cpb-a0034381

7/25/2019 cpb-a0034381

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/cpb-a0034381 1/36

Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research © 2013 American Psychological Association2013, Vol. !, "o. 3, 1## $223 10!%#2#3&13&'12.00 ()*: 10.103+&a0033-1

)/ AR )P C)PA"* A*"4*R *4%P)"*A5 A"( "*)R

6C7*V8 A A5" A"A4"9"CAR 7(;

Allan . Church and Christo<her . Rotolo PepsiCo, Inc., Purchase, New York

Although high%<otential and e=ecuti>e assessment has ?een a <o<ular to<ic in <ractice@or decades, the <rimary em<hasis in the literature has ?een on the de>elo<ment and use

o@ s<eci@ic tools and inter>entions. As a result, hen organiBations see guidance on the

<ractice o@ assessment in cor<orations, *ndustrial%)rganiBational <sychology D*%)E <rac%

titioners and consulting <sychologists ha>e limited in@ormation a>aila?le ith hich to

com<are. oreo>er, industry re<orts o@ten re<resent a s<eci@ic tool, techniFue or <oint

o@ >ie. here are relati>ely @e em<irical <ers<ecti>es o@ the current <ractice o@

assessment in cor<orations, and e>en @eer that @ocus s<eci@ically on high%<otentials

and senior e=ecuti>es. his article attem<ts to close the ga< in the literature ?y

<resenting the results o@ a ?enchmar sur>ey. he sur>ey as designed to <ro>ide

insights and >isi?ility to talent assessment e@@orts in large organiBations ith strong

talent manage%ment and leadershi< de>elo<ment @unctions. <eci@ically, the results

@ocus on the use o@ @ormal assessments ith high%<otentials and senior e=ecuti>es,

including the <ur<ose o@ the assessments, the a<<lication o@ >arious methodologies, a

discussion o@ sco<e and onershi< models, and the ty<e o@ resources used to su<<ort

such e@@orts. he article concludes ith summary o?ser>ations and im<lications @or

internal and e=ternal *%), talent management and consulting <ractice.

Keywords: indi>idual assessment, high%<otential identi@ication, senior e=ecuti>e, talent

management, organiBational ?enchmar

*n the last 1! years, the use o@ @ormal assessment e@@orts has ?roadened ?oth ithin and across

organiBations Dcott G Reynolds, 2010E. he increasing em<hasis on the ar @or talent as @irst identi@iedin the early 2000s Dichaels, and@ield$Jones, G A=elrod, 2001E and @urther rein@orced in more recent

or@orce trend re>ies De.g., c(onnell, 2011H eister G /illyerd, 2010E, has raised aareness le>els

and concern o>er an organiBationIs a?ility to @ill @uture ga<s in the leadershi< <i<eline. his in turn has

led to an increasing em<hasis and @ocus on talent management strategies

Allan . Church and Christo<her . Rotolo, Pe<siCo, *nc., Purchase, "e ;or.he authors ould lie to acnoledge the contri?ution o@ u?hadra (utta to the initial analysis o@ the

sur>ey results, and to the mem?ers o@ the Con@erence 9oardIs Council o@ alent anagement @or their <artici<ation in the data collection <rocess. he @eed?ac recei>ed @rom "icole 4inther as also hel<@ul in thecom<letion o@ this article.

Corres<ondence concerning this article should ?e addressed to Allan . Church, Pe<siCo, *nc., +00

Anderson ill Road, Purchase, "; 10!++. %mail: allan.church<e<sico.com

1##

7/25/2019 cpb-a0034381


200 C7RC A"( R))5)

and @rameors in organiBations De.g., 9oudreau G Ramstad, 200+H Ca<<elli, 200-H Church, 200H

4ru?s, 200H ilBer G (oell, 2010E including the creation o@ ne Ko? titles, dedicated roles and

entire @unctions dedicated to this area o@ @ocus. *t has also led to a heightened @ocus on high%

<otential identi@ication in cor<orations De.g., Cam<?ell G mith, 2010H eitt Associates, 200-H

Rogers G mith, 200+H ilBer G Church, 200#, 2010H hornton, ollen?ec, G Johnson, 2010E. *n

<articular, there is an increasing em<hasis on @inding the singularly most e@@ecti>e assessment

method or tool Dsometimes re@erred to in <ractice as the Lsil>er ?ulletME that ill identi@y @uture

leaders ith the greatest <otential @or enhanced de>elo<ment and succession.

