Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Journal of Vocational Behavior 30, 187-202 (1987)
The Influence of Individual Characteristics and Assessment Center Evaluation on Career Exploration Behavior and
Job Involvement
RAYMOND A. NOE AND BRIAN D. STEFFY
Industrial Relations Center, University oft Minnesota
The assessment center is a popular technique for identifying individuals with managerial talent and providing feedback to participants regarding their devel- opmental needs for career progression. However, the impact of assessment center evaluations on subsequent career behavior and job attitudes has received little attention. This study investigated the impact of the assessment center evaluation, attitudes toward the assessment process, gender, locus of control, and career strategy on career exploration behavior and job involvement. Results indicated that assessment center evaluation, locus of control, career strategy, and attitudes toward the assessment process influenced job involvement and career exploration behavior. 0 1987 Academic Press, Inc.
One of the most popular and valid methods for identifying individuals with managerial talent is the assessment center. The “bottom line” of most assessment centers is the recommendation made by the assessors regarding the participant’s potential for managerial work or promotion potential. This recommendation has been shown to be predictive of job performance and advancement criteria (Huck, 1973; Klimoski & Strickland, 1977; Schmitt, Noe, Merritt, & Fitzgerald, 1984). Besides being a useful procedure for managerial selection, the assessment center may also serve a developmental function, specifically in the form of feedback participants receive regarding interpersonal and administrative skills. It is assumed that this feedback motivates individuals to participate in developmental activities such as in-house training programs or university courses to enhance their upward mobility potential for managerial work (Thornton & Byham, 1982).
Several authors have stressed the need for more research regarding the effects of the assessment center process and outcomes on the sub-
The authors thank Karen Clark for her help in preparation of this manuscript. Requests for reprints should be directed to Raymond A. Noe, Industrial Relations Center, University of Minnesota, 537 Management Jr Economics, 271 19th Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55455.
187 0001-8791187 $3.00
Copyri.&t 0 1981 by Academic Press. Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
188 NOE AND STEFFY
sequent self-insight, self-development, career attitudes, and career behavior of participants (Kraut, 1972; Howard, 1974; Thornton & Byham, 1982). To date, there has been little empirical work in this area. In one of the few published studies on the impact of assessment center participation on self-development, Schmitt, Ford, and Stults (1986) demonstrated that participation leads to changes in self-perceptions of interpersonal and administrative skills. These changes were seen to be directly associated with the skills evaluated in the assessment process. In a longitudinal study of the development of young managers in the Bell System, assessment center participation was found to be associated with later career attitudes (Bray, Campbell, & Grant, 1974). Those indviduals who received un- favorable evaluations of managerial potential reported less career salience and less upward mobility motivation as measured by projective tests, than recruits who received favorable evaluations. Conclusions from this study are tenuous, however, because the recruits who received favorable evaluations were placed in managerial positions. Slivinski, McDonald, and Bourgeois (1979) studied participants’ reactions 1 and 3 years after assessment. They found that 79% of the participants reported some change in their career plans as a result of the assessment center experience, though the specific types of changes were not delineated.
One type of career-related behavior that may be inthrenced by assessment center evaluation is career exploration, which includes activities undertaken to elicit information for purposes of making decisions regarding occupational adjustment and job search (Jordaan, 1963). By definition, the career exploration process involves a self-assessment of skill strengths and weaknesses, values, and strategies, as well as an external search for job- related information from family, friends, and other sources (Mihal, Sorce, & Comte, 1984; Stumpf, Colarelli, & Hartman, 1983). Career exploration behaviors may be further defined according to the specific dimensions suggested by Stumpf et al. (1983), who argue that career exploration involves the individual’s level of self- and environment exploration, intensity of systematic exploration, procurement of career- and job-related infor- mation, and degree of certainty or focus of career objectives.
Assessment center evaluations may also influence the job involvement of assessment center participants, especially those who received unfa- vorable evaluations. Job involvement is defined as the degree to which the individual identifies psychologically with work or the importance of the work for the person’s self-image (Lodahl & Kejner, 1965). Research has indicated that job involvement is related to job satisfaction and absenteeism (Saal, 1978). It is important to determine the influence of assessment center evaluations on participants’ job involvement because of its link to both satisfaction and absenteeism. Specifically, those in- dividuals who receive unfavorable evaluations may become less job in- volved, resulting in an increased tendency for absenteeism and other counterproductive behaviors.
