Search results

The article presents some surprising results on Development Centre use and effectiveness, e.g. on the widespread use of centres (even amongst smaller companies), the quite limited benefits of assessor training, and the effects of size.

Perhaps it is inevitable that the most accurate, most realistic and most credible method of assessing a person's abilities is also the most expensive and most difficult! The method is assessment centres (see Goodge and Griffiths, for a review of the costs and benefits of different assessment methods).

Highlights the reasons for the move to HR partnering and the advantages it can bring.

Suggests three essentials of successful HR partnering – understanding, resources and credibility. Explores each in some depth, and illustrates them with cases based on the experience of European companies.

Advances the view that there is no one best way to implement partnering; the HR model and its pace of introduction should be tailored to the organization.

Offers practical advice and suggestions on judging readiness for partnering, and for putting the key requirements in place.

Helps readers to gauge their organizations’ readiness for partnering, and to avoid some of the pitfalls. Also proves valuable to organizations that have begun their partnering journey.

At a time when many Development Centres do not run as well as they should, strategic advice is provided on the core process of all Centres: assessment, counselling and development planning. Each of these processes is covered in depth and, throughout, the experience of major companies such as Philips and Pilkington is drawn on to support and illustrate its points. The bigger issues, those which have major impacts on the effectiveness of the Centres, are the focus of the article; in many ways important new standards are set for companies using Centres.

Two forces of change in the field of assessment centres are described — change in company attitudes towards centres and a growing body of research which questions the current thinking on the subject. How one organisation — London Regional Transport — responded by making what appears to be very beneficial changes in the way it runs some of its centres is examined. Its problems with feedback and the general inappropriateness of the traditional design for development applications are examined.

Uses multiple regression to highlight the key design variables underpinning development centre effectiveness. Finds third‐generation designs which provide exercise realism, participant involvement and concerted development planning on the centre to be significantly more effective. Proposes that the most effective post‐centre processes were informal supporting and monitoring activities, plus self‐managed learning.

Analyses the business context of management development in the late 1990s, and presents some surprising survey results on the effectiveness of development methods ‐ results which challenge many of our past assumptions. Describes two central “principles” of effective management development today: “Work hard at developing people” and “Go for benefits with little cost”. Illustrates these principles with assessment and development planning applications.

Presents the findings of a major survey comparing alternative development centre designs. Aims to understand which designs are most effective; results suggest that “third generation” centres generally address common problems better than earlier models. Presents new data on centre use and content, and concludes with practical guidance for users.

Exactly how do you get executives to listen to your ideas and opinions, offer you a role in the major business decisions and value your contribution?