*nterestingly enough, hoe>er, hile the core theory, tools, and <rocesses that su<<ort these

e@@orts ere used decades ago ?y *ndustrial%)rganiBational D*%)E <sychologists, organiBation de%

>elo<ment D)(E <ro@essionals, and consulting <sychologists, they ha>e recently resur@aced as the

ne Lhot to<icM among many e=ecuti>es and R <ro@essionals in organiBations DilBer G (oell,

2010E. *n addition, although signi@icant theory and research e=ist in the literature regarding s<eci@ic

models, measures and a<<roaches to assessment including the ?ene@its o@ using multi<le methods

De.g., 4roth$arnat, 200#H cott G Reynolds, 2010E, there is little <u?lished ith res<ect to hat

com<anies are actually doing ith @ormal assessment <rograms.

oreo>er, the ?enchmars that do e=ist are either >ery high le>el in nature De.g., Ready,Conger, G ill, 2010H ilBer G Church, 2010E, or ?ased on sam<les ith limited generaliBa?ility @or

organiBations looing to esta?lish a high Fuality assessment <rogram De.g., American edical

Association nter<rises, 2011H agemann G attone, 2011E. *n addition, the studies e ere a?le

locate ere @ocused solely on methods @or identi@ying <otential and not necessarily @ormal assess%

ment e@@orts, or anything to do ith e>aluating more senior e=ecuti>e <o<ulations. he latter is a

maKor omission in the <ractice literature as senior e=ecuti>es are a critical target <o<ulation o@

concern @or organiBations engaging in rigorous talent re>ie <rocesses today DChurch G

/aclasi, 2010E. his is <articularly true gi>en the increasing in>ol>ement o@ the 9oard o@

(irectors in cor<orate succession <lanning e@@orts o>er the last ! to 10 years DCarey G )gden,

200H Paese, 200-H ilBer G (oell, 2010E.

his situation can lea>e the <ractitioner at a distinct disad>antage, @or e=am<le, hen

attem<ting to anser senior leader or client Fuestions regarding the current <ractice o@ assessment./hile e=ternal consultants ill ha>e noledge o@ hat their s<eci@ic clients are <ursuing, they are

not liely to ha>e access to data re@lecting a ?roader range o@ a<<lications in general. *nternal

<ractitioners on the other hand must rely on their <ersonal netors to gather intelligence on the

current state. his is <articularly true in the area o@ talent management hich su@@ers @rom a D1E a

lac o@ de@initional ?oundaries o@ <ractice, and D2E limited or misin@ormed content noledge on

the <art o@ leaders and managers regarding the a<<ro<riate selection o@ tools, inter>entions and

techniFues. *n short, greater >isi?ility is needed regarding the current <ractice o@ assessments in

organiBations to hel< guide the design and im<lementation o@ these e@@orts going @orard.

o this end, the <ur<ose o@ this article is to descri?e the results o@ an inde<endently conducted

?enchmar sur>ey designed to <ro>ide insights and >isi?ility to talent assessment e@@orts in large

organiBations. *n <articular, the @ocus o@ this study as on the use o@ di@@erent ty<es and a<<roachesto assessment s<eci@ically ith high%<otentials and senior e=ecuti>es. hese to target <o<ulations

ere chosen as the @ocus o@ the sur>ey @or three reasons. Nirst, they ha>e ?een signi@icantly less

@reFuently researched in the <ast com<ared ith managers or @ront%line su<er>isors. econd, they

re<resent strategically im<ortant talent <ools and are areas o@ <rimary em<hasis @or talent manage%

ment and succession <lanning e@@orts in organiBations today. hird, the Fuality and C%suite

readiness o@ this grou< ha>e recei>ed increased attention @rom 9oards o@ (irectors and in>estors o@

<u?lically traded organiBations o>er the last decade @or a >ariety o@ reasons De.g., C) @ailure rates,

e=tensi>e @inancial and re<orting scrutiny, increased trans<arency, and glo?al im<actE.

he article ?egins ith a ?rie@ re>ie o@ the use o@ assessments in organiBations, including some o@

the conce<tual under<innings and e>olution o@ se>eral ey instruments and a<<roaches. "e=t, e=isting

data on the use o@ a<<roaches and tools @or identi@ying high%<otentials are discussed. he design and

sur>ey results o@ the current assessment practices benchmark study are then presented.

