Assessment centres have long been held as the golden standard in selection methods. They
owe their success to the fact that they are made up of a multitude of exercises, each of which
is a valid measure of job performance. It is the additive effect of all of these exercises,
technically called incremental validity, that makes assessment centres so good. Organisations
frequently invest a great deal of time, money and resources into designing a good assessment
centre. Their design typically requires interviews with current job holders, consultation with
other stakeholders, exercise design writing time, the piloting of exercises, designing assessor
skills training and delivering the assessment centre.
To get the best out of this process, much technical expertise is invested in designing relevant
exercises, carefully designing the behavioural criteria to be assessed and developing clear,
unambiguous rating sheets. Assessors are trained in observation and recording skills, as well
as the psychology that can undermine effective assessment. Psychological phenomena such
as bias, stereotype, poor memory and harsh or lenient standards can all impact on the
accurate assessment of people. A good assessment centre is designed to minimise the
impact of all of these, and yet, at the last hurdle, all of this in built objectivity is frequently
flushed down the drain. But how can this be? The answer is in the wash-up discussion.
This problem has been recognised for many years, and yet the wash-up discussion is still
highly regarded. The reason for this is politics and engagement. Most organisations have
rightfully devolved recruitment to line managers with HR acting as a business partner in
supporting the process. Line managers want ownership for selection decisions because they
know and understand the job roles, and will ultimately be working with the people that are
recruited. The “we want to have our say rather than have who we employ thrust upon us”
attitude is absolutely right. However, the wash-up discussion is not the place where the
selection decision should be made.
As a Business Psychologist I have taken part in many assessment centres where assessors
apply themselves diligently to the process. They trust the process, adhere to the indicators,
believe in the exercises and are careful to be objective in their evaluations. Yet, during the
wash-up, although the numbers may well suggest that the candidate was not right for the
organisation somebody pipes up “...but they were so good in the customer handling exercise”
or “...they had real presence”, or worse still “…but I really like him/her.” Admit it, how many
of you have experienced this situation? Now ask yourself, what is actually going on here?
Personal bias, recruiting in our own image and all those lovely biases that your training told
you to leave at the door are rearing their ugly heads and influencing the selection decision.
So, where does this leave the wash-up discussion? The extreme response would be not to have
one, but in many cases this would not be politically acceptable. The decision to remove the
wash-up discussion in one organisation was initially met with resistance. This resistance was dealt
with by explaining that managers were still involved in the assessment process - they observed
candidates during exercises and provided ratings. This involvement generated the data that
would determine if a candidate should pass or fail. However, where the wash-up discussion
cannot be removed altogether, you should at least introduce the following:
- Nominate an impartial chair person for the wash-up discussion.
- Calculate overall scores mathematically, either by simply adding them, or calculating the
average.
- Have a clearly defined pass/fail mark.
- Where a candidate is borderline or has performed inconsistently, revisit the scores. The chair
should facilitate a discussion whereby the relevant assessors provide clear evidence for why
they have scored the person the way that they have. This should focus on behavioural
evidence only. Once you have satisfied yourselves with the individual scores, apply the
pass/fail mark to make the decision.
- Finally, use the wash-up discussion to collect key feedback messages – what was the person
best at? What were they least good at? Use this information to provide feedback to
successful and unsuccessful candidates.