ASSESSMENT CENTER EVALUATION AND CAREERS 189
In addition to the assessment center evaluation, gender, locus of control, salience and clarity of career strategy, atfective reactions to the assessment center process, and career line distance from the target job may influence the intensity and scope of individuals’ exploratory behavior and job involvement. For example, gender-based differences in career exploration may exist. Evidence regarding gender-based differences in career aspiration level and motivation to manage is mixed. Some studies suggest that males have greater career salience and engage in greater goal-directed career planning behavior than females (e.g., Manhardt, 1972; Brenner & Tomkiewicz, 1979). Other studies have found no differences between males and females (e.g., Hardesty & Betz, 1980; Miner, 1974; Rosen, Templeton, & Kichline, 1981; Rynes & Rosen, 1983). Research also suggests that regardless of marital status, there are no sex differences in job involvement (Graddick & Far-r, 1983; Sekaran, 1982). Of interest in this study is whether gender explains differences in exploratory behavior and job involvement.
Previous research indicates that locus of control may affect the scope and intensity of exploratory behavior and job involvement. Rotter (1966) describes the various manifestations of locus of control. Internals believe that positive and negative events are contingent on their own behavior and are therefore under personal control. Environmental stimuli which increase opportunities for self-control are particularly salient to internals. Externals believe that outcomes are unrelated to their behaviors or beyond personal control, and therefore attribute the causes for events to luck, fate, or the actions of others. Several studies have found that locus of control influences career attitudes and behavior. Thornton (1978) found that internals reported more career planning activities and career infor- mation-seeking behavior following a career planning workshop than ex- ternals. Hammer and Vardi (1981) studied the effects of locus of control on career self-management practices of nonsupervisory employees. In an organizational setting which encouraged personal initiative in career development, internals initiated more job moves and were more satisfied with career experiences than externals. In addition, a number of studies have found that internals have higher levels of job involvement than externals (e.g., Dailey & Morgan, 1978; Reitz & Jewell, 1979; Runyon, 1973; Wood, 1974). Overall, research regarding locus of control and career and job attitudes suggests that regardless of the assessment center evaluation, internals may be more likely to be job involved and to engage in exploratory behaviors than externals.
The salience of individuals’ career objectives and the clarity of strategies for meeting those objectives may also influence the extent to which evaluation outcomes influence exploratory behaviors and job involvement (e.g., Gould, 1979). Individuals who are more resolved in their career goals and engage in greater career planning are likely to seek career- related information and report high levels of job involvement, regardless of the evaluation outcome.
190 NOE AND STEFFY
Affective responses toward the assessment process and the feedback received regarding managerial potential are likely to influence exploratory behavior and job involvement. In a summary of the research regarding participants’ perceptions of the assessment center process, Dodd (1977) found that between 10 and 30% of participants believed that the assessment center did not accurately assess strengths and weaknesses. Ilgen, Fisher, and Taylor (1979) outlined the properties of the source, content, and recipient of feedback that can influence behavior. This paper posits that the perceived credibility, accuracy, and usefulness of the information provided by the assessment center process moderates the relationship between the recommendation concerning management potential and job involvement as well as exploration behavior. Assessees who received an unfavorable evaluation but who perceived that the assessment process was fair and accurate may be more likely to engage in exploratory behavior than those individuals who received a low evaluation and perceived that the process was unfair and inaccurate. Individuals who received a favorble evaluation of managerial potential may be less likely to engage in ex- ploratory behavior regardless of their reaction to the assessment process.
Career line distance from the job for which the individual is being evaluated should also be considered. Career line distance is considered to be the number of hierarchical mobility linkages defining the job ladder, or career path, typically taken by employees. Few studies have examined the impact of career line distance on individual’s career search behaviors and job involvement. One might expect differences in attitudinal and behavioral outcomes based on the distance from the desired or target job (e.g., Scholl, 1983). It is likely that the closer the current job is to the target job, the more the individual will exhibit exploratory behaviors in an attempt to gather current information regarding ski& needed for the target job.
The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of the assessment center evaluation of managerial potential, as well as career and personality variables, on individuals’ career exploration behavior and job involvement. Thus, the dependent variables were job involvement and career exploration behavior. Included as independent variables were the assessment center recommendation, participants’ reactions to the assessment process (e.g., perceived credibility and face validity), locus of control, salience and clarity of career strategy, and the career line distance between the par- ticipant’s currently held job and the desired managerial, or target, job. Specifically, this study investigated whether those individuals who (a) received a more favorable assessment center evaluation, (b) had developed career strategies, and (c) possessed an internal locus of control engage in greater career exploration behaviors and report higher levels of job involvement. The impact of gender on career exploration behavior and job involvement was also evaluated.
