appropriate. Although this requires an investment of time
and effort, the additional expense is well worth the effort. A satisfied candi-
date who believes that the process was practical and relevant, who is
treated fairly and believes that it was an open and competitive process is
one of the best ways to sell the program to others who may have not yet
made up their mind about the process.
seleCTion And qUAlifiCATions of Assessors
Police and fire personnel feel—rightly so—that their jobs are unique and
different and that only those who have walked in their shoes can properly un-
derstand what they do and how the job should be done. Although the prin-
ciples of supervision and management may not differ a great deal between
public and private sector organizations, it is difficult to convince an appli-
cant for Police Sergeant or Fire Lieutenant that someone who has not held
that position can properly evaluate someone who is being considered for
the position.
As a general rule, it is important that assessors be experienced in the po-
Assessors must be independent, qualified and impartial.
sition for which the candidates are being considered. It is usually preferred
that assessors, if currently employed in a police or fire agency, hold a posi-
tion or rank superior to that for which the candidates are being evaluated.
Whether active or retired, assessors should have no direct link with the
agency in which the candidates are employed or with any member of the
agency who may have a direct interest in the results of the process. The
credibility of the process can be seriously undermined if it is later discovered
that one of the assessors knew one of the candidates or might have been
unduly influenced by a previous relationship with someone in the depart-
ment.
It is also useful, but not essential, that assessors have previous experi-
ence with the assessment center method. If an inexperienced assessor is
to be used, it would certainly be a good idea to team that person up with an
experienced assessor—particularly one who is familiar with the methods to
be employed in evaluating candidates in that particular process. As dis-
cussed in Chapter 6, at least one state has mandated minimum training and
experience standards for assessors and it is very likely that this may be the
beginning of a trend in other states.
obTAininG feedbACk from CAndidATes
It is important that those responsible for designing and administering as-

sessment centers be continually on the alert for deficiencies in the process
and for ways in which they can improve the product they deliver. Methods
of evaluating candidates, the scope and nature of the exercises themselves,
and methods for administering the assessment center should be continually

evolving and improving so that the results achieved are as good as they can
be. Simply doing the same thing each time in the same manner and using
the same assessors and the same candidate evaluation methods is not
good enough. Like all things in life, change is inevitable and in this case,
change is one way to improve what we do.
Candidates appreciate getting feedback on their performance.
Candidates have an investment in the outcome of any assessment cen-

ter and how they feel about the process is an important consideration when
evaluating the results of the process. Candidates have a right to feel that
they were properly and fairly treated and that the exercises in which they
participated were appropriate and relevant to the position for which they
were being evaluated. In a sense, the candidates are just as much a “client”
as is the jurisdiction for which the assessment center is being conducted. As
a result, it is important that candidates have some means by which they can
express their feelings about the assessment center.
In addition, the developers and administrators of assessment centers
have a responsibility to constantly be alert for shortcomings and for ways in
which to improve what they do. Candidates often have excellent sugges-
tions for improving the quality of the process, and the assessment center de-
veloper or administrator should be receptive to these suggestions.
A good way of obtaining feedback from candidates regarding the fairness,
job relatedness, and objectivity of the assessment center process is to ask
them to complete a brief questionnaire following the process. It is usually a
good idea to do this immediately after they have completed the process
when everything is still fresh in their minds. Even though they may not know
how they have been rated by the assessors, they usually have a good idea
of how they fared. Candidates should not be asked to sign the question-
naire and their responses should remain anonymous, but it is often useful
to ask them something about themselves (e.g., length of service, level of
education, how many other assessment centers they have participated in,
etc.). An example of a candidate feedback questionnaire appears in Appen-
dix S.
The purpose of the questionnaire should be made clear to the candidates.
They should also be advised that their responses, whether positive or neg-
ative, will be summarized and reported back to the client organization. In
this way, if they want to express a concern or feel that they have a legitimate
complaint about the way the process was conducted, they will know that
local officials are made aware of their concerns.
Candidates should not be required to complete the questionnaire, but rather
encouraged to do so. It is a good idea to let them know that their responses
are reviewed and evaluated by the assessment center administrator and that
changes in the process are often the result of these responses. On the other
hand, positive responses from the candidates, which should be the rule rather
than the exception, help to validate the fairness and objectivity of the process
and to reinforce the value of the process to the organization.
CAndidATe debriefinG
The assessment center method is more than just a promotional tool. It is

a method of evaluating candidate capabilities and potential and this can be
used as a learning mechanism by the agency. In most cases, candidates
learn a great deal about their strengths and weaknesses simply by going
through the process. Most will profit by this experience and become better
Assessors may be asked to prepare written evaluations of a candidate’s performance.

candidates in the future.

A means of providing feedback to the candidates is a useful adjunct to the
assessment center process and it may help to alleviate any complaints of
unfairness that might otherwise be leveled against the process. Feedback
can be provided orally, in writing, or by videotape, or some combination of
these written narrative comments can be prepared by each assessor after
the conclusion of the process and these can then be combined into a sin-
gle document by the exercise administrator. In some cases, the exercise
administrator may wish to simply prepare a written narrative report para-
phrasing the comments of the assessors. These will usually include state-
ments concerning how the candidate might correct any deficiencies in
performance noted by the assessors.
It is usually desirable to schedule individual debriefing sessions as soon
as possible after the conclusion of the assessment center. At this time, can-
didates can be given a copy of the written narrative report and allowed to
discuss the conclusions and recommendations contained in it with the ex-
ercise administrator. This “one-on-one” level of personal involvement helps
to assure the candidate that his or her interests are being protected and that
their Agency is totally committed to openness and fairness in the process.
It is important that candidates understand that the debriefing process is
intended to provide them with useful feedback and construction suggestions
on how they can improve their performance in the future. It is not intended
to be used as a “gripe session” in which candidates complain about the as-
sessors and the process in general. If the agency has a process whereby
candidates are allowed to challenge the results of the assessment center it
should be separate and apart from the candidate debriefing session. Those
candidates who are open to constructive criticism and who are willing to
admit their own mistakes will profit a great deal from these sessions, while
those few candidates who are simply looking for an excuse for their own in-
adequacies will likely find these sessions relatively useless.
Videotaped assessor comments can be invaluable in allowing candidates
to hear and see, in living color, the assessors’ evaluations of their perform-
ance. These comments are usually recorded at the conclusion of the
process and may or may not include a recitation of how the candidate was
scored by the assessors in each exercise.1 In this way, candidates will have
the benefit of knowing how the assessors viewed their performance. This
may provide them with a unique insight into their skills and capabilities that
may not be possible with traditional promotional testing procedures. Indeed,
most testing procedures reveal only a candidate’s score and do not reflect
how that score was achieved nor how it might be improved in future testing
1Local civil service rules might dictate that this information be withheld altogether or until final scores are
posted.
processes.
If it is neither possible nor desirable to provide videotaped or electronically
recorded feedback, written feedback can also be provided. This can be done
either by requiring assessors to provide narrative accounts of their observa-
tions of the candidates’ strengths and weaknesses, which may prove to be
a very laborious task and which will also depend on the ability of the individ-
ual assessor to provide such narrative, or by using standardized forms such
as shown in Appendix T, which can be produced relatively easily and with
satisfactory results.
ConClUsion
Like other testing methods, there are no guarantees that persons who
score well in an assessment center will perform exactly as predicted once
promoted to a new position. However, the predictability of this method is
high, and it is for this reason that assessment centers have enjoyed a long
history of success in police and fire testing. Contrary to what some may
have believed a decade ago, assessment centers are not a thing of the past,
but rather have been established as a legitimate and reliable method of as-
sessing future job performance.
Despite their reliability and success, however, experience has shown that
one poor experience with an assessment center may ruin any chance that
might have existed to incorporate this method into promotional procedures.
The simple and practical steps outlined above can help to ensure that candi-
dates accept the validity of the process as well as the results produced by it.
Chapter 12
ConClUsion
T he assessment center method is a valid and reliable means of evaluat-

ing a person for promotion or advancement in police departments, fire
departments and just about any other occupational field. It is not a fad, but
rather a well-established, carefully thought out process that attempts to place
the right person in the right job. However, the assessment center process
may not be right for all organizations and may not always be the sole or best
method of evaluating personnel for promotion or assignment. Written exam-
inations, oral interviews, psychological examinations, on the job perform-
ance evaluations, and other methods should not be ruled out as useful and
valid means by which to judge a person’s ability to perform successfully in
another position.
Any attempt to implement an assessment center process for the first time
should be approached carefully and with full consideration of what is in-
volved. Each process needs to be tailored to meet the particular needs of the
individual organization and the requirements of the position for which can-
didates are being evaluated. Short cuts and attempts to implement this kind
of a process cheaply and easily should be avoided because this can often
lead to disastrous results that may make it impossible to “sell” the process
in the future. While it may not be necessary to engage an independent con-
sultant to design and administer an assessment center, it is wise to have
someone on the staff who has assessment center experience and who has
worked as an assessor and who will be responsible for the design and ad-
ministration of the process.
This book has attempted to provide an overview of the assessment cen-
ter process for both the future candidate and for the municipal administrator
who may be evaluating whether or not to implement an assessment center
process in the future. For the latter, the best teacher is experience. If you are
154
Conclusion 155
seriously interested in implementing this kind of process in your organiza-

tion, talk to colleagues who have experience with assessment centers. You
will probably find a wide range of views among these persons, but the gen-
eral consensus will no doubt be favorable. At the same time, you should be
aware of the negative comments about assessment centers that often arise
(see Chapter 3), and you should be prepared to answer them.
I would not have been involved in the design and administration of sev-
eral hundred assessment centers, involving several thousand candidates,
for several hundred positions, if I did not believe in the process and if I could
not convince others in the value of the process. I would not have taken the
time to write this book if I did not believe that the assessment center process
is a valid, reliable, and valuable method of evaluating candidates for future
positions. But experience is the best teacher, and the only way the reader
will learn whether what I have said here is truth or fiction is to experience the
process for themselves.
APPendiCes
Appendix A
AssessmenT CenTer GUidelines
GUidelines And eThiCAl ConsiderATions

for AssessmenT CenTer oPerATions1
international Task force on Assessment Center Guidelines2
This document is an update of several prior editions of guidelines and ethical

considerations for assessment center operations dating back to 1975. Each
set of guidelines was developed and endorsed by specialists in the research,
development, and implementation of assessment centers. The guidelines are
a statement of the considerations believed to be most important for all users
of the assessment center method. For instance, the use of job-related simu-
lations is a core concept when using the method. Job simulation exercises
allow individuals to demonstrate their abilities in situations that are important
on the job. As stressed in these guidelines, a procedure should not be repre-
sented as an assessment center unless it includes at least one, and usually
several, job-related simulations that require the assessee to demonstrate a
constructed behavioral response. Other important areas include assessor
selection and training, using ‘competencies’ as dimensions to be assessed,
validation, participants’ rights, and the incorporation of technology into as-
sessment center programs. The current guidelines discuss a number of con-
siderations in developing and using assessment centers in diverse cultural
settings.
International Task Force on Assessment Center Guidelines, “Guidelines and Ethical Considerations for As-
sessment Center Operations,” International Journal of Selection and Assessment, Vol 17, No 3 (Septem-
ber, 2009).
1 Endorsed by the 34th International Congress on Assessment Center Methods, 24 September 2008, Wash-
ington, DC, USA.