7/25/2019 cpb-a0034381


A A5" A"A4" 9"CAR 7(; 201

Overview of Assessments in Organizational Settings

Although the origins o@ indi>idual assessment <ractices can argua?ly ?e traced ?ac to ancient

China and 4reece D(u9ois, 1#+0E, the tools used ?y )( and *%) <ractitioners today emerged

during the dan o@ the 20th century. hese ere introduced >ia the early e@@orts o@ ugo

uster?erg, Ro?ert 5in, 5ouis hurstone, and others ho @aced many o@ the same assessment

related issues that continue to challenge us today. "amely, as uster?erg <ut it, L@inding the ?est

<ossi?le man, ho to <roduce the ?est <ossi?le or, and ho to secure the ?est <ossi?le e@@ectsM

Dale, 1#-0, <. 1!3E. hroughout most o@ the 20th century, as the @ield o@ indi>idual assessment as

in its @ledgling stages, clinical and *%) <sychologists <ursued relati>ely di@@erent <aths in their

de>elo<ment o@ assessment tools. Clinical <sychologists, the early <ioneers in indi>idual

assessment, rooted their tools on a more holistic Ltotal <ersonM a<<roach, le>eraging techniFues

such as the clinical inter>ie, <roKecti>e testing, and O%sort tass. Con>ersely, *%) <sychologists

too a more LatomisticM a<<roach, @ocusing on s<eci@ic tools to assess s<eci@ic constructs

Dighhouse, 2002E.

*t should come as no sur<rise that e ha>e such a range o@ tools and a<<roaches in the @ield

today. /ithin the leadershi< domain, @or e=am<le, there are measures that assess a <ersonIsmoti>ation to lead, sills and a?ilities to lead, leadershi< style, learning agility, and so on. )ne can

also @ind a ealth o@ measures @or most any s<eci@ic audience@or e=am<le, C%uite leaders, high%

<otential candidates, midle>el and @irst%line leadersas ell as @unctional com<etency and

technical sill assessments aimed at sales, mareting, or @inance. uch di>ersity adds more

<recision to the <ro@ession, ?ut it also adds <otential @or con@usion and misuse.

(es<ite our continued di>ersi@ication o@ assessment tools, there is, hoe>er, emerging agree%

ment on hat constitutes the main ty<es o@ measures in a ty<ical indi>idual assessment. he more

common measures can ?e classi@ied as cogniti>e test, <ersonality tests, multisource @eed?ac, and

assessment centers and simulations.

Cognitive Ability Testsince the early orings o@ <earman D1#0E, the area o@ cogniti>e a?ility is one o@ the most

researched o@ the indi>idual di@@erence constructs. Research has shon that cogniti>e a?ility

in@luences >irtually all as<ects o@ or <er@ormance and <otential D)nes, (ilchert, Vises>eran, G

algado, 2010E. Although the criterion >alidity e>idence continues to mount, there remain issues

ith su?grou< di@@erences and ad>erse im<act in selection conte=ts, hich has made some organi%

Bations reluctant to <ursue these ty<es o@ measures D)nes, (ilchert, G Vises>aran, 2012E.

Personality Tests

he emergence o@ the @i>e @actor model DNNE alloed <ersonnel <sychologists to de>elo< more

construct >alid instruments ith ?etter <redicti>e >alidity D9arric G ount, 2012E he NN asa?le to ?ring order to the @ield and demonstrate that such characteristics are relati>ely enduring and

sta?le. )>er time <ractitioners ha>e noted the >alue in com?ining <ersonality and ?eha>ioral

assessments @or e=ecuti>e de>elo<ment. Com?ining ?oth ty<es o@ assessments is increasingly

recogniBed as ?eing a more ro?ust <rocess than using either method alone ?ecause it allos @or the

e=amination o@ con>ergence as ell as <ossi?le di>ergence o@ the data. 9y integrating the <attern o@

results across measures the @eed?ac @acilitator, coach or consultant oring ith the data can

generate dee<er insights De.g., hen <ersonality tests suggest a <articular dis<osition to ?eha>e a

certain ay ?ut multisource results indicate a lac o@ the ?eha>ior as o?ser>ed ?y others, @urther

<ro?ing can determine i@ the issue is in moti>ation or o<<ortunity to demonstrate a ?eha>iorE. his

in turn yields enhanced inter<retation and more targeted one%on%one @eed?ac and de>elo<ment

<lanning. As a result, the <ractice o@ using these ty<es o@ measures together has ?ecome common

today in the leadershi< and )( @ield D9ure G "oumair, 2002E.