ASSESSMENT CENTER EVALUATION AND CAREERS 191
METHOD
Participants
The initial sample included 120 educators who had participated in an assessment center. Because of incomplete information, the sample size was reduced to 107. These educators were candidates for promotion to principalships in elementary, junior high, middle, or high schools in three dilTerent school districts located in California, Oregon, and South Carolina. None of the educators in this study received a promotion as a result of his/her performance in the assessment center, The sample included almost equal numbers of males (N = 50) and females (N = 57). Slightly more than half of the participants (N = 67) held nonadministrative positions (teacher, counselor), and the others were assistant principals (N = 40). The average length of time between participation in the assessment center and collection of survey data was approximately 1 year (M = 11.09 months, SD = 7.57).
Assessment Center Dimensions and Use
The assessment center was developed for the National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP) with the voluntary help of the American Psychological Association Division of Industrial and Organi- zational Psychology (see Jeswald, 1977; Moses, 1977). Since that time the NASSP has provided advice and assessor training to interested school districts. The purpose of the assessment center was to identify individuals for school principalships. A job analysis conducted prior to the development of the center indicated that 12 skills were important for successful school administrators. These 12 skills included problem analysis, judgment, leadership, organizational ability, stress tolerance, range of interests, oral communication, written communication, sensitivity, de- cisiveness, personal motivation, and educational values. These 12 di- mensions are similar to the skills evaluated in assessment centers designed to select managers in private sector profit-oriented organizations (see Thornton & Byham, 1982). Personal motivation, range of interests, and educational values were included for personal self-development. That is, performance in these dimensions was not considered in evaluating the suitability of the educator for the principalship.
In addition, a summary placement recommendation was made. This was an overall rating made at the conclusion of the assessors’ integration session and represented the assessors’ overall appraisal of the candidate’s potential as a school administrator. Assessing the 12 dimensions involved the use of two in-baskets, a semistructured interview, a fact-finding and decision-making simulation with an oral presentation, and an analysis
192 NOE AND STEFFY
and group discussion of a case study. Consensus ratings of the skill dimensions as well as the placement recommendation were completed after a 2-day discussion of candidates by the assessor team. The validity of this assessment center was previously established (see Schmitt, Noe, Merritt, & Fitzgerald, 1984).
Each assessment center participant received feedback regarding his/her performance in the assessment center. Although a standardized format was not used, typically, the district coordinator in charge of administering the assessment process discussed with the participant the assessor team’s consensus evaluation of skills in each of the 12 dimensions. At the conclusion of the session the participant was informed of the likelihood of promotion to a principalship, based on the consensus placement recommendation.
Measures
Assessment center evaluation. The overall assessment center placement recommendation served as the measure of promotion potential. This recommendation ranged from 1 to 5, with 1 indicating excellent potential and 5 indicating poor potential for success in a principalship. The placement recommendation was collected from the personnel files of the study participants by the assessment center coordinator in each district and mailed to the senior author.
Career line distance. In this study the object of mobility or the target position was the principalship. The sources of mobility include the assistant principal, teacher, and counselor positions. The assistant principal position involves knowledge, skill, and abilities that are similar to those required by the principalship. The teacher and counselor positions involve tasks that are less similar to those required by the principalship. Also, in many districts teachers and counselors who desire principalships must first serve as assistant principals. Career line distance was operationalized by categorizing the participants into two groups: a group representing the administrative position, one mobility link below the target job (assistant principals), and a nonadministrative group, two mobility links below the target job (teacher or counselor). The administrative group was coded 2 and the nonadministrative group 1.
Locus ofcontrol. This 1 l-item scale (1 = Strongly Agree, 4 = Strongly Disagree) was developed by Andrisani and Nestel(1976). The items were scaled such that high mean scale scores indicated an external locus of control. These items represent the more adult and work-oriented items from the Rotter (1966) scale (e.g., “Who gets promoted often depends on who was lucky to be in the right place first”). Internal consistency reliability was .7 1.
Reaction to skill assessment. Fifteen items were developed to assess
ASSESSMENT CENTER EVALUATION AND CAREERS 193
participants’ perceptions of the assessment center, including felt accuracy, helpfulness of feedback, satisfaction, and impact on their career (e.g., “The observations of my performance in the assessment center were accurate”). The response scales for the items included 1 = Strongly Agree to 5 = Strongly Disagree. The lower the mean scale score, the more positive the participants’ reaction. The internal consistency reliability for this scale was .91.