2Task Force Members are listed in Appendix A. Inquiries may be sent to Taskforce Co-Chairs Deborah E.
Rupp (derupp@illinois.edu) and Doug Reynolds (doug.reynolds@ddiworld.com), or any Taskforce member.
159
1. Purpose
This document’s intended purpose is to establish professional guidelines and

ethical considerations for users of the assessment center method. These guidelines
are designed to cover both existing and future applications. The title ‘assessment
center’ is restricted to those methods that follow these guidelines. These guidelines
will provide: (1) guidance to industrial/ organizational psychologists, organizational
consultants, human resource management (HRM) specialists and generalists, and
others who design and conduct assessment centers; (2) information to managers
deciding whether or not to institute assessment center methods; (3) instruction to
assessors serving on the staff of an assessment center; and (4) guidance on the
use of technology in assessments.
2. history of Guidelines
The growth in the use of the assessment center method over the last several
decades has resulted in a proliferation of applications in a variety of organizations.
Assessment centers currently are being used in industrial, educational, military,
government, law enforcement, and other organizational settings. From the begin-
ning, practitioners began to raise concerns that reflected a need for standards or
guidelines for users of the method. The 3rd International Congress on the Assess-
ment Center Method, which met in Quebec (May 1975), endorsed the first set of
guidelines. These were based on the observations and experience of a group of
professionals representing many of the largest users of the method.
Developments in the period 1975–1979 concerning federal guidelines related
to testing, as well as professional experience with the original guidelines, suggested
that the guidelines should be evaluated and revised. Therefore, the 1979 guidelines
included essential items from the original guidelines, but also addressed the rec-
ognized need for: (1) further definitions, (2) clarification of impact on organizations
and participants, (3) expanded guidelines on training, and (4) additional informa-
tion on validation. Since 1979, the use of assessment centers has spread to many
different organizations that are assessing individuals representing diverse types of
jobs. During this period, pressures to modify the assessment center method came
from three different sources. First, there had been attempts to streamline the pro-
cedures to make them less time consuming and expensive. Second, new theoret-
ical arguments and evidence from empirical research had been interpreted to mean
that the assessment center method does not work exactly as its proponents origi-
nally had believed, suggesting that the method should be modified. Third, many
procedures purporting to be assessment centers had not complied with previous
guidelines, because the guidelines may have been too ambiguous. Revisions in the
1989 third edition were designed to incorporate needed changes and to respond
to some of the concerns raised since 1979. The 1989 revision of these guidelines
was begun at the 15th International Congress on the Assessment Center Method
in Boston (April 1987) when Dr. Douglas Bray held discussions with many atten-
dees. Subsequently, Dr. Bray and Dr. George Thornton solicited additional com-
Appendix A 161
ments from a group of assessment center practitioners. The 1989 Task Force pro-
vided comments on drafts of a revision prepared by Bray and Thornton. A later
draft was circulated and discussed at the 16th International Congress held in May
1988 in Tampa.
The 1989 guidelines were written in response to comments obtained at the 1988
Congress and from members of the Task Force. The 1989 guidelines were en-
dorsed by a majority of the Task Force and by participants at the 17th International
Congress held in May 1989 in Pittsburgh.
Changes in the 1989 guidelines from prior editions included: (1) specification of
the role of job analysis; (2) clarification of the types of attributes/dimensions to be
assessed and whether or not attributes/dimensions must be used; (3) delineation
of the processes of observing, recording, evaluating, and aggregating information;
and (4) further specification of assessor training. The 2000 revision of these guide-
lines was initiated at the 27th International Congress on Assessment Center Meth-
ods in Orlando (June 1999) when Dr. David R. MacDonald conducted discussions
with a number of assessment center experts in attendance and also solicited input
at a general session regarding aspects of the guidelines that needed to be (re)ad-
dressed. A primary factor driving the revision was the passage of a full decade
since the 1989 edition. Other factors included a desire to integrate technology into
assessment center methods and recognition of the need for more specific defini-
tions of several concepts and terms. Input from members of the Task Force for the
2000 edition was synthesized into a final draft that was presented and endorsed at
the 28th International Congress held in May 2000 in San Francisco, attended by
150 participants representing Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Columbia, Ger-
many, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Mexico, the Netherlands, the Philippines, Sin-
gapore, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, the United Arab Emirates, the United
Kingdom, and the United States of America.
The current revision of these guidelines was initiated at the 32nd International
Congress on Assessment Center Methods, which was held in Las Vegas in Octo-
ber 2004. A roundtable discussion addressed contemporary assessment center is-
sues on which there had been little previous guidance. Subsequently, this
Congress decided that additions and revisions were needed in two areas: (1) Be-
cause of the proliferation of multinational organizations using assessment centers
across geographic regions, more guidance was needed on global assessment cen-
ter practices. The 32nd Congress established a separate task force to examine
the issue. A report from this task force served as the foundation for a new section
of the guidelines. (2) Given recent research on the effectiveness of various asses-
sor training components, the Congress suggested an expansion of guidelines in
this area as well. A second round of discussions on these issues was held in 2006
at the 33rd International Congress in London. These discussions suggested addi-
tional guidance in two areas: (1) the use of technology in assessment center prac-
tices, and (2) recognition of methodological differences among assessment centers
used for different purposes.
This revision, co-chaired by Deborah Rupp and Doug Reynolds, was unani-
mously endorsed by the 34th International Congress (2008, Washington, DC),
which was attended by delegates representing Austria, Belgium, Canada, China,

Germany, India, Indonesia, Mexico, the Netherlands, Romania, Russia, Singapore,
South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, the United Arab Emirates, the United
Kingdom, and the United States of America.
3. Assessment Center defined
An assessment center consists of a standardized evaluation of behavior based

on multiple inputs. Several trained observers and techniques are used. Judgments
about behavior are made, in major part, from specifically developed assessment
simulations. These judgments are pooled in a meeting among the assessors or by
a statistical integration process. In an integration discussion, comprehensive ac-
counts of behavior – and often ratings of it – are pooled. The discussion results in
evaluations of the assessees’ performance on the dimensions or other variables
that the assessment center is designed to measure. Statistical combination meth-
ods should be validated in accordance with professionally accepted standards.
Technology may be used to facilitate the writing of reports, presentation of ex-
ercise materials, scoring of dimensions, classification of behavior, etc., as long as
the essential elements described below are not compromised and validation stan-
dards are upheld.
There is a difference between an assessment center and assessment center
methodology. Various features of the assessment center methodology are used in
procedures that do not meet all the guidelines set forth herein, such as when a
psychologist or human resource professional, acting alone, uses a simulation as
part of an individual’s evaluation. Such personnel assessment procedures are not
covered by these guidelines; each should be judged on its own merits. Procedures
that do not conform to all the guidelines herein should not be represented as as-
sessment centers or imply that they are assessment centers by using the term ‘as-
sessment center’ as part of the title.
The following are the essential elements for a process to be considered an as-
sessment center:
1. Job analysis/competency modeling – A job analysis of relevant behaviors
must be conducted to determine the dimensions or competencies important to job
success in order to identify what should be evaluated by the assessment center.
Throughout this document the terms ‘dimensions’ and ‘competencies’ are used in-
terchangeably.
The type and extent of the job analysis depend on the purpose of the assess-
ment, the complexity of the job, the adequacy and appropriateness of prior infor-
mation about the job, and the similarity of the new job to jobs that have been
studied previously. If past job analyses and research are used to select dimensions
and exercises for a new job, evidence of the comparability or generalizability of the
jobs must be provided.
When the job does not currently exist, analyses can be done of actual or projected
tasks or roles that will comprise the new job, position, job level, or job family.
Target dimensions can also be identified from an analysis of the organization’s
vision, values, strategies, or key objectives.
Appendix A 163
Competency-modeling procedures may be used to determine the dimensions to

be assessed by the assessment center, if such procedures are conducted with the
same rigor as traditional job analysis methods. Rigor in this regard is defined as
the involvement of subject matter experts who are knowledgeable about job re-
quirements, the collection and quantitative evaluation of essential job elements,
and the production of evidence of reliable results. Any job analysis or competency-
modeling process must result in clearly specified categories of behavior that can
be observed in assessment procedures.
A “competency” may or may not be amenable to behavioral assessment as de-
fined herein. A competency, as used in various contemporary sources, refers to an
organizational strength, an organizational goal, a valued objective, a construct, or
a grouping of related behaviors or attributes. A competency may be considered a
behavioral dimension for the purposes of assessment in an assessment center
provided it can be defined precisely and expressed in terms of behaviors observ-
able on the job or in a job family and in simulation exercises. A competency also
must be shown to be related to success in the target job or position or job family.
2. Behavioral classification – Behaviors displayed by participants must be clas-
sified into meaningful and relevant categories such as behavioral dimensions, at-
tributes, characteristics, aptitudes, qualities, skills, abilities, competencies, or
knowledge. In these guidelines, the term ‘dimension’ is used as a general descrip-
tor for each type of behavior category. Note that other classification schemes also
may be used. For example, categories may reflect components of the target jobs
or the assessment itself.
3. Assessment techniques – The techniques used in the assessment center
must be designed to provide information for evaluating the dimensions previously
determined by the job analysis. Assessment center developers should establish a
link from behaviors to dimensions to assessment techniques. This linkage should
be documented in a dimension assessment technique matrix.
4. Multiple assessments–Multiple assessment techniques must be used. These
can include tests, interviews, questionnaires, and simulations. The assessment
techniques are developed or chosen to elicit a variety of behaviors and information
relevant to the selected dimensions. Self-assessment and 3601 assessment data
may be gathered as assessment information. The assessment techniques will be
pretested to ensure that they provide reliable, objective, and relevant behavioral in-
formation for the organization in question. Pretesting might entail trial administra-
tion with participants similar to assessment center candidates, thorough review by
subject matter experts as to the accuracy and representativeness of behavioral
sampling, and/or evidence from the use of these techniques for similar jobs in sim-
ilar organizations.
5. Simulations–The assessment techniques must include a sufficient number of
job-related simulations to allow opportunities to observe the candidate’s behavior
related to each dimension/competency being assessed. At least one – and usu-
ally several – job-related simulations must be included in each assessment center.
A simulation is an exercise or technique designed to elicit behaviors related to di-
mensions of performance on the job requiring the participants to respond behav-
iorally to situational stimuli. Examples of simulations include, but are not limited to,
group exercises, in-basket exercises, interaction (interview) simulations, presenta-

tions, and fact-finding exercises. Stimuli also may be presented through video,
audio, or virtual simulations delivered via computer, telephone, video, the Internet,
or an intranet.
For simple jobs, one or two job-related simulations may be used if the job analy-
sis clearly indicates that one or two simulations alone sufficiently simulate a sub-
stantial portion of the job being evaluated. If a single comprehensive assessment
technique is used, then it must include distinct job-related segments. Assessment
center designers should also be careful to design exercises that reliably elicit a
large number of dimension-related behaviors. This should provide assessors with
sufficient opportunities to observe dimension-related behavior. The stimuli con-
tained in a simulation should parallel or resemble stimuli in the work situation, al-
though they may be in different settings. The desirable degree of fidelity is a
function of the assessment center’s purpose. Fidelity may be relatively low for early
identification and selection programs for non-managerial personnel and may be
relatively high for programs designed to diagnose the training needs of experi-
enced managers. Assessment center designers should be careful that the exer-
cise content does not favor certain assessees (e.g., those in certain racial, ethnic,
age, or sex groups) for irrelevant reasons.
To qualify as a behavioral simulation for an assessment center as defined herein,
the assessment method must require the assessee to overtly display certain behav-
iors. The assessee must be required to demonstrate a constructed response. As-
sessment procedures that require the assessee to select only among provided
alternative responses, such as seen in multiple-choice tests or multiple-choice com-
puterized in-baskets, do not conform to this requirement. Likewise, a situational in-
terview that calls for only an expression of behavioral intentions does not conform.
Neither do ‘low-fidelity’ simulations and situational interviews. Although they may
yield highly reliable and valid assessment ratings, they do not constitute the behav-
ioral assessment required in assessment centers.
Assessment center materials (e.g., simulations and other exercises, rating
scales, assessor training materials) are often intellectual property protected by in-
ternational copyright laws. Respect for copyrights and the intellectual property of
others must be maintained under all circumstances.
6. Assessors–Multiple assessors must be used to observe and evaluate each
assessee.
When selecting assessors, where appropriate, the program should strive to have
diverse assessors, both in terms of demographics (e.g., race, ethnicity, age, sex)
and experience (e.g., organizational level, functional work area, managers, psy-
chologists, etc.). The maximum ratio of assessees to assessors is a function of
several variables, including the type of exercises used, the dimensions to be eval-
uated, the roles of the assessors, the type of integration carried out, the amount of
assessor training, the experience of the assessors, and the purpose of the assess-
ment center.
Appendix A 165
A participant’s current supervisor should not be involved in the assessment of a

direct subordinate when the resulting data will be used for selection or promotional
purposes.
7. Assessor training–Assessors must receive thorough training and demonstrate
performance that meets the guidelines in the “Assessor Training” section of this
document before participating in an assessment center.
8. Recording behavior and scoring – A systematic procedure must be used by
assessors to record specific behavioral observations accurately at the time of ob-
servation. This procedure might include techniques such as handwritten notes,
behavioral observation scales, or behavioral checklists.
Audio and video recordings of behavior may be made and analyzed at a later
date.
When technology-based tools are used during the scoring process, these ap-
proaches should be evaluated for reliability and accuracy.
Assessors must prepare a record of the observations made during each exer-
cise before the integration discussion or statistical integration.
9. Data integration–The integration of each individual’s behaviors (individual di-
mension scores aggregated across exercises; exercise-specific scores; or poten-
tially, depending on the purpose of the assessment center, across-exercise scores
aggregated into an overall assessment rating) must be based on pooled informa-
tion from assessors or through a statistical integration process. The process used
should be carried out in accordance with professionally accepted standards.
If an integration discussion is used, assessors should consider information de-
rived from the assessment techniques for each dimension, but should not consider
information irrelevant to the dimensions or the purpose of the assessment process.
Methods of combining assessors’ evaluations of information discussed in their
integration sessions must be based on reliable individual assessors’ ratings. Com-
puter technology may also be used to support the data integration process, pro-
vided the conditions of this section are met.
4. nonassessment Center Activities
The following kinds of activities do not constitute an assessment center:

1. Assessment procedures that do not require the assessee to demonstrate
overt behavioral responses are not behavioral simulations; thus, any assessment
program that consists solely of such procedures is not an assessment center as de-
fined herein. Examples of these are computerized in-baskets calling only for mul-
tiple choice responses, situation interviews calling only for behavioral intentions,
and written competency tests. Procedures not requiring an assessee to demon-
strate overt behavioral responses may be used within an assessment center, but
must be coupled with at least one simulation requiring the overt display of behav-
iors.
2. Panel interviews or a series of sequential interviews as the sole technique.
3. Reliance on a single technique (regardless of whether it is a simulation) as the
sole basis for evaluation. However, a single comprehensive assessment technique
that includes distinct job-related segments (e.g., large, complex simulations or vir-
tual assessment centers with several definable components and with multiple op-
portunities for observation in different situations) is not precluded by this restriction.
4. Using only a test battery composed of a number of paper-and-pencil meas-
ures, regardless of whether the judgments are made by a statistical or judgmental
pooling of scores.
5. Single-assessor evaluation (i.e., measurement by one individual using a va-
riety of techniques, such as paper-and-pencil tests, interviews, personality meas-
ures, or simulations).
6. The use of several simulations with more than one assessor but with no pool-
ing of data (i.e., each assessor prepares a report on performance in an exercise,
and then the individual, un-integrated reports are used as the final product of the
center).
7. A physical location labeled as an “assessment center” that does not conform
to the methodological requirements noted above.
5. Assessment Center Policy statement
Assessment centers operate more effectively as part of an integrated human

resource system. Before the introduction of an assessment center into an organi-
zation, a policy statement should be prepared and approved by the organization.
This policy statement should address the following areas:
1. Objective–An assessment center may be used for a variety of purposes.
Falling into the broad categories of selection vs diagnosis vs development, such
purposes might include prescreening, hiring, early identification and evaluation of
potential, performance appraisal, succession planning, and professional develop-
ment. An assessment center participant should be told, before the assessment,
what decision(s) will or might be made with assessment center data. If the organ-
ization desires to make decisions with the data other than those previously com-
municated to the participant, the decision(s) should be clearly described to the
participant and consent obtained.
In addition, the assessment center developer must remain cognizant of the as-
sessment center’s purpose when designing, developing, implementing, and validat-
ing the program. Decisions about the choice of dimensions, content of simulations,
selection and training of assessors, scoring, feedback, and evaluation all should be
made with the objective in mind.
2. Assessees–The population to be assessed, the method for selecting as-
sessees from this population, the procedure for notification, and the assessment
process should be specified.
3. Assessors–The assessor population (including sex, age, race, and ethnic
mix), limitations on the use of assessors, assessor experience, and evaluation of
assessor performance and certification requirements, where applicable, should be
specified.
4. Use of data–The process flow of assessment records within the organization,
individuals who receive reports, restrictions on access to information, procedures
Appendix A 167
and controls for research and program evaluation purposes, feedback procedures
to management and employees, and the length of time data will be maintained in
files should all be specified. Particularly for a selection application, it is recom-
mended that the data be used within 2 years of the date of administration because
of the likelihood of change in the participant or the organization.
5. Qualifications of consultant(s) or assessment center developer(s)–The inter-
nal or external consultant( s) responsible for the development of the center or of the
exercises/simulations for the center should be identified and his or her professional
qualifications and related training specified.
6. Validation–The statement should specify the validation model being used. If
a content-oriented validation strategy is used, the documentation of the relationship
of the job/job family content to the dimensions and exercises should be presented
along with evidence of the reliability of the observations and rating of behavior. If
evidence is being taken from prior validation research, which may have been sum-
marized in meta-analyses, the organization must document that the current job/job
family and assessment center are comparable and generalized to the jobs and as-
sessment centers studied elsewhere. If local criterion-related validation has been
carried out, full documentation of the study should be provided. If validation stud-
ies are under way, there should be a schedule indicating when a validation report
will be available. Finally, the validation technique employed should be appropriate
given the purpose/objective of the assessment center program (e.g., selection vs
development).
7. Legal context – Laws existing both in an organization’s/ agency’s home state,
province, or nation – as well as in the state, province, or nation where the assess-
ment center program is being carried out – may have implications for program de-
sign, validation, implementation, and documentation. Most nations have dis-
advantaged and protected groups (such as native/ aboriginal people, recent immi-
grants, racial groups, religious groups, and groups defined by age, political opin-
ion, sexual orientation, etc.) with accompanying regulations for legal protections
for their members. The policy statement should articulate the particular laws and
policies that are relevant for the assessment center program and state how legal
compliance will be ensured.
6. Assessor Training
Assessor training is an integral part of the assessment center program. Asses-

sor training should have clearly stated training objectives, performance guidelines,
and quality standards.
The following issues related to training must be considered:
1. Training content–Whatever the approach to assessor training, the objective is to
obtain reliable and accurate assessor judgments. A variety of training ap-
proaches may be used (e.g., lectures, discussion, observation of practice can-
didates, video demonstrations, observation of other assessors) as long as it can
be shown that reliable, accurate assessor judgments are obtained. At a general
level, all assessor training programs should include training on:
• The dimensions to be assessed, including their behavioral definitions.

• The observation, recording, classification, and evaluation of behaviors rel-
evant to the dimensions to be assessed.
• The content of the exercises as well as which dimensions are targeted in
which exercises.
• The avoidance of common observational and rating errors (including how to
distinguish behaviors from inferences).
Depending on the purpose of the assessment center, the training might include
additional components such as professionalism, knowledge of the organization,
knowledge of the target job, the ability to give accurate oral or written feedback, and
consistency in role playing.
The following minimum training goals are required:
a. Knowledge of the organization and job/job family or normative group being as-
sessed to provide an effective context for assessor judgments where appropri-
ate.
b. Thorough knowledge and understanding of the assessment dimensions, their
definitions, their relationship to job performance, and examples of effective and
ineffective performance.
c. Thorough knowledge and understanding of the assessment techniques, exer-
cise content, relevant dimensions to be observed in each portion of the assess-
ment center, expected or typical behavior, examples or samples of actual
behaviors, etc.
d. Demonstrated ability to observe, record, and classify behavior in dimensions, in-
cluding knowledge of the protocol for documenting behavior.
e. Thorough knowledge and understanding of evaluation and rating procedures, in-
cluding how data are integrated.
f. Thorough knowledge and understanding of assessment policies and practices
of the organization, including restrictions on how assessment data are to be
used, when this is a requirement of assessors.
g. Thorough knowledge and understanding of feedback procedures and strate-
gies, where appropriate, to maximize assessees’ acceptance of feedback and
behavior change.
h. Demonstrated ability to give accurate oral and written feedback, when feedback
is given by the assessors.
i. Demonstrated knowledge and ability to play objectively and consistently the role
called for in interactive exercises (e.g., one-on-one simulations or factfinding
exercises) when role playing is required of assessors. Non-assessor role play-
ers also may be used if their training results in their ability to play the role ob-
jectively and consistently.
2. Training length–The length of assessor training may vary due to a variety of
considerations that can be categorized into three major areas:
a. Trainer and instructional design considerations:
Appendix A 169
• The instructional mode(s) utilized.

• The qualifications and expertise of the trainer.
• The training and instructional sequence.
b. Assessor considerations:
• Previous knowledge and experience with similar assessment techniques.

• Type of assessors used (e.g., professional psychologists vs managers).
• Experience and familiarity with the organization and the target position(s)/
job(s)/job families/target level.
• The frequency of assessor participation.
• Other related qualifications and expertise (e.g., testing and assessment, ex-
ecutive coaching).
c. Assessment program considerations:
• The target position’s level of difficulty.

• The number of dimensions/competencies to be rated.
• The anticipated use of the assessment information (e.g., immediate selec-
tion, broad placement considerations, diagnosis, development).
• The number and complexity of the exercises.
• The division of roles and responsibilities between assessors and others on
the assessment staff (e.g., administrator and other support staff).
• The degree of support provided to assessors in the form of observation and
evaluation guides.
It should be noted that length and quality of training are not synonymous. Pre-
cise guidelines for the minimum number of hours or days required for assessor
training are difficult to specify. One day of training may be sufficient for a well-struc-
tured assessment center using a small number of exercises, a qualified trainer,
and carefully selected assessors. However, extensive experience has shown that,
for the initial training of assessors who have no experience in an assessment cen-
ter that conforms to the guidelines in this document, more training may be needed
(e.g., 2 days of assessor training for each day of assessment center exercises). As-
sessors who have experience with similar assessment techniques in other pro-
grams may require less training. More complex assessment centers with varied
formats of simulation exercises may require additional training; simple assessment
centers may require less. In any event, assessor training is an essential aspect of
an assessment program. The true test of training quality should be assessor com-
petence as described below.
3. Performance guidelines and certification – Each assessment center should have

clearly stated performance guidelines for assessors contingent on the purpose of
the assessment center and the various assessor roles. These performance guide-
lines should include, at a minimum, the ability to:
a. Rate behavior in a standardized fashion.

b. Recognize, observe, and report behavior into the appropriate dimensions, etc.
c. Administer an exercise if the assessor serves as an exercise administrator.
d. Play objectively and consistently the role called for in those interactive exer-
cises where role playing is required of assessors.
e. If applicable, deliver positive and negative behavioral feedback, if applicable,
with supporting evidence in a manner that conveys concern/empathy and
maintains or enhances the assessee’s self-esteem.
f. Motivate assessees and engage in coaching, action planning, and goal setting.
Some measurement is needed to indicate that the individual being trained is ca-
pable of functioning as an assessor. This measurement may vary and could in-
clude data in terms of (1) accuracy and reliability of rating performance (defined
with regard to either an ‘expert’ standard or convergence with other assessors),
(2) critiques of assessor reports, and (3) observation or shadowing of assessors in
training by the assessment center staff. It is important that, before carrying out their
actual duties, assessors’ performance is evaluated to ensure that they are suffi-
ciently trained to function as assessors and that such performance is periodically
monitored to ensure that the skills learned in training are applied.
Each organization must be able to demonstrate that its assessors can meet min-
imum performance standards. This may require the development of additional train-
ing or other prescribed actions for assessors not meeting these performance
guidelines. The trainer of assessors should be competent to enable individuals to
develop the assessor skills stated above and to evaluate the acquisition of these
skills.
4. Currency of training and experience – The time between assessor training and
initial service as an assessor should be short (e.g., not to exceed 6 months). If
a longer period has elapsed, prospective assessors should attend a refresher
course or receive special coaching from a trained assessment center adminis-
trator.
Assessors who do not have recent experience as an assessor (i.e., fewer
than two assessment centers over 2 consecutive years) should attend a re-
fresher course before they serve again or receive special coaching from a
trained assessment center administrator.
7. informed Participation
The organization is obligated to make an announcement before the assessment

so that participants will be fully informed about the program. Ideally, this informa-
tion should be made available in writing before the center. A second option is to
present the information at the start of the program. While the information provided
will vary across organizations, the following basic information should be given to all
participants:
Appendix A 171
1. Objective(s)–The objective(s) of the program and the purpose of the assess-

ment center. The organization may choose to disclose the dimensions meas-
ured and the general nature of the exercises before the assessment.
2. Selection–How individuals are selected to participate in the center.
3. Choice(s)–Any options the individual has regarding the choice of participat-
ing in the assessment center as a condition of employment, advancement, de-
velopment, etc.
4. Staff–General information on the assessor staff and the role of the observer,
including composition, relevant experience, and assessor training.
5. Materials–What assessment center materials completed by the individual are
collected and maintained by the organization.
6. Results–How the assessment center results will be used, what recommenda-
tions will be made, and how long the assessment results will be maintained
on file.
7. Feedback–When, how (e.g., written, face-to-face, technology-aided), and
what kind of feedback (e.g., by dimension, by exercise, by a combination) will
be given to the participants.
8. Development–Mechanisms for follow-up support and monitoring, if any (e.g.,
external coaching, training, mentoring; top management/supervisory support).
9. Alignment–How the assessment center results will be aligned with organiza-
tional strategy and culture, and how the results will be integrated with other
HRM systems.
10. Reassessment–The procedure for reassessment (if any).
11. Access–Who will have access to the assessment center reports (and audio
and/or video files, if applicable) and under what conditions.
12. Contact–Who will be the contact person responsible for the records and
where the results will be stored or archived.
8. Validation issues
A major factor in the widespread acceptance and use of assessment centers is

related directly to an emphasis on sound validation research. Numerous studies
demonstrating the predictive validity of individual assessment center programs
have been conducted in a variety of organizational settings and reported in the
professional literature. However, the historical record of this process’s validity can-
not be taken as a guarantee that a given assessment program (or new application
of an existing program) will or will not be valid. Ascertaining the validity of an as-
sessment center program is a complicated technical process, and it is important
that validation research meets both professional and legal standards. Research
should be conducted by individuals knowledgeable in the technical and legal issues
pertinent to validation procedures. In evaluating the validity of assessment center
programs, it is particularly important to document the selection of the dimensions
assessed in the center. The relationship of assessment exercises to the dimen-
sions assessed should be documented as well.
Validity generalization studies of assessment center research suggest that over-