Exploratory behavior. Stumpf, Colarehi, and Hartman (1983) constructed a set of scales measuring several aspects of exploratory behavior. The Career Exploratory Survey (CES) measures (1) the source of exploration information (environment vs self), the method of exploration (random vs intended systematic), the extent and scope of information (frequency and amount of information), and (4) the focus, or salience of exploration. Research has shown that exploratory behavior as assessed by the CES is related to actual behavioral manifestations of career exploration (e.g., Stumpf & Colarelli, 1980; Stumpf et al., 1983). The CES was adapted in the present study to measure exploratory behaviors associated with the career transition between the position of teacher, counselor, or assistant principal to that of school principal, the target job.
Examples of items included: “Tried to develop my administrative skills through my current work” (intended systematic exploration), “Contem- plated my past” (self-exploration), “Initiated conversations about my desires to be a school administrator with individuals who are currently in adminstrative positions or know the job well” (environment exploration), “How much information do you have on what one does in the career areas you have investigated?” (amount of information), and “How sure is your preference for an administrative appointment?” (focus). The response scales for the items included 1 = A Great Deal to 5 = A Little for intended systematic exploration, self-exploration, and environment exploration. Low mean scale scores indicated that the individual engaged in a high degree of intended systematic, self, and environment exploration. The response scale for amount of information was 1 = A Tremendous Amount to 5 = Little. A low mean scale score indicated that the individual had acquired a large amount of information regarding educational ad- ministration career opportunities. For the focus scale, responses ranged from 1 = Very Sure to 5 = Nut Too Sure. A low mean scale score indicated that the individual had a strong preference for the principalship. Although a small number of items assessed each dimension of exploratory behavior, the internal consistency reliability estimates were satisfactory (number of items and internal consistency reliability estimates in paren- theses): intended systematic exploration (4, .76), self-exploration (5, .75), environment exploration (5, .89), amount of information (3, .81), and focus (6, .70).
Job involvement. Lodahl and Kejner’s (1965) 20-item scale was used
194 NOE AND STEFFY
to measure job involvement. This scale measures work enthusiasm, work as a indicator of self-worth, and work importance. Each item included a five-point response scale (1 = Strongly Agree to 5 = Strongly Disagree). The lower the mean scale score the greater the degree of job involvement. The internal consistency reliability of this scale was .67.
Salience and clarity ofcareer strategy. Gould’s (1979) six-item measure of career plae was used in this study to assess the clarity of participants’ career objectives and strategies. This scale assesses the extent to which career plans exist, how frequently career plans change, and whether or not a strategy exists for the achievement of career goals (e.g., “I have a strategy for achieving my career goals”). The response scale for each item ranged from 1 = Strongly Agree to 5 = Strongly Disagree. Lower mean scale scores indicated that the participant had developed career objectives and strategies. The internal consistency reliability of this scale was 32.
Data Analysis
The independent variables in this study included the assessment center recommendation, participants’ reactions to the assessment center ex- perience, gender, locus of control, career line distance, and clarity of career objectives. An interaction term representing the potential moderating impact of participants’ affective reaction to the assessment center ex- perience on the assessment center evaluation-exploratory behavior re- lationship was also included. The interaction term was created by mul- tiplying the assessment center recommendation by the reaction to skill assessment scale score. The dependent variables included the scale scores representing job involvement and the five dimensions of exploratory behavior (intended systematic exploration, self-exploration, environment exploration, amount of information, and focus). Scale scores were computed by summing the items.
A correlation matrix was generated to examine the relationships between the variables. Regression analysis was used to assess the relative con- tribution of each of the independent variables to career exploration and job involvement.
RESULTS
The scale means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations are presented in Table 1. Participants were evaluated as having average to above average promotion potential as indicated by the placement recommendation (M = 2.52, SD = 0.89). Examination of the mean scale scores suggests that, on average, participants had an external locus of control, reacted positively to the assessment center experience, engaged in a high degree of career planning and exploration behavior, and were involved in their jobs. Examination of the significant intercorrelations 0, < .05) between
TABL
E 1
Mea
ns,
Stan
dard
De
viat
ions
, an
d In
terc
orre
latio
ns”,b
M SD
1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10
11
12
13
Dem
ogra
phic
varia
bles
1.
Sex
2.
Pos
ition
3. M
onth
s sin
ce
asse
ssm
ent
Inde
pend
ent
varia
bles
4.
Pla
cem
ent
reco
mm
enda
tion
5. L
ocus
of
con
trol
6. R
eact
ion
to s
kill
asse
ssm
ent
7. C
aree
r pla
nning
Depe
nden
t va
riabl
es
8. I
nten
ded
syst
emat
ic
expl
orat
ion
9. S
elf-e
xplo
ratio
n 10
. En
viron
men
t ex
plor
atio
n 11
. Am
ount
of
in
form
atio
n 12
. Fo
cus
13.
Job
invo
lvem
ent
.13
.05
11.0
9 7.
57
-.13
2.52
0.
89
2.44
0.
32
2.04
0.
66
1.67
0.
62
.18*
-.0
6
.12
.22*
.09
.oo
.Ol
.07
.05
.09
.19*
.5
2*
.oo
.17*
.1
5 .3
1*
.18*
1.83
0.
81
.lO
- .1
9*
.lO
.24*
.3
3*
.24*
.1
4
2.39
0.
80
.08
2.58
1.
12
.08
.09
.21*
-.04
-.17*
.0
8 .0
9 -.l
O
.Ol
.36*
-.1
3 .ll
.14
-.04
.ll .2
6*
.23*
2.41
0.
99
.21*
.0
9 .3
0*
.30*
.0
7 .3
1*
.51*
.3
2*
.53*
2.13
0.
55
- .0
8 -
.31*
.1
9*
.lO
.08
.09
.51*
.1
5 -.0
6 .1
4 .2
5*
2.24
0.
38
.21*
.O
l .0
2 .2
0*
- .O
l .1
8*
.21*
.0
9 .3
6*
- .0
8 .0
7 .lO
’ Be
caus
e of
miss
ing
data
, th
e sa
mpl
e siz
e fo
r th
e co
rrela
tions
va
ried
from
98
to 1
08.
b Sc
ale
valu
es r
ange
fro
m
1 to
5 w
ith
the
exce
ptio
n of
loc
us o
f co
ntro
l wh
ich
rang
es f
rom
1
to 4
. Fo
r th
e lo
cus
of c
ontro
l sc
ale
a low
sc
ore
indi
cate
s an
Int
erna
l or
ient
atio
n,
for
the
othe
r sc
ales
a lo
w sc
ore
indi
cate
s a
high
leve
l of
the
par
ticul
ar
care
er
activ
ity
or a
pos
itive
re
actio
n.
* p
6 .0
5.
z
196 NOE AND STEFFY
the demographics and types of exploration behavior revealed some in- teresting relationships. Males reacted more positively to the assessment center experience than females (Y = .22) and appeared to have more information concerning the availability of principalships (r = .21). Sex was also related to job involvement. Males reported higher levels of job involvement than females (r = .21).
Those participants currently holding administrative positions (assistant principals) engaged in more environmental exploration (r = .21) and less intended systematc exploration (r = - .19> than participants not holding an administrative position. Administrators also reported having a lesser focus, or’ preference, for the principalship (r = - .31). This may be because their current job is highly similar to the principalship but with fewer of the problems associated with being the chief executive officer of a school. The pay differential between the jobs is also low.
Not surprisingly, placement recommendation was significantly correlated with participants’ reactions to the assessment center (r = S2). Those individuals who received the more favorable recommendations perceived the assessment center as more credible, agreed with the accuracy of the evaluation, and felt the experience was worthwhile in comparison to individuals who did not receive a favorable promotion recommendation. Both locus of control and the placement recommendation were significantly related to career exploration behavior. Those participants who received the favorable promotion recommendation reported engaging in more sys- tematic activities to learn about the principalship (r = .24) and acquired more information about the position (Y = .30) than participants who received less favorable evaluations. Similarly, participants with an internal locus of control engaged in more systematic exploration activities (r = .33) and acquired more information about the position (r = .30) than participants with an external locus of control. Internals also reported having a more definitive career plan than externals (r = .31). Placement recommendation and reaction to skill assessment were significantly related to job involvement. Those individuals who received less favorable rec- ommendations were less job involved.