all assessment ratings derived in a manner conforming to these guidelines show
considerable predictive validity. Such findings support the use of a new assess-
ment center in a different setting if the job, exercises, assessors, and assessees
in the new situation are similar to those studied in the validation research and if sim-
ilar procedures are used to observe, report, and integrate the information. The va-
lidity generalization studies of the predictive validity of the overall assessment rating
do not necessarily establish the validity of the procedure for other purposes such
as diagnosis of training needs, accurate assessment of skill level in separate di-
mensions, or the developmental influence of participation in an assessment cen-
ter. The standards and principles for validation appear in Principles for the
Validation and Use of Personnel Selection Procedures (Society for Industrial and
Organizational Psychology Inc., 2003) and Standards for Educational and Psycho-
logical Testing (American Educational Research Association, American Psycho-
logical Association, & National Council on Measurements in Education, 1999). In
principle, technology can be used for writing reports, presenting exercises, scoring
dimensions, classifying behavior, or creating behavioral checklists, as long as the
assessment process remains valid.
9. Assessment Centers for different Purposes
Assessment centers are generally used for three major purposes: (1) to predict
future behavior for decision making, (2) to diagnose development needs, and (3)
to develop candidates on dimensions of interest. However, additional purposes for
the assessment center method currently exist and will continue to evolve with fur-
ther use. The design and operation of an assessment center may vary, depend-
ing on its intended purpose. For example, with assessments designed purely to
support a personnel decision (e.g., promotion), the emphasis may be on a reliable
and valid overall assessment rating. There may be little reason to generate individ-
ual dimension scores in this context. Alternatively, diagnostic assessment centers
may require the generation of reliable and valid dimension scores only.
Developmental assessment centers (DACs) seek to both assess and develop di-
mensions that may be learned (i.e., skills and competencies that can be improved
upon in a reasonable amount of time). DACs involve multiple points of feedback
and repeated practice, and may repeat exercises of the same type(s) as a way to
track improvement on the dimensions over time. As a result, such programs may
be longer than assessment centers for prediction and diagnosis. Feedback is an
essential component of a DAC program, and in order to foster learning, this feed-
back needs to be immediate. Often, the role of assessors in DACs is not only to ob-
serve and evaluate behavior, but also to facilitate learning and development by
delivering feedback and facilitating development planning during the assessment
process. If the focus is purely on learning, DACs may be less standardized than
assessment centers used for personnel decision making, and they may be cus-
tomized to meet participants’ developmental needs. When validating or otherwise
evaluating DACs, the appropriate criterion is change in participants’ understanding,
Appendix A 173
behavior, and proficiency on targeted dimensions. Because of the differences out-

lined above, assessment centers must be designed and implemented appropri-
ately for their intended purpose.
10. rights of the Participant
Assessment center activities typically generate a large volume of data on an in-

dividual who has gone through a center. These assessment data come in many
forms and may include observer notes, reports on performance in the exercises,
assessor ratings, peer ratings, paper-andpencil or computerized tests, video files,
and final assessment center reports. This list, while not exhaustive, does indicate
the extent of information about an individual that may be collected.
The following guidelines for use of these data are suggested:
1. Assessees should receive feedback on their assessment center performance
and should be informed of any recommendations made.
2. Assessees who are members of the organization have a right to read any formal
summary written reports concerning their own performance and recommenda-
tions that are prepared and made available to management. Applicants to an or-
ganization should be provided with, at a minimum, what the final recommendation
is and, if possible and if requested by the applicant, the reason for the recommen-
dation.
3. To ensure test security, assessment center exercises and assessor reports on
performance in particular exercises are exempted from disclosure, but the ra-
tionale and validity data concerning ratings of dimensions and the resulting rec-
ommendations should be made available on request of the individual assessee.
4. The organization should inform the assessee what records and data are being
collected, maintained, used, and disseminated. Assessees should be informed
if their activities in the assessment center are being recorded as well as if such
recordings or other personal datawill be transferred across national borders or
over the Internet. The organization must take precautions to ensure the secu-
rity of data transferred over the Internet. Organizations that collect personal data
during the assessment process should comply with applicable data protection
regulations, such as the European Union Directive on Data Protection and the
US Safe Harbor Privacy Principles.
5. If the organization decides to use assessment results for purposes other than
those originally announced and that can have an impact on the assessee, then
the assessee must be informed and consent obtained.
11. Conducting Assessment Centers Across Cultural Contexts
It is common for single assessment center programs to cross both cultural and
national boundaries. In some situations it may be necessary to adapt many as-
sessment center practices to the local culture in which an assessment center is
deployed. In other situations it may be decided that an assessment center program
should be standardized across all regions to which it is being deployed. Practi-
tioners using assessment center methods beyond the boundaries of the country/re-
gion from which the assessment center program originated should determine the
extent to which cultural accommodations may be necessary. The analysis should
include evidence that the validity and applicability of the assessment center have
not been compromised at either the design or implementation phase.
A range of contextual factors should be considered during such a process, includ-
ing:
• Extent of commonality in the cultural, business, legal, and socio-political environ-

ments between countries (e.g., cultural beliefs and behaviors, local business
laws).
• Differences in national guidelines set by local professional associations.
• Commonality of skills/dimensions critical for job success.
• Commonality in performance standards/behaviors required for job success.
• Extent of commonality of the business models between the organizations across
which the assessment center/method is being adapted (i.e., overall business
strategy, vision, values, and practices).
• Degree of centralized vs decentralized (i.e., local) control across branches of the
organization.
• Whether comparison statistics (e.g., normative comparisons) are required to in-
terpret the results across locations.
• Extent to which personnel need to be transferred across countries/cultures.
When assessment center programs are designed to be culturally specific, the fol-
lowing aspects should be considered for modification based on each culture in
which the assessment center is used:
• Selection of performance criteria.

• Criteria for occupational success.
• Selection of exercises.
• Assessor training.
• Feedback process.
In contrast, several aspects of the assessment center process should remain

standardized, even when the process has been culturally adapted. Features that
should remain the same across cultures include:
• Inclusion of behavioral observation.

• Training of assessors in the process of behavioral observation.
• Classification and rating of behavior.
• A systematic process of integrating evaluations across exercises, dimensions,
and assessors.
Appendix A 175
12. national Assessment Center Guidelines
In addition to the international guidelines presented herein, some countries have

developed local guidelines to govern (in parallel with the international guidelines)
assessment center practices in their specific national contexts. Examples of na-
tional standards include:
• South Africa: Assessment Centre Study Group. (2007). Guidelines for assess-
ment and development centres in South Africa (4th ed.).
• Germany: Standards der assessment-center-technik. (2004). U¨ berblick und
Hintergrundinformationen Hamburg, Germany: Arbeitskreis Assessment Center
e.V.
• Indonesia: Indonesian Task Force on Assessment Center Guidelines. (2002).
Daya Dimensi Indonesia. Ethical guidelines for assessment center operations.
references
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & Na-

tional Council on Measurements in Education. (1999). Standards for Educational and
Psychological Testing. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Available
at http://www.apa. org/science/standards.html (accessed 1 August 2008).
American Psychological Association Council of Representatives. (1990). APA Guidelines
for Providers of Psychological Services to Ethnic, Linguistic, and Culturally Diverse Pop-
ulations. Boston: American Psychological Association. Available at http://www.apa.org/
pi/guide.html (accessed 1 August 2008). American Psychological Association Public In-
terest Directorate and Council of Representatives. (2002). Guidelines on Multicultural
Education, Training, Research, Practice, and Organizational Change for Psychologists.
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Available at http://www.apa.
org/pi/multiculturalguidelines.pdf (accessed 1 August 2008).
International Test Commission. (2000). International Test Commission Test Adaptation
Guidelines. International Test Commission. Available at http://www.intestcom.org/test_
adaptation.htm (accessed 1 August 2008).
Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology & American Psychological Association.
(2003). Principles for the Validation and Use of Personnel Selection Procedures (4th ed).
Bowling Green, OH: Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Available at
http://www.siop. org/_Principles/principles.pdf (accessed 1 August 2008).
U.S. Department of Commerce. (2000). Safe harbor privacy principles. Available at
http://www.export.gov/safeharbor (accessed 1 August 2008).
Table A1. Task force members
1975 Edition
Albert Alon Miracle Food Mart (Canada)
Douglas W. Bray, PhD AT&T
William C. Byham, PhD Development Dimensions International, Inc.
Lois A. Crooks Educational Testing Service
Donald L. Grant, PhD AT&T and University of Georgia

Lowell W. Hellervik, PhD University of Minnesota
James R. Huck, PhD AT&T–Michigan Bell Telephone Company
Cabot L. Jaffee, PhD Assessment Designs, Inc.
Alan I. Kraut, PhD International Business Machines
John H. McConnell American Management Association
Leonard W. Slivinski, PhD Public Service Commission (Canada)
Thomas E. Standing, PhD The Standard Oil Company–Ohio
Edwin Yager Consulting Associates
1979 Edition
Albert Alon Miracle Food Mart (Canada)
Dale Baker US Civil Service Commission
Douglas W. Bray, PhD AT&T
Steven L. Cohen, PhD Assessment Designs Inc.
Lois A. Crooks Educational Testing Service
Donald L. Grant, PhD University of Georgia
Milton D. Hakel, PhD Ohio State University
Lowell W. Hellervik, PhD University of Minnesota
James R. Huck, PhD Human Resources International
Cabot L. Jaffee, PhD Assessment Designs Inc.
Frank M. McIntyre, PhD Consulting Associates
Joseph L. Moses, PhD (Chair) AT&T
Nicky B. Schnarr International Business Machines
Leonard W. Slivinski, PhD Public Service Commission (Canada)
Thomas E. Standing, PhD Standard Oil of Ohio
Edwin Yager Consulting Associates
1989 Edition
Virginia R. Boehm, PhD Assessment & Development Associates
Douglas W. Bray, PhD (Co-Chair) Development Dimensions International, Inc.
Anne Marie Carlisi, PhD BellSouth
John J. Clancy Clancy & Associates
Reginald Ellis Canadian National Railway
Joep Esser Mars B.V. (the Netherlands)
Fred Frank, PhD Electronic Selection Systems Corporation
Ann C. Gowdey Connecticut Mutual
Dennis A. Joiner Joiner & Associates
Rhonda Miller New York Power Authority
Marilyn Quaintance-Gowing, PhD US Office of Personnel Management
Robert F. Silzer, PhD Personnel Decisions Inc.
George C. Thornton III, PhD (Co-Chair) Colorado State University
Appendix A 177
2000 Edition
William C. Byham, PhD Development Dimensions International Inc.
Richard Flanary National Association of Secondary School
Principals
Marilyn K. Gowing, PhD US Office of Personnel Management
James R. Huck, PhD Human Resources International
Jeffrey D. Kudisch, PhD University of Southern Mississippi
David R. MacDonald, PhD (Chair) Steelcase, Inc.
Patrick T. Maher, DCrim Personnel & Organization Development Con-
sultants, Inc.
Jeroen J. J. L. Seegers Assessment & Development Consult (the
Netherlands)
George C. Thornton III, PhD Colorado State University
2008 Edition
Anuradha Chawla, PhD RHR International
Alyssa Mitchell Gibbons, PhD Colorado State University
Sebastien Houde, MSc University of Guelph & Royal Military College
of Canada
Dennis Joiner, MS Dennis A. Joiner & Associates
Myungjoon Kim, PhD Korean Psychological Testing Institute
Diana Krause, PhD DHV Speyer
Jeffrey D. Kudisch, PhD University of Maryland
Cara Lundquist, MA Southern California Edison
David R. MacDonald, PhD Steelcase, Inc.
Patrick T. Maher, DCrim Personnel & Organization Development Con-
sultants, Inc.
Doug Reynolds, PhD (Co-Chair) Development Dimensions International Inc.
Deborah E. Rupp, PhD (Co-Chair) University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Deidra J. Schleicher, PhD Purdue University
Jeroen J. J. L. Seegers, PhD Right Management Benelux (the Nether-
lands)
George C. Thornton III, PhD Colorado State University
Glossary
Assessee: An individual whose competencies are measured by an assessment center.

Assessment center: A process employing multiple techniques and multiple assessors to
produce judgments regarding the extent to which a participant displays selected behav-
ioral dimensions.
Assessor: An individual trained to observe, record, classify, and make reliable judgments
about the behaviors of assessees.
Competency: See Dimension.