In order to evaluate the relative contribution of sex, locus of control, career line distance, career strategy, placement recommendation, and reactions to skill assessment on the degree to which participants engaged in exploratory behavior and job involvment, regression analyses were conducted. Sex, career line distance, placement recommendation, locus of control, reaction to skill assessment, and salience of career strategy were entered into the regression equation first using a stepwise method. The interaction term (placement recommendation * reaction to skill as- sessment) was entered after the other variables were evaluated for inclusion in the regression equation. This is consistent with Cohen and Cohen’s (1975) recommendation to use a hierarchical method to test for a signficant
ASSESSMENT CENTER EVALUATION AND CAREERS 197
TABLE 2 Summary of Regression Analysis for Dependent Variables
Predictor
Career planning Placement recommendation
Career planning Career line distance
Locus of control Placement recommendation
* p G .05.
P R R2 AR’ F
Amount of information .48 .34 .12 - 12.79* .25 .41 .I7 .05 9.73*
Focus .42 SO .25 - 33.11*
- .30 .56 .32 .07 23.28*
Intended systematic exploration .78 .33 .I1 - 11.93* .19 .39 .15 .04 8.64*
interaction, that is, first enter the main effects into the regression equation, followed by the interaction term. The Statistical Package for Social Sciences regression routine which was used for this analysis selects variables for inclusion based on a F-to-enter of .05 and F-to-remove of .10 (Hull & Nie, 1981).
The results of the regression analyses are presented in Table 2. None of the independent variables met the criteria for inclusion in the equation for self-exploration. For environment exploration and job involvement, the beta weights were identical to the significant correlations shown in Table 1. Therefore, results of regression analyses with self-exploration, environment exploration, and job involvement are not included in Table 2. The interaction term was not significant in any of the regression equations. Locus of control and placement recommendation both explained a significant amount of variance in intended systematic exploration (R* = .15). As is evident from Table 2, locus of control was entered first in the equation and accounted for more of the variance than placement recommendation.
The amount of information that participants’ reported having regarding the principalship was predicted by both career planning and placement recommendation. Those individuals who reported having a career strategy also had more information ($3 = 4). Placement recommendation explained a relatively small amount of variance in comparison to career planning (AR* = &I). Career planning was also related to how focused or certain the individual was that she/he wanted to be a principal. Those individuals who had a career plan or strategy were more definitely focused on the principalship. The distance the individual’s current position was from the principalship also contributed to explaining focus. The negative beta weight (~3 = - .30) indicates that participants in administrative positions were much less focused than those in nonadministrative positions. The
198 NOE AND STEFFY
change in R2 (.07) indicated that although career line distance explained significant variance in focus, it had much less impact than the extent to which the individual had a career plan or strategy.
Cohen (1977) defines small, medium, and large effect sizes as .Ol, .09, and .25, respectively. According to Cohen’s criteria, career planning and career line distance account for a large amount of variance in focus. Placement recommendation has only a small impact on amount of in- formation the individual has attempted to obtain regarding the principalship and intended systematic exploration.
DISCUSSION
The assessment center evaluation appeared to have the greatest impact on the extent to which participants acquired information about their managerial skills in a systematic manner through work assignments and other activities (intended systematic exploration). The evaluation also had a significant, though smaller, effect on the amount of information individuals acquired regarding managerial jobs and career paths. These results suggest that assessment center evaluation may have an impact on an individual’s motivaton to acquire career information and develop managerial skills. Those individuals who receive the most negative eval- uations may be less likely to experiment with managerial skills and may seek less information about the desired position.
One explanation for this finding is that the assessment center is serving as a realistic job preview, lowering expectations for promotion among those who received negative evaluations (Wanous, 1980). The lower expectations result in lower levels of intended systematic exploration behavior and search for information. Future research should study the impact of assessment center evaluations on changes in expectations and the relationship between expectations and exploratory behaviors.
The relationship between career line distance from the desired position and intended systematic and environment exploration suggests that ex- ploratory behavior may depend on how closely related the individual’s job responsibilities are to the target job. For example, assistant principals reported more intended systematic and environment exploration than teachers and counselors. The assistant principal position involves knowl- edge, skills, and abilities that are more similar to those required by the principalship. The results of this study suggest that the greater the distance the individual’s current position is from the target position, the more likely the individual is to seek opportunities to demonstrate and experiment with administrative skills in the current position to determine if such work is desirable (intended systematic exploration). The closer the current position to the target position, the more the individual becomes interested in information concerning job openings and visibility so that decision makers are aware of his or her skills and abilities (environment exploration).
ASSESSMENT CENTER EVALUATION AND CAREERS 199
An interesting study would involve a longitudinal analysis of changes in exploration behavior as individuals progress along their career path to the desired career goal or target position.
Individuals with an internal locus of control engaged in more intended systematic exploration and had more information regarding administrative positions than externals. The result of this study suggest that an external orientation may reduce motivation to demonstrate certain types of ex- ploration behavior. Hammer and Vardi (1981) suggest that unfavorable job experiences increase the tendency toward external control. One issue that warrants further investigation is whether locus of control changes as a result of favorable or unfavorable evaluations of performance or ability. Also, if, as this study suggests, locus of control results in the individual obtaining incomplete career information, it is important to determine how to change this orientation. Future research should investigate whether counseling or providing rewards for career-planning activities may overcome the propensity of externals to avoid intended systematic exploration.
The extent to which the individual reported having a career plan or strategy was related to the amount of information collected concerning the principalship and the certainty of the individual’s desire for an ad- ministrative position. Organizations should facilitate career planning ac- tivities by providing career workshops which can serve as a vehicle for information regarding possible career choices, mobility patterns, and the skills needed for movement within career paths. These sessions are likely to stimulate exploratory behaviors and subsequent self-development activities.
The consequences of exploration behaviors need to be further explored. Of particular interest is the relationship between exploratory behavior and career satisfaction, job performance, and development activities. Perhaps individuals who engage in exploratory behaviors are more likely to periodically assess their skill weaknesses, update their skills, and therefore avoid technical obsolescence, in comparison to individuals who do not explore career options and interests or evaluate skills.
Several limitations of this study should be noted. First, job involvement, career planning, and exploratory behavior were assessed using a self- report measure. Although the reliability of this information was satisfactory, the validity of the self-report information may be enhanced in future studies by conducting interviews with supervisors, mentors, and peers and examining personnel records for evidence of job involvement, career plans, and exploration activities. Such evidence would include docu- mentation of overtime work, completion of special projects, attendance at career seminars, or specific requests for career information. Second, it is possible that educators have unique attitudes concerning career development and exploration behavior such that results may have been
200 NGE AND STEFFY
different for individuals not employed in an educational setting. Finally, measures of participants’ locus of control, job involvement, career planning, and degree and type of exploratory behavior prior to participation in the assessment center were not available. Because of this design limitation it cannot be determined whether assessment center particiption resulted in an actual change in exploratory behavior or job involvement. However, the results of this study suggest that this may be a plausible causal relationship. Future studies should collect information concerning par- ticipants’ attitudes and behaviors prior to and following assessment in order to determine the causal impact of assessment center particiption on career attitudes and behavior.
REFERENCES Andrisani, P. J., & Nestel, G. (1976). Internal-external control as a contributor to and
outcome of work experience. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 156-165. Bray, D. W., Campbell, R. J., 8r. Grant, D. L. (1974). Formative years in business: A
long-term AT&T study of managerial lives. New York: Wiley. Brenner, 0. C., & Tomkiewicz, J. (1979). Job orientation of males and females: Are sex
differences declining? Personnel Psychology, 32, 741-750. Cohen, J. (1977). Statisrical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York: Academic
Press. Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1975). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the
behavioral sciences. Hillsdaie, NJ: Erlbaum. Dailey, R. C., & Morgan, C. P. (1978). Personal characteristics and job involvement as
antecedents of boundary spanning behavior: A path analysis. Journal of Managemenr Studies, 15, 330-339.
Dodd, W. E. (1977). Attitudes toward assessment center programs. In J. L. Moses & W. C. Byham (Eds.), Applying the assessmenr center method. New York: Pergamon.
Greenhaus, J. H., & Sklarew, N. D. (1981). Some sources and consequences of career exploration. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 18, l-12.
Gould, S. (1979). Characteristics of career planning in upwardly mobile occupations. Academy of Management Journal, 22, 539-550.
Graddick, M. M., & Farr, J. L. (1983). Professionals in scientific disciplines: Sex-related differences in working life commitments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68,641~645.
Hammer, T. H., & Vardi, P. (1981). Locus of control and career self-management among nonsupervisory employees in industrial settings. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 18, 13-29.
Hardesty, S. A., & Betz, N. E. (1980). The relationship of career salience, attitudes toward women, and demographic characteristics to marital adjustment in dual-career couples. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 17, 242-250.
Howard, A. (1974). An assessment of assessment centers. Academy of Management Journal, 17, 115-134.
Huck, J. (1973). Assessment centers: A review of the external and internal validities. Personnel Psychology, 26, 191-212.