Developmental assessment center: An assessment center designed for the purpose of di-
rectly developing/improving assessees on the dimensions of interest.
Dimension: Also called competency. A constellation or group of behaviors that are specific,
observable, and verifiable and that can be reliably and logically classified together and that
relate to job success.
Feedback: Information comparing actual performance to a standard or desired level of per-
formance.
High (or low) fidelity: The extent to which an assessment center simulation requires the as-
sessee to actually display jobrelevant behaviors related to one or more select dimensions.
Fidelity is related to the realism of the simulation as compared with an actual job situation,
task, etc.
Job analysis: The process used to determine the behavioral dimensions linked to success
or failure in a job, job role, or job grouping. The process typically consists of a combination
of techniques to collect job information, such as interviews with and observations of incum-
bents, job checklists, interviews with upper-level managers/executives, and review of ex-
isting job documentation (job descriptions, training manuals, etc.).
Reliability: The extent to which a measurement process yields the same results (given iden-
tical conditions) across repeated measurements.
Simulation: An exercise or technique designed to elicit behaviors related to dimensions of
performance on the job requiring the participants to respond behaviorally to situational stim-
uli.
Validity: The extent to which a measurement tool or process, such as an assessment cen-
ter, yields useful results. Multiple validities might be measured (e.g., ‘construct,’ ‘content,’
‘face,’ ‘predictive,’ ‘social’) depending on the questions being explored and the tool or
process being investigated.
Appendix b
TYPiCAl in-bAskeT iTems
PAnhAndle PoliCe dePArTmenT
Telephone message
To: Lieutenant Collins
From: Mary Reed Phone: (413) 222-1234
Date: January 10, 2010 Time: 4:45PM
Subject: Rude Conduct
( ) Returned your call ( XX ) Please call ( ) Will call back
Message:
Mrs. Reed is very upset because one of your officers was rude to her and acted in
a very callous and unprofessional manner when trying to get information from her
regarding the whereabouts of her son, Emanuel, who is wanted by this agency for
armed robbery. She does not feel she should be treated this way and she wants to
speak with you personally about this matter or she will file charges of harassment
with the District Attorney's office.
explanation: This is an item that can be delegated to a subordinate supervi-

sor or another shift commander to investigate. even though the complainant
refused to be identified, this is still a valid complaint and needs to be inves-
tigated.
179
hollY Glen fire dePArTmenT
e-mail message
To: Chief Jackson From: Lieutenant Sue Casey
Date: January 13, 2010 Time: 1330 hours
Subject: Grievance:
Please be advised that I wish to file a grievance over the score I received in the
oral examination for Fire Captain last month. Despite the fact that I have more
than 15 years of service and a good work record with no discipline, I was rated
as “fails to meet standards” by the assessors. I believe this is due to the fact that
one of the assessors, Deputy Chief Mel Brooks of the Fair Oaks Fire Depart-
ment, is a good friend of my ex husband, who recently retired from the Fair
Oaks Fire Department. Deputy Chief Brooks and my husband have been close
for years and I know that Brooks would do anything to help my husband if asked.
I also know that my husband was overheard telling someone else that he would
be sure that I never get promoted if he has anything to do with it.
There is no question in my mind that Deputy Chief Brooks was acting in my

husband’s interest in blackballing me in this process and getting the other as-
sessors to rate me as “fails to meet standards”. I would like to bring this mat-
ter to the Police and Fire Commission and am asking you for assistance in this
matter.
explanation: This is a relatively routine matter that, while the accusation is

serious, should probably be handled in accordance with the department’s
grievance procedure.
item
At 6:00PM, Officer Patsy Newsom, a young probationary officer on your shift,

comes into your office and asks to speak with you in private. When you agree to
speak with her she informs you that she believes that Officer John Mayberry, her
Field Training Officer, may be drinking on duty. She tells you that she is sure that
Officer Mayberry has a bottle in his locker and she has seen him take a drink from
it on two different occasions. He told her “not to worry about it” and that it would be
Appendix B 181
“bad for your career” if she told anyone about what she saw. She does not want to
make a formal complaint because she does not want to jeopardize her career, but
she is afraid to go on the road with him when he is drinking. She asks you for as-
sistance in this matter.
explanation: This is a serious matter and needs to be looked into without

delay. An internal investigation should be launched and appropriate person-
nel informed of the situation.
Appendix C
GUidelines for sCorinG

ToWn of PeliCAn bAY
Police Chief Assessment Center
Assessor Guidelines for scoring the in-basket exercise
introduction:
The following guidelines are intended to assist you in scoring the In-Basket Exercise.
While there are rarely any “perfect” or absolutely correct ways of handling any of the
items in the In-Basket, some ways of handling them are obviously preferred over others.
recommended recommended
item explanation
Action Priority
A: Telephone This is an important item, Refer to patrol com-
message since improper conduct mander to speak with
from Mary by an officer is alleged. Mrs. Reed and the offi-
Reed regard- cer(s) involved and pre- Important
ing rude con- pare a report for his/her
duct. review within one
b: E-Mail Explanation: This is a rel- Have Lt. Casey submit

message atively routine matter that, a formal grievance in
from Lt. while the accusation is se- accordance with the
Casey re- rious, should probably be department’s grievance Routine
garding a handled in accordance procedure and remind
grievance. with the department’s her to follow the chain
grievance procedure. of command.
182
Appendix C 183
C: Informa- This is a very serious Contact proper author-

tion from Of- matter and needs to be ity to initiate an internal
ficer Newsom looked into without investigation and in-
about a sen- delay. An internal inves- form all personnel as re-
ior officer tigation should be quired by local policy. Urgent
drinking on launched and the appro-
duty. priate personnel in-
formed of the situation.
Appendix d
GroUP Problem-solVinG eXerCise
CiTY of eAsT VAlleY
Police sergeant Assessment Center
Group Problem-solving exercise
instructions:
In this exercise, you are to assume that you are a Sergeant in the East Valley Po-
lice Department. The Chief of Police has assigned you to a committee consisting
of other Sergeants in the Department. Your committee has been asked to discuss
the problem described below and make a recommendation to the Chief concern-
ing how it may be solved.
Your group will have one hour to discuss the problem and to reach an agreement
concerning what recommendation to make to the Chief of Police. Each person in
the group may have a different view concerning the issue discussed, and it is im-
portant that all views be thoroughly discussed before a decision is reached. You will
be evaluated in this exercise on how well you work within the group to reach a de-
cision, your communication skills, and your ability to actively influence the group in
reaching a decision.
statement of Problem:
The Chief of Police has asked your committee to identify ways in which police serv-
ices in East Valley can be more appropriately tailored to the needs and expectations
of the community. In essence, what the chief is interested in is how to improve the
East Valley version of the community-oriented/problem-oriented style of policing
that has been adopted by a number of other communities in the United States. The
Chief would like your committee to discuss various ways in which police services
184
Appendix D 185
can be more readily adapted to the unique needs of local residents. In particular,
the Chief is interested in ways in which to:
1. Involve local residents more in police department policy-making and estab-

lishing police priorities.
2. Obtain citizen feedback regarding the provision of police services.
3. Make police officers more sensitive to citizen needs and concerns.
4. Bring about a closer working relationship between citizens and individual po-
lice officers.
The Chief would like your committee to study these issues and report back to him
with specific recommendations, not just general or vague suggestions. He wants
recommendations that, if approved, can be put into action with a minimum of delay
and difficulty. Your committee will have one hour to discuss these issues and for-
mulate recommendations to the Chief.
Appendix e
TACTiCAl fire Problem eXerCise
CiTY of freePorT
fire Captain Assessment Center
Tactical exercise
instructions:
Note: This same situation is being presented to all candidates in this assessment
center. Therefore, it is important that you refrain from discussing the exercise with
your colleagues until after all candidates have completed the exercise. Otherwise,
it is possible that candidates later in the process may be able to use information ob-
tained from other candidates to their advantage. You alone will be responsible for
ensuring that this does not happen!
In this exercise, you will play the role of a Captain in the Freeport Fire Department.
You are going to be presented with a tactical situation at a fictitious structure that
has been inserted into an actual location in the city. The location of the fire and con-
ditions surrounding the fire will be shown to you using simulation software devel-
oped for this purpose. This simulation is meant to be interactive so that the intensity
of the incident will be dictated by the quality of your decision-making process. In
other words, if you make the proper tactical decisions in a timely manner, the fire
scene can be effectively controlled and the simulator will display that fact accord-
ingly. Conversely, if you do not take the appropriate actions in a timely manner, the
fire scene will gain intensity and the simulator will reveal that circumstance.
You will also be provided with a map of the surrounding area. For the purpose of
this exercise, you will serve as the Incident Commander and will retain that role
throughout the exercise.
186
Appendix E 187
When you enter the exercise room, you will also find a projection of the map on a
wall board which should help you orient yourself to the location. You are urged to
use the marking pens that will be provided to illustrate your tactical decisions, such
as placement of apparatus, command post, location of hose lines, etc. This will
help you keep track of what you are doing and will make it easier for the assessors
to understand the tactical decisions you are making.
You will communicate during the exercise with the Resource Person, who will play
the role of incoming companies as well as communications. All communications
with the Resource Person should be in the form of standard radio transmission
protocol. The Resource Person, acting as the on-site companies, may relay addi-
tional information to you which may be valuable to you in your role as Incident
Commander.
After familiarizing yourself with the fire situation, begin at once to explain to the as-
sessors your strategy of fighting the fire upon your arrival at the scene. You will be
asked to demonstrate your deployment of personnel and apparatus at the scene
by writing on the wall board with one of the markers that will be provided. This will
provide the assessors with a visual understanding of your overall strategy at the fire
scene.
The simulation will last approximately 10 minutes during which time you will ex-
plain your strategy to the assessors and deal with any new contingencies as they
may arise. This will be followed by a period of approximately five minutes during
which time the assessors will be allowed to ask you questions concerning your tac-
tical decisions.
You will be given 10 minutes to study the background information on the chosen
tactical location so that you will be prepared to handle the situation presented to
you.
NOTE: This same assignment will be given to other candidates in this process.
You are encouraged not to discuss this assignment with anyone who has not yet
completed the exercise.
TACTiCAl eXerCise informATion
BUSINESS NAME: Acme Finishing and Plating
OCCUPANCY TYPE: Metal plating and heat treating plant
ADDRESS: 2200 Commerce Street
OCCUPANCY: Two-story residential duplex
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION: Ordinary and metal clad
DATE: April 11, 2010
TIME: 1132 hours
WEATHER CONDITIONS: Cloudy, 420 F
WINDS: Out of the south @ 6 mph
Initial Information: Passing motorist reports seeing smoke

coming from upstairs window
Alarm response
First Engine 1, Engine 3, Truck 1, Car 1
Second Engine 4, Squad 1
Third Engine 2, Truck 2, Car 2

Appendix f
TACTiCAl fire Problem sCenArio
fAir hAVen fire dePArTmenT
fire lieutenant Assessment Center
Tactical exercise scenario
The following is a general sequence of events for this exercise:
1. Ten minutes before the exercise begins the candidate is provided written exer-
cise instructions, a description of the building, occupancy, type of construction,
weather conditions, responding units, and a diagram showing the building
schematic and street location.
2. When the candidate is brought into the room, he/she will see a blank screen for
the LCD projector; the LCD projector will be covered. He/she will also see a white
board with an overhead projector showing the building schematic and street dia-
gram.
3. The Resource Person will be seated facing the candidate, the screen, and the
white board. The Resource Person will be introduced as the dispatcher and all in-
coming units, other than the unit on which the candidate is responding.
4. The simulator operator will be seated facing the screen and the white board and
will control the fire situation.
5. One or two assessors will be seated together in a position to observe and hear
the candidate.
6. The Exercise Coordinator will introduce the participants and their roles.
189
7. The candidate will be asked if he/she has any questions.
8. The simulator operator will remove the cover from the LCD projector and the fire
building will be visible with fire and smoke showing.
9. Upon beginning the exercise, the Resource Person will inform the candidate that
he or she will arrive on the scene as the third-due engine on Engine 25. The cap-
tain will have the initial attack line and the lieutenant on Truck 22 is conducting
search operations on the second floor of the building.
10. Upon arriving on-scene with Engine 25, the candidate will be expected to give
a size-up and assume command.
11. Within two minutes after Engine 25 arrives on scene the Resource Person will
announce that one mutual aid engine company from West Shore FD with three
personnel is on the scene.
12. Within three minutes after Engine 25 arrives on scene the Resource Person will
announce that a private ambulance from A.M.R. will arrive on the scene.
13. At brief intervals, the Resource Person will announce the arrival of volunteers
who will arrive with their personal gear in their personal vehicles.
14. If the candidate asks for a 360 or assigns a company to the rear, he/she will
be shown the rear view of the structure.
15. The candidate will begin to assign responding units to tasks such as laying a
line, conducting an initial search, ventilation, etc.
16. As these assignments are made, the Resource Person will acknowledge their
receipt.
17. At five minutes into the exercise, the interior crew will inform the candidate that
they have a firefighter who has been injured by falling debris and who requires
medical attention. This should prompt the candidate to call for a PAR and to send
the RIT crew in to remove the injured firefighter.
18. From time to time the candidate may ask the Resource Person for status or
progress reports from the assigned units.
19. If a second alarm or additional response is requested, the Resource Person

will acknowledge and will indicate what kind of response will be arriving.
Appendix F 191
20. At brief intervals, the Resource Person will acknowledge the response of ad-
ditional units or personnel.
21. As additional units or personnel arrive, the candidate should assign them to
specific tasks or to staging.
22. Depending upon what the candidate does in terms of tactical priorities and as-
signments, the computer simulation will change the fire condition.
23. The Lead Assessor, using the Tactical Exercise Rating Form, will record all
actions taken or assignments made by the candidate.
24. The Exercise Coordinator will be responsible for keeping the time.
25. At eight minutes into the exercise, the Resource Person will announce that he
has a report from a neighbor that there may be an elderly victim trapped on the sec-
ond floor of the building. This should prompt the candidate to call for a secondary
search of the second floor.
26. At approximately ten minutes into the exercise the Resource Person, as the
Deputy Chief, will announce that he is on the scene and request a face to face with
the candidate.
27. Following the candidate’s report to the Deputy Chief time will be called and as-
sessors will be allowed three minutes to ask questions of the candidate.
28. The total elapsed time should not exceed 15 minutes.
29. Assessors will have ten minutes to complete their consensus scoring of the
candidate.
Appendix G
fire TACTiCAl Problem
eVAlUATion of TACTiCAl ConsiderATions

for TACTiCAl fire Problem
fire CAPTAin AssessmenT CenTer
Tactical Consideration evaluation
Instructions to Subject Matter Expert: Please indicate, by placing a check in the ap-
propriate column, whether each of these tasks, in your opinion, is (3) Essential; (2)
Very Important; (1) Somewhat Important; or (0) Not Important in evaluating candi-
dates in the tactical exercise. Please list any other considerations that you believe
are important in the spaces provided.
192
Appendix G 193
Tactical Consideration 3 2 1 0
1. Establish Incident Command?
2. Employ proper Incident Command Procedures?
3. Give an Initial Report?
4. Do an adequate size-up?
5. Establish a formal Command Post?
6. Make proper tactical assignments based upon a

logical strategy?
7. Do a walk-around?
8. Develop an appropriate strategy?
9. Perform primary and secondary searches?
10. Provide for rehabilitation of personnel and victims?
11. Give due consideration to exposures?
12. Ask for Personnel Accountability Report?
13. Establish an Interior Sector?
14. Establish second line (backup) assignments?
15. Establish ventilation or roof sector?
16. Establish Rapid Intervention Team?
17. Call for additional apparatus in a timely manner?
18. Establish floor sector?
19. Establish, assign and communicate staging area?
20. Others? Please describe.

Appendix h
emPloYee meeTinG eXerCise
VillAGe of riVerVieW
employee meeting exercise
instructions:
In this exercise, you are to assume that you are a Sergeant in the Riverview Police
Department. You are currently assigned to the patrol division as a field supervisor.
You have been contacted by Officer John Doe, who wishes to see you about his
performance evaluation report that he received earlier today (see attached). This
is a report that you prepared for him based upon his job performance for the last
12 months.
Your assignment is to meet with Officer Doe and go over the report with him and to
answer any questions he has about the manner in which you rated his perform-
ance.
You will have 15 minutes to complete this assignment. Use the remaining time to
prepare for your meeting.
194
Appendix i
CiTizen inTerVieW eXerCise
CiTY of GrAnd VieW
Citizen interview exercise
instructions:
In this exercise you are to assume that you are a Sergeant in the Grand View Po-
lice Department. You are serving as a field supervisor in the patrol division. It is
6:30 PM on a Friday and you are serving as the shift supervisor in the absence of
Lt. John Mullins who is home with a cold.
You have been called to the station by communications to meet with a woman who
is very upset and insists upon seeing the “Officer in Charge.”
You will have 15 minutes to conduct your interview with the woman. During the in-
terview, you should determine the nature of the women’s problem and attempt to
identify a course of action that will solve the problem for her.
195
Appendix J
role-PlAYinG insTrUCTions for The CiTizen

inTerVieW eXerCise
CiTY of blUe ridGe
fire Captain Assessment Center
Citizen interview exercise
role Playing instructions:
In this exercise you are to play the role of a resident of Blue Ridge. You will be ex-
pected to assume a fictitious identify and use an actual address in the City. You will
be meeting with a candidate who will be playing the role of a Captain in the Blue
Ridge Fire Department.
When you meet with the Captain, you will tell him that you were informed by your
next-door neighbor that earlier today, around 3:00 PM, a unit from the Blue Ridge
Fire Department had been on an emergency medical call across the street from
your house. While leaving that call, the fire truck backed into your elderly mother’s
car that was parked on the street in front of your house. You will explain that your
mother is in intensive care at the hospital and you are taking care of her car while
she is in the hospital. You were visiting her at the hospital when the accident oc-
curred.
When you arrived back home, your neighbor, Mrs. Cynthia Snoop, told you about
the accident. Mrs. Snoop keeps a careful eye on everything that goes on in your
neighborhood. She also informed you that after the accident, one of the men on the
fire truck got off the truck, inspected the damage to the complainant’s car, said
something to the driver, and then the truck left the scene.
196
Appendix J 197
You will tell the Captain that you have reported the damage to your insurance com-
pany and were advised that there would have to be a police report taken. The dam-
age is estimated to be in excess of $1,000.
The candidate will be expected to try to deal effectively with you by obtaining all
necessary information and taking whatever action would be appropriate in a case
such as this. You will need to be very upset about the damage and demand that the
city pay for it. If something is not done, you may go see the Mayor and ask him to
look into it.
Appendix k
fire insPeCTion eXerCise
norTh ridGe fire dePArTmenT
fire inspection exercise
instructions:
In this exercise you are to assume that you are a Lieutenant in the North Ridge
Fire Department. You are about to attend a meeting with the owners and operators
of Pile High Paper Company, located in North Ridge. The purpose of this meeting
is to discuss several potential fire prevention problems with the management of the
firm.
Pile High Paper Company is a 150,000 square foot warehouse building. The build-
ing is exterior masonry block with a built up roof. The building is classified 5b con-
struction and is fully sprinklered. The business is a Chapter 54 occupancy. The Pile
High Paper Company is a shipping and receiving warehouse which handles house-
hold office and paper supplies.
Recent fire prevention inspections have revealed several potentially serious viola-
tions which pose a threat to personal safety as well as to the structure and its con-
tents. Specifically, the following violations have been detected:
1. A new warehouse office was built (approximately 10’ X 10’) on the lower level
that is not sprinklered. This area must be sprinklered or removed.
2. The sprinkler riser must be kept accessible for inspection and fire department
access. A clearance of 3 feet must be maintained around sprinkler riser and
3 foot access aisle.
198
Appendix K 199
3. The plastic curtain wall must be removed between the loading dock and ware-
house area.
4. Fire extinguishers (near loading dock) must be properly hung.
5. Rack storage is 20 feet high. Please resubmit data from sprinkler contractor
showing system will handle this volume of product.
6. Extension cords used to power packaging machines may not be used in place
of permanent wiring.
The Fire Chief has asked you to meet with the management of the company to
outline the Department’s concerns and to explain why corrections need to be made.
You will be meeting with the following persons:
Mr. J. B. Hardcastle, Owner of the Company

Mr. E. L. McElroy, Building Manager
Mr. R. D. Copp, Security/Safety Director
The purpose of this meeting is to obtain the cooperation of company officials in

taking the necessary corrective measures to ensure adequate building safety. You
will have 15 minutes to complete this assignment. Use the remaining time to pre-
pare for your meeting.
Appendix l
shifT meeTinG eXerCise
CiTY of JohnsToWn
shift meeting exercise
instructions:
In this exercise, you are to assume that you are a Sergeant in the Johnstown Po-
lice Department. You are currently assigned as the afternoon shift commander in
the patrol division. Your immediate supervisor is Lieutenant Henry Houser, the pa-
trol division commander.
You have just come from a supervisor’s meeting in which several important issues
were discussed. You have been instructed by Lieutenant Howser to review these
issues with officers on your shift at the next shift briefing.
The issues he has asked you to discuss with the members of your shift are as fol-
lows:
1. Lieutenant Howser reported that some officers continue to make unaccept-

able errors while preparing their reports or are late in getting them turned in. A
growing number of reports are being sent back for correction, indicating a lack
of attention and diligence on the part of the officers. Officers are instructed to
pay more attention to this important part of their job.
2. Lieutenant Howser has pointed out that officers on some shifts have a ten-
dency to question dispatchers on calls and to try to dictate to the dispatchers call
assignments and priorities. Officers are to be reminded that the dispatchers are
following the guidelines set for them and any questions on calls should be di-
rected to your own supervisor.
200
Appendix L 201
3. The Principal of South Middle School called and is requesting additional pa-
trol in the parking lot between 10:00 AM and 12:00 PM. He reports that a late-
model Toyota, blue in color, unknown license, has been seen driving through
the lot with no apparent reason several times this past week. He has no further
information on the driver or the vehicle.
4. The Department is seeking volunteers to serve as instructors for the new Cit-
izen’s Police Academy that the Chief will be implementing next year. In order to
minimize costs and enable us to continue this program, officers are asked to
volunteer their time to serve as instructors for this worthwhile program. The total
time involved will amount to only a few hours every three or four months. While
there is no compensation provided for this effort, this is an important program
and the Chief is hoping for an enthusiastic response.
5. The Chief is concerned at seeing more than one car at a time parked at local
convenience stores and mini-marts. This presents a bad image to the public and
suggests that the officers are “goofing off.” Please remind your officers that only
one car should be out at such locations at one time.
6. Nominations for the Officer of the Year Award will be open several more days.
There have been very few nominations this year and the Chief is concerned that
more officers are not taking this program seriously. The Lieutenant would like to
have at least one nomination from each shift by the end of the week.
7. The Chief announced that he has been informed by the City Manager’s Office
that it appears that the pay increases scheduled for next month will now be de-
layed indefinitely due to a budget shortfall. It is not known whether the pay in-
crease, when it does come, will be retroactive to the original date it was to
become effective.
You will be given 15 minutes to discuss these issues with your shift. Please use the
remaining time to prepare for this assignment.
Appendix m
ComPAnY TrAininG eXerCise
CiTY of freedom
Company Training exercise
instructions:
In this exercise, you are to assume that you are a Lieutenant in the Freedom Fire
Department. You have recently been promoted and are currently serving as the
Company Officer on Engine 4, third shift. You are about to conduct a15-minute drill
for members of your company. You will have 15 minutes to prepare a 15-minute
training drill for members of your company. This drill will involve some items of
equipment used in firefighting.
The subject of your training will be the following chapter from the IFSTA Manual, Es-
sentials of Firefighting, 5th edition:
Chapter 3. fire behavior
A copy of this manual has been provided to you to assist you in preparing for your
class. However, you will not be allowed to take the manual with you into the train-
ing room.
You have been provided with a flip chart and marking pens to use in the event you
wish to use visual aids during your presentation.
There will be two members of your shift in this training session. They are:
Firefighter Frank Jackson

Firefighter Herb Green
202
Appendix M 203
Both of these individuals are seasoned firefighters and should already be familiar
with the material that you will be covering during the drill.
prepare for your training session.
Appendix n
CommUniTY meeTinG eXerCise
VillAGe of Cool sTreAm
Community meeting exercise
instructions:
In this exercise, you are to assume the role of a Sergeant in the Cool Harbor Po-
lice Department. You are currently assigned as the shift supervisor on the after-
noon shift. Your immediate supervisor is Captain David Johnson, the Patrol Division
Commander.
You are about to attend a meeting of neighborhood residents who reside in the
Newport Village area. You have been asked to meet with them by Captain Johnson
because of a number of complaints he has received from the residents of the area
regarding juveniles loitering in the streets after dark, cars driving at high speeds on
residential streets, abandoned automobiles left in yards and alleys, boarded up
homes being used as hangouts for gangs and drug dealers, and a general lack of
police visibility in the area.
Captain Johnson had intended to come with you to the meeting but was called
away to go with the Chief to a meeting in the Village Manager’s Office at the last
minute. As a result, he has asked you to attend the meeting and attempt to help the
residents of the area resolve their problems.
Your assignment is to meet with the community residents and outline any specific
police programs and activities the Department may have that will address their
problems as well as to answer any questions they may have and generally assure
them that the police department is interested in working with them.
204
Appendix N 205
prepare for your meeting.
Appendix o
sTAff meeTinG eXerCise
CiTY of bellVUe
Police Chief Assessment Center
staff meeting exercise
instructions:
For this exercise, you are to assume that you have recently been appointed to the
position of Chief of Police in the City of Bellvue following a grueling competition in
which you narrowly edged out two other very good candidates. This is your first full
week on the job since accepting the position and you are about to have your first
staff meeting with your two key Commanders: Deputy Chief Harvey Kidwell, who is
in charge of Community Initiatives, and Deputy Chief Sharon Glass, who is in
charge of Business and Finance.
The purpose of this meeting is for you to lay out your management philosophy to
your two Deputy Chiefs and to give them a sense of your goals, objectives, and
priorities for the Department for the immediate future. In addition, you are inter-
ested in obtaining their views about what they see as the strengths and weaknesses
of the Department and particular problems that need to be dealt with in the weeks
and months ahead.
Unfortunately, you have just received a telephone call from the City Manager’s Of-
fice and have been told to report there in 15 minutes. As a result, you will need to
cut this meeting short.
You will have 15 minutes to complete this assignment. You may use the remaining
time to silently prepare for your meeting.
206
Appendix P
ProGrAm deVeloPmenT eXerCise