Hull, C. H., & Nie, N. H. (Eds.) (1981). SPSS Update 7-9. New York: McGraw-Hill. Ilgen, D. R., Fisher, C. D., & Taylor, M. S. (1979). Consequences of individual feedback
on behavior in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 349-371. Jeswald, T. A. (1977). A new approach to identifying administrative talent. NASSP Bulletin,
61, 79-83. Jordaan, J. P. (1%3). Exploratory behavior: The formation of self and occupational concepts.
ASSESSMENT CENTER EVALUATION AND CAREERS 201
In D. E. Super, R. Stratishersky, N. Mattin, & J. P. Jordaan (Eds.), Career development self-concept theory (pp. 42-78). New York: College Examination Board.
Klimoski, R., & Strickland, W. (1977). Assessment centers-Valid or merely prescient? Personnel Psychology, 30, 353-360.
Kraut, A. (1972). “A hard look at management assessment centers and their future. Personnel Journal, 51, 317-326.
Lodahl, T. M., & Kejner, M. (1965). The definition and measurement of job involvement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 49, 24-33.
London, M., & Stumpf, S. A. (1982). Managing careers. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Mihal, W. L., Sorce, P. A., & Comte, T. E. (1984). A process model of individual career
decision making. Academy of Management Review, 9, 95-103. Manhardt, P. J. (1972). Job orientation of male and female college graduates in business,
Personnel Psychology, 35, 361-368. Miner, J. B. (1974). Motivation to manage among women: Studies of business managers
and educational administrators. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 5, 197-208. Moses, J. L. (1977). Developing an assessment center program for school administrators.
NASSP Bulletin, 61, 76-79. Reitz, H. J., & Jewel& L. N.. (1979). Sex, locus of control, and job involvement: A six-
country investigation. Academy of Management Journal, 22, 72-80. Rosen, B., Templeton, M. D., & Kichline, K. (1981). The first few years on the job:
Women and management. Business Horizons, 24, 26-29. Rosenbaum, J. E. (1984). Career mobility in a corporate hierarchy. New York: Academic
Press. Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of re-
inforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80 (Whole No. 609). Runyon, K. E. (1973). Some interactions between personality variables and management
styles. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57, 288-294. Rynes, S., & Rosen, B. (1983). A comparison of males and females reactions to career
advancement opportunities. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 22, 105-l 16. Saal, F. E. (1978). Job involvement: A multivariate approach. Journal of Applied Psychology,
63, 53-61. Schmitt, N., Noe, R. A., Merritt, R., & Fitzgerald, M. P. (1984). Validity of assessment
center ratings for the prediction of performance ratings and school climate of school administrators. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(2), 207-213.
Schmitt, N., Ford, J. K., & Stults, D. (1986). Changes in self-perceived ability as a function of performance in an assessment center. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 59, 327-336.
Scholl, R. W. (1983). Career lines and employment stability. Academy of Managemenr Journal, 26, 86-103.
Sekaran, V. (1982). An investigation of the career salience of men and women in dual career families. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 20, 11 l-l 19.
Slivinski, L. W., McDonald, V. S., & Bourgeois, R. P. (1979). Immediate and long-term reactions to an assessment center. Journal of Assessment Center Technology, 2(2).
Stumpf, S. A., Austin, E. J., & Hartman, K. (1984). The impact of career exploration and interview readiness on interview performance and outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 24, 221-235.
Stumpf, S. A., & Colarelli, S. M. (1980). Career exploration: Development of dimensions and some preliminary findings. Psychological Reports, 47, 929-988.
Stumpf, S. A., Colarelli, S. M., & Hartman, K. (1983). Development of the Career Exploration Survey (CES). Journal of Vocational Behavior, 22, 191-226.
Stumpf, S. A., & Rabinowitz, S. (1981). Career stage as a moderator of performance relationships with facets of job satisfaction and role perceptions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 18, 202-218.
202 NOE AND STEFFY
Super, D. E., & Hall, D. T. (1978). Career development: Exploration and planning. In M. L. Rosenweig & L. Porter (Eds.), Annual Review of Psychology, 29, 333-372.
Thornton, G. C. III (1978). Differential effects of career planning on internals and externals. Personnel Psychology, 31, 471-476.
Thornton, G. C. III, 62 Byham, W. C. (1982). Assessment centers and managerial per- formance. New York: Academic Press.
Wanous, J. P. (1980). Organizational entry: Recruitment, selection, and socialization of newcomers. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Wood, D. A. (1974). Effects of worker orientation differences on job correlates. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 54-60.
Received: August 4, 1986.