(PoliCe lieUTenAnT)
CiTY of PUrPle sAGe
Police lieutenant Assessment Center
Program development exercise
instructions:
In this exercise, you are to assume that you are a Lieutenant in the Purple Sage Po-
lice Department. You have been temporarily assigned to the Administrative Divi-
sion as a Special Projects Coordinator. In this position, your primary duties are to
serve as staff support to the Chief of Police and the command staff for the purpose
of researching and developing special projects which may be designed and imple-
mented to improve operational efficiency and effectiveness. While you are able to
use your own discretion in researching and developing concepts and ideas, most
of the projects you are working on are at the direction of the Chief of Police and the
command staff.
You have been asked by the staff to develop a preliminary proposal for considera-
tion by the staff that will have the ultimate goal of enhancing the level and quality
of police services in the City of Purple Sage. Your preliminary proposal should ad-
dress the following topics:
1. Developing a cost-effective method of reducing the incidence of theft and bur-

glary to motor vehicles in and around major retail shopping areas (you may spec-
ify particular areas in which your plan is to be implemented).
2. Enhancing patrol productivity and effectiveness in both residential and busi-

ness areas of the City while at the same time stimulating employee morale.
207
3. Identifying ways and methods by which to generate additional revenues

through legitimate enforcement efforts in such a way that will not meet with ad-
verse public reaction or political opposition.
4. Developing methods by which to enlist and enhance public support and co-
operation in the implementation and maintenance of specific crime reduction
programs.
You are scheduled to meet with the Program Review Committee, consisting of the
two Assistant Chiefs, tomorrow. The purpose of this meeting is to give them your
preliminary ideas concerning your assigned topics.
For the purpose of this exercise you are required to provide two copies of your re-
port at 8:00 AM tomorrow. This report must be no more than five double-spaced
pages, either typewritten or handwritten. Your written report need not be typewrit-
ten, but it must be legible and presented in a neat and orderly fashion. Your paper
will not be scored by the assessors on written communication skills (e.g., grammar,
punctuation, spelling, etc.) but may be evaluated in terms of its content, clarity of
expression, organization, and logic.
Tomorrow, you will be expected to address the Program Review Committee to

orally present your report and to answer any questions they may have concerning
your proposal. This presentation will last no more than 15 minutes and should in-
clude time for questions from the assessors.
Appendix q
room ConfiGUrATions for VArioUs eXerCises
OR
AS
SS
SE
SE
SS
AS
OR
CANDIDATES
VIDEO CAMERA
ASSESSOR
Room Set-up for Group Problem-Solving Exercise
209
DRY ERASE BOARD
CANDIDATE RESOURCE PERSON
OVERHEAD PROJECTOR
VIDEO CAMERA
ASSESSORS
Room Set-up for Tactical Exercise
CANDIDATE
DESK ROLE PLAYER
VIDEO CAMERA
AS
SE
SS
OR
S
Room Set-up for Citizen/Employee Interview Exercise

Appendix Q 211
CHALKBOARD
FLIP CHART
CANDIDATE
VIDEO CAMERA
ASSESSORS
Room Set-up for Shift/Company Training Exercise

Appendix r
TYPiCAl AssessmenT CenTer sChedUle
fire lieUTenAnT AssessmenT CenTer
exercise schedule
Monday, December 7, 2009
1:00PM - 2:30PM Candidate Orientation (All Candidates)
Wednesday, December 9, 20091
8:00 AM – 10:05 AM Tactical Exercise
8:00 AM 1-A 8:25 AM 1-B

8:50 AM 1-C 9:15 AM 1-D
9:40 AM 1-E
10:05 AM – 12:10 PM Fire Prevention Exercise
10:05 AM 1-B 10:30 AM 1-C

10:55 AM 1-D 11:20 AM 1-E
11:45 AM 1-A
12:10 PM – 1:00 PM Lunch for Assessors
1:00 PM – 3:05 PM Company Training Exercise
1 Candidates should report 10 minutes early to each exercise to receive their instructions.
212
Appendix R 213
1:00 PM 1-C 1:25 PM 1-D

1:50 PM 1-E 2:15 PM 1-A
2:40 PM 1-B
3:05 PM – 5:10 PM Employee Interview Exercise
3:05 PM 1-D 3:30 PM 1-E

3:55 PM 1-A 4:20 PM 1-B
4:45 PM 1-C
Thursday, December 10, 20091
8:00 AM – 9:40 AM Tactical Exercise
8:00 AM 2-A 8:25 AM 2-B

8:50 AM 2-C 9:15 AM 2-D
9:40 AM - 11:20 AM Fire Prevention Exercise
9:40 AM 2-B 10:05 AM 2-C

10:30 AM 2-D 10:55 AM 2-A
11:20 AM – 12:30 PM Lunch for Assessors
12:30 PM – 2:10 PM Company Training Exercise
12:30 PM 2-C 12:55 PM 2-D

1:20 PM 2-A 1:45 PM 2-B
2:10 PM – 3:50 PM Employee Interview Exercise
2:10 PM 2-D 2:35 PM 2-A

3:00 PM 2-B 3:25 PM 2-C
1 Candidates should report 10 minutes early to each exercise to receive their instructions.
Appendix s
CAndidATe feedbACk qUesTionnAire
Congratulations! You have recently finished participating in the assessment center

for the position of Police Sergeant.
We are always seeking ways in which we can improve the services we provide. As
a result, we are interested in any comments you may have about the assessment
center in which you participated. Your responses will help us to evaluate our own
work and to improve the quality of our work in the future.
Please take a few minutes to complete this questionnaire and return it to the Exer-
cise Coordinator. Your responses will remain confidential.
1. Was the orientation session helpful in preparing you for the exercises? (circle
one)
5 4 3 2 1
Very Much Somewhat Not at all
Comments: ______________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
214
Appendix S 215
2. Overall, were the exercises in which you participated appropriate and relevant
for the position for which you were being evaluated? (circle one)
5 4 3 2 1
Comments: ______________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
3. Was this assessment center a fair test of your ability to perform the duties of
the position for which you were being evaluated? ( circle one)
5 4 3 2 1
Comments: ______________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
4. Compared with other promotional examinations you have taken, how would
you rate the assessment center?
5 4 3 2 1
Comments: ______________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
5. Of all the exercises in which you participated, which was the most difficult for
you personally? (check one)
__ Group Problem-Solving ____ Citizen/Employee Interview
__ Community Presentation ____ Tactical Problem
Comments: ______________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
6. Of all the exercises in which you participated, which was the least difficult for
you personally?
__ Group Problem-Solving ____ Citizen/Employee Interview
__ Community Presentation ____ Tactical Problem
Comments: ______________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
7. Overall, what did you like most about the assessment center?
Comments: ______________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
8. Overall, what did you like least about the assessment center?
Comments: ______________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
Appendix S 217
9. How many other assessment centers have you participated in during the last 5
years? (check one)
__ none ____ 1 or 2 ____ 3 or more
10. Any other comments or suggestions?
Comments: ______________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
Thank you for taking the time to answer these questions. Your comments and
suggestions mean a great deal to us.
Appendix T
CAndidATe feedbACk forms
The following information is intended to provide feedback to the candidate in terms

of how he or she performed in the assessment center process. Candidates should
be allowed to review these comments and take notes, if they desire, to assist them
in preparing for future assessment centers.
In-Basket
Candidate: ________________ Exercise: __________________
Evaluation Criteria: Planning and organizing
did the candidate Yes some no

what
1. Use all available resources in handing the items in

the In- Basket?
2. Delegate and assign tasks to the appropriate per-

sonnel?
3. Make proper notifications of his/her impending ab-

sence?
4. Use the calendar to schedule future meetings and

follow-up activities?
5. Keep all necessary personnel informed of situa-

tions in which they have an interest?
218
Appendix T 219
Comments: ______________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
Signed: ____________________________ Date: __________________
Evaluation Criteria: Problem Analysis

what
1. Properly recognize and identify the problem and

its causes?
2. Demonstrate a thorough understanding of the

problem and its causes?
3. Develop appropriate and reasonable solutions to

the problem?
4. Show an appreciation for “the big picture” as op-

posed to having tunnel vision?
5. Consider all possible alternatives when developing

solutions to the problem?
Comments: ______________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

what
1. Demonstrate the ability to make sound decisions?
2. Establish reasonable and sound priorities in han-

dling situations?
3. Consider all available options before making a de-

cision?
4. Indicate the ability to stand by a decision once

made?
5. Use sound logic in analyzing all available informa-

tion before making a decision?
Comments: ______________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
Signed: ____________________________ Date: __________________

indeX
A orientation, 88
outside verses inside, 17
Accident Review Board Exercise, 65-66 qualification of, 86, 148–149
oral presentation in, 66 rules of conduct for, 91
oral report in, 65 selection, 68, 85–87, 148–149
written report in, 65 training, 5, 68, 167–170
Accurate judgement of candidates by assessors, 7 Assigned roles in Group Problem-Solving
Active listening Exercise, 27
in the Citizen Interview Exercise, 42
Administration of assessment centers, 67 b
Advantages of the assessment center, 8
Assessment centers Benchmarks, 96–99
accurate judgement of candidates by, 7 Best practices in assessment center exercise,
advantages of, 8 115
as a learning environment, 4 Blunders - see some of the greatest blunders,
as a test of ability, 9 Break Room, 74
defined, 162
design and administration, 67 C
different purposes for, 172–173
differences from traditional testing methods, 4 Calculating weighted scores, 102
expense of, 17 Cameras, in-car, 82–84
flexibility of, 8 Candidate
high degree of acceptance by candidates, 9 evaluation, 95
how viewed by candidates, 10 feedback, 10, 11, 68, 95, 105–107, 151–153
policy statements, 166 orientation, 12, 71–73, 131-132, 146–147
predictive power of, 6 preparation, 68
preparing for, 107 satisfaction with assessment centers, 145
rights of participants, scoring, 100
scheduling, App T, 218 Care and nurturing of assessors, 90
subjectivity of, 16 Career Interview Exercise, 63–65
use of, 3, 4, 8, 10 points to consider in, 64
validation issues, 171–172 Certification of assessors, 86
Assessor Manual, 88 Citizen Interview Exercise, 41–44
Assessors best practices in, 26–127
care and nurturing of, 90 don’t make promises you cannot keep, 127
certification of, 86 greet the citizen warmly, 126
commentary, 104 remember to sell yourself and your depart-
compensation, 87 ment, 127
impartiality of, 18 example of, App I, 195
note-taking by, 92–93 greatest blunders in, 141–142
221
linked to the Employee Meeting Exercise, 43 e

note-taking in, 42
performance dimensions in, 96, 97 Electronic In-Basket, 81
role player in, 41, 42 Employee Assistance Program, 111
role playing instructions for, App J, 196 Employee Meeting Exercise, 38–40
Closure in Employee Meeting Exercise, 39 best practices, 123–124
Coming on time and prepared, 114 be a boss, not a buddy, 124
Commentary begin and end on a positive note, 123
assessor, 104 do not negotiate, 124
Common errors in Tactical Police Problem, 37 make your expectations very clear, 123
Community Meeting or Presentation Exercise, closure in, 39
50–53 example of, App H, 194
best practices in, 125–126 greatest blunders in, 133–127
be willing to accept responsibility, 125 linked to the Citizen Interview Exercise, 43
listen to what the residents have to say, performance dimensions in, 96, 97
125 problem identification in, 39
offer to get back to the residents, 125 problem resolution in, 39
example of, App N, 204 role playing in, 38, 39
greatest blunders in, 138–139 three tasks in, 39
note-taking by assessors in, 51 Equipment and facilities required in an assess-
performance dimensions in, 96, 97 ment center, 73–75
role players in, 50–52 Errors - see common errors
responding to questions from the audience Evaluation criteria
in, 51 selection of, 95
Compensation of assessors, 87 Evaluation of candidates, 92
Company Meeting Exercise - see Shift or Examinations, written, 8
Company Meeting Exercise Examples of assessment centers, 17
Company Officer Exercise Coordinator, 94
in Tactical Fire Problem, 30 Exercise design, 68–71
Company Training Exercise Exercise Room, 74
example of, App M, 202
Consistency in scoring, 94–95 f
Criminal Investigation Exercise, 61–63
drawback of, 62 Facilities required in an assessment center, 68,
performance dimensions in, 96, 97 73–75
written report in, 62 Feedback from candidates, 149–15, App S, 214
Criteria, evaluation Feedback to candidates, 10, 11, 68, 92,
selection of, 95 105–107, App T, 218
Customizing the assessment center, 147–148 Fire Inspection Exercise, 44–46
example of, App k, 198
d performance dimensions in, 96, 97
role players in, 44
Debriefing, candidate, 107, 151–153 successful performance in, 46
Decision-Making ability Fire Marshal’s Office - see Public Education
in Citizen Interview Exercise, 96 Exercise
in Criminal Investigation Exercise, 96 Fire simulators, 80
in Employee Meeting Exercise, 96 Flexibility of assessment centers, 8
in News Media Exercise, 96
in Tactical Fire Problem, 96 G
in Tactical Police Problem, 96
Design of assessment centers, 67 Group Problem-Solving Exercise, 25–29
Detailed breakdown of assessment center assigned roles in, 27
scores, 103 best practices, 121–123
DVDs, use of in an assessment center, 84 developing consensus, 121
Index 223
establishing effective working relation- in Tactical Fire Problem, 97

ships, 121 in Tactical Police Problem, 97
having someone take notes, 122
lead, don ‘t push, 122 J
work to get the group headed in a sin-
gle direction, 122 Job analysis, 5, 67, 68
example of, App D, 184 Job tasks
leadership ability in, 27, 29 relationship with performance dimensions,
organizing the group, 28 70
performance dimensions in, 96, 97 Judgment and Reasoning
topics assigned to, 26 in Community Presentation Exercise, 97
Guidelines for assessment center administra- in Criminal Investigation Exercise, 97
tion, 5, 89, App. A, 159 in Employee Meeting Exercise, 97
Guidelines for scoring in-basket exercise, App in Program Development Exercise, 97
C, 182 in Tactical Fire Problem, 97
in Tactical Police Problem, 97
h
k
How candidates view assessment centers, 10
Human Relations Keeping exercises realistic and relevant, 148
benchmarks, 98 Key to success in In-Basket Exercise, 25
in Citizen Interview Exercise, 96
in Community Meeting Exercise, 96 l
in Employee Meeting Exercise, 96
in Group Problem-Solving Exercise, 96 Leaderless Group Discussion, 111
in Shift or Company Meeting Exercise, 96 see also Group Problem-Solving Exercise
Leadership
i benchmarks, 98
Importance of good planning in an assessment in Group Problem-Solving Exercise, 27–29,
center, 67-68 96
In-Basket Exercise, 6, 21–25 in Shift or Company Meeting Exercise, 96
best practices, 115–118 in Staff Meeting Exercise, 96
delegating appropriately in, 117 Learning from mistakes, 114
establishing reasonable priorities in, 116 Linking the Citizen Interview Exercise to the
keeping other people informed, 117 Employee Meeting Exercise, 43
looking for linkages in, 117 List of facilities and equipment, 75
electronic, 81 Locations for Tactical Fire Problem, 30
greatest blunders in, 132–133
key to success in, 25 m
performance dimensions in, 96, 97
scanning items in, 116 Maintaining consistency in scoring, 94–95
use of technology in, 25 Maintaining test security, 77–78
In-car cameras, 82 Methods of scheduling, 75–77
Incident Commander Minimally qualified, 100
in Tactical Fire Problem, 31 typical assessor comments, 105
in Tactical EMS Problem, 33 Modern technology
Information pooled from assessors, 6 use of in an assessment center, 80
Initiative Multiple assessment techniques, 5
in Citizen Interview Exercise, 97
in Criminal Investigation Exercise, 97 n
in Group Problem-Solving Exercise, 97
in Program Development Exercise, 97 News Media Exercise, 56–59
performance dimensions in, 96, 97 in Tactical Fire Problem, 97

role players in, 58 in Tactical Police Problem, 97
Not qualified, 100 Problem identification in Employee Meeting
typical assessor comments, 105 Exercise, 39
Note taking Problem resolution in Employee Meeting
by assessors generally, 92–93 Exercise, 39
by assessors in Community Meeting or Program Development Exercise, 59–61
Presentation Exercise, 51 example of, APP P, 207
in Citizen Interview Exercise, 42 greatest blunders in, 149–141
Number of candidates to be evaluated, 68 oral communication skills in, 59
Number of exercise, 71 performance dimensions in, 96, 97
Numerical scale, 100 questions from assessors in, 61
topics to be assigned in, 60
o written communication skills in, 59
Public Education Exercise, 53–54
Objective of the Staff Meeting Exercise, 56 role players in, 54
Open mind, 113 successful performance in, 54
Oral assessment, 5
Oral communication skills q
benchmarks, 99
in Citizen Interview Exercise, 96 Qualifications of assessors, 86, 148–149
in Community Presentation Exercise Qualified, 100
in Fire Inspection Exercise typical assessor comments, 105
in News Media Exercise, 96 Questionnaire for candidate feedback, App S,
in Program Development Exercise, 59 214
in Staff Meeting Exercise, 96 Questions from assessors
Oral presentation in Program Development Exercise, 61
in Accident Review Board Exercise, 66
Oral report r
Organizing the group in the Group Problem- Rating scale, 100
Solving Exercise, 28 Raw score method, 101,102
Orientation session, candidate, 12, 71–73, “Real me,” 18
131–132 “Real person,” 15
Realism of exercises, 16, 148
P Recording candidate behaviors, 5
Relationship between performance dimensions
Performance dimensions and job tasks, 70
relationships with job tasks, 70 Reporting candidate scores, 102–104
generally, 96–99 Resource Person
Planning in Tactical Fire Problems, 31, 79
importance of, 67–68 in Tactical Police Problem, 35, 79
Positive attitude, 113 Responding to questions from the audience in
Predictive power of assessment centers, 6 the Community
Preparation of candidates, 68 Meeting or Presentation Exercise, 51
Preparation Room, 74 Rights of participants in assessment centers,
Preparing for an assessment center, 108 173
Problem Analysis Role players
benchmarks, 99 generally, 19, 79, 89
in Citizen Interview Exercise, 96 in Citizen Interview Exercise, 41, 52
in Criminal Investigation Exercise, 97 in Community Meeting or Presentation
in Group Problem-Solving Exercise, 97 Exercise,, 50–52
in In-Basket Exercise, 97 in Employee Meeting Exercise, 38, 39
in Program Development Exercise, 97 in Fire Inspection Exercise, 44
Index 225
in News Media Exercise, 58 Subject Matter Expert, 16, 95, 96

in Public Education Exercise, 54 in design and selection of exercises, 71
in Shift or Company Meeting Exercise, 47 in In-Basket Exercise, 22, 23
in Staff Meeting Exercise, 55 in Tactical Fire Problem, 31, 32
in Tactical Fire Problem, 32 in Tactical Police Problem, 36, 37
Role playing - see role players Subjectivity of assessment centers, 16
Room confirmation for various exercises, App Q, Successful performance
209 in Fire Inspection Exercise, 46
Rules of conduct for assessors, 91 in Public Education Exercise, 54
in Shift or Company Training Exercise, 50
s Superior, 100
typical assessor comments, 105
Sample group comparisons of In-Basket scores,
104 T
Scheduling methods, 75–77, App R, 212
Scoring of candidates, 92 Tactical Problem, 29
Security, test, 77–78 Tactical Fire/EMS Problem, 29–32
Selecting evaluation criteria, 95 best practices, 118–120
Selection and qualification of assessors, be proactive, not reactive in, 120
148–149 follow Incident Command Procedures
Selection and training of assessors, 68, 85 in, 119
Shift or Company Meeting Exercise, 46–48 take nothing for granted in, 119
role players in, 47 utilize all available resources in a time-
Shift or Company Training Exercise, 48–50 ly manner, 118
best practices in, 127–129 company officer in, 30
begin and end the session on a posi- evaluation of, App G, 192
tive note, 127 example of, App E, 186
don’t ignore criticism or unprofessional greatest blunders in, 137–138
conduct, 127 locations for, 30
get the role players involved, 127 Incident Commander in, 31
maintain your composure, 128 performance dimensions in, 96, 97
example of, App L, 200 Resource Person in, 31, 32
similar to the Shift or Company Meeting scenario, App F, 189
Exercise, 48 simulating reality in, 32
successful performance in, 50 Subject Matter Expert in, 31. 32
topics for, 50 Tactical Police Problem, 34–37
Simulating reality, 16, 148 common errors in, 37
Simulators, fire, 80–81 performance dimensions in, 96, 97
Some of the greatest blunders, 130 Resource Person in, 35
Staff Meeting Exercise, 54–56 Subject Matter Expert in, 36, 37
example of, App O, 206 Technology
greatest blunders in, 142–144 use of in an assessment center, 80
objective of, 56 use of in In-Basket Exercise, 25
performance dimensions in, 96, 97 Test security, 77–78
role playing in, 55 Topics
Staff Support, 78 to be assigned in Group Problem-Solving
Standard Operating Policies and Procedures, Exercise, 27
33 to be asisgned in Program Development
Stress tolerance Exercise, 60
in News Media Exercise, 97 to be assigned in Shift or Company Training
in Shift or Company Meeting Exercise, 97 Exercise, 50
in Staff Meeting Exercise, 97 Training of assessors, 68, 85, 167–170
in Tactical Fire Problem, 97 Typical Assessment Center Schedule, App R, 212
in Tactical Police Problem, 97 Typical In-Basket Items, App B, 179
Uses of assessment centers, 3

Use of modern technology in an assessment
center, 80
Use of technology in In-Basket Exercise, 25
Validation issues in assessment centers,

171–172
Videotaped candidate feedback, 107
Videotapes
use of in an assessment center, 84
Video camera operator, 78
Weighted scores
calculation of, 102
Well qualified, 100
typical assessor comments, 105
Witness statements
in Criminal Investigation Exercise, 61
Written communication skills
benchmarks, 99
in In-Basket Exercise, 96
in Program Development Exercise, 59
Written examinations, 8
Written report
in Program Development Exercise, 60

Charles D. Hale The Assessment Center Handbook For Police and Fire Personnel PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Charles D. Hale The Assessment Center Handbook For Police and Fire Personnel PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The AssessmenT CenTer hAndbook

for PoliCe And fire Personnel

Charles d. hale is the President of Resource Management Associates, a

CHARLES C THOMAS • PUBLISHER, LTD.

This book is protected by copyright. No part of

©2010 by CHARLES C THOMAS • PUBLISHER, LTD.

ISBN 978-0-398-07948-2 (spiral)

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 2010012351

With THOMAS BOOKS careful attention is given to all details of manufacturing

Printed in the United States of America

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data

The proper ways of evaluating the results of an assessment center, scor-

1. What Is an Assessment Center? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

2. Advantages of the Assessment Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

3. Why Some People Don’t Like Assessment Centers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

4. Typical Assessment Center Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

5. Assessment Center Design and Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

6. Selection and Training of Assessors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

7. Candidate Evaluation, Scoring, and Feedback . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .92

8. Preparing for an Assessment Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .108

9. Best Practices in Assessment Center Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .115

10. Some of the Greatest Blunders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .130

11. Ensuring Candidate Satisfaction with Assessment Center Methods . . .145

12. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .154

2.1 How Candidates View an Assessment Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10

A. Assessment Center Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159

WhAT is An AssessmenT CenTer?

A n assessment center is not a place, but rather a process that is used in

What’s this I hear about assessment centers?

Assessment centers are traditionally viewed as a part of a selection

can also be used to evaluate deficiencies in department operations, man-

Assessment centers create a learning environment for participants.

An assessment center can also be used to pinpoint problems with orga-

A Newsletter of the Police Executive Research Forum (March/April, 1998), p. 2.

leadership, human relations, and decision-making skills which are difficult to

1. A job analysis of relevant behaviors must be conducted to determine

9. The integration of each individual’s behaviors must be based on pooled

AdVAnTAGes of The AssessmenT CenTer

T he assessment center method offers a number of advantages over more

There are obvious exceptions. While an assessment center can demon-

Many municipalities use assessment centers for evaluating candidates

emotion that is intended in them, it may be preferable to have the assessors

Careful note-taking is required.

right and everyone else is always wrong.

as prepared as possible. The only thing that is gained by keeping candi-

WhY some PeoPle don’T like

explanation: Because assessment centers measure future job perform-

Complaint number 2. i am not a good “role player” and don’t do well

explanation: As a matter of fact, the assessors get to know the “real”

How do they get to know the “real” me?

Complaint number 4. The scenarios are not realistic.

is not real but that it is intended to be as real-like as possible. If the con-

Complaint number 5. The assessors can’t judge me after seeing me for

explanation: Actually, if the process is well-designed and the evaluation

Complaint number 6. They are too subjective.

explanation: While assessment centers are not as objective as some

Assessors achieve a high degree of reliability in their ratings.

Complaint number 7. They are too expensive.

explanation: There is no question that assessment centers are much

Complaint number 8. i would rather be judged by my own peers than

not upon some preconceived belief or judgement about the candidate.

Assessors work hard to render a fair evaluation of candidates.

Complaint number 9. The assessors will do whatever the Chief tells