7/25/2019 cpb-a0034381


202 C7RC A"( R))5)

Multisource Feedback

)>er the years, 30%degree @eed?ac D9racen, immrec, G Church, 2001E has transitioned @rom a

@ad conce<t to a core R <rocess. ost com<anies today ha>e had some e=<erience ith 30 tools

@or de>elo<mental or organiBational change <ur<oses De.g., Church, /aclasi, G 9ure, 2001E.

(es<ite some continued methodological, statistical, and ethical concerns Dmany o@ hich eresummariBed nicely ?y 5ondon, 2001E, recent re>ies De.g., "oac G ashihi, 2012E ha>e

suggested that 30 @eed?ac is ?eing used increasingly @or ?roader a<<lications. =am<les o@ these

include e=ecuti>e coaching @or dri>ing ?eha>ior change D(alton G ollen?ec, 2001E, <er@ormance

management systems D9racen G Church, 2013E, and talent management <rocesses DChurch G

/aclasi, 2010E.

Assessment Centers and Simulations

A@ter its military ?eginning, the assessment center method as made <o<ular in industry ?y the

ell%cited anagement Progress tudy conducted ?y AG in the 1#0s D9ray G 4rant, 1#E.

A@ter usage <eaed in the 1#-0s ?ecause o@ ides<read donsiBing and an em<hasis on <roduc%

ti>ity, organiBations started to ?ecome more Kudicious in their a<<lications. *n addition, technologyenhancements in the or<lace alloed organiBations to o<t @or less e=<ensi>e assessment alter%

nati>es as ell D<ychalsy, Ouinones, 4augler, G Pohley, 1##+E. (es<ite the le>el o@ in>estment

reFuired to design and im<lement, hoe>er, assessment centers and simulations still remain one o@

the ?est <redictors o@ <er@ormance and <otential DArthur, (ay, c"elly, G dens, 2003H ogan G

aiser, 2010E.

A Case for Multiple Metods

4i>en the emergence o@ these >arious methodologies and a<<roaches to assessment o>er the last

0%odd years, it is no onder that clients looing @or assessment o<tions are easily con@used and in

need o@ @urther direction. oe>er, one ey to <ro>iding structure and organiBation to the <lethora

o@ o<tions comes @rom good measurement theory, hich tells us that to measure any constructrelia?ly, one should tae a multi<le%method a<<roach D"unnally, 1#+-E. 9ased on this insight,

Cam<?ell and Nise D1#!#E de>elo<ed the multitrait%multimethod DE a<<roach hich

in>ol>ed a matri= o@ di@@erent Fualities to ?e measured DLtraitsME ?y di@@erent ays to measure them

DLmethodsME. According to this a<<roach, con@idence in construct >alidity is <ro>ided ?y a

correlation in results @rom di@@erent methods @or measuring the same traits Dcon>ergent >alidityE and

a lac o@ correlation in results @rom the same method in measuring di@@erent traits Ddi>ergent

>alidityE.

he ey <rinci<le, o@ course, is that no single test or assessment method is <er@ect, ?ut

measurement <recision is enhanced hen multi<le tests or methods <oint to the same conclusion.

hese <rinci<les are integral to some assessment methods. Nor instance, assessment centers use

multi<le e=ercises designed to re@lect a common set o@ underlying <er@ormance dimensions and

multisource&30 @eed?ac uses di@@erent rater grou<s De.g., direct re<orts, <eers and su<er>isorsE to

assess the same <er@ormance dimensions.

ey to the design o@ a <rocedure in the e>aluation o@ talent is s<eci@ication o@ the

domain o@ <er@ormance dimensions to ?e assessed De.g., ilBer G ChurchIs Q200# model o@

<otentialH 9artram’s [2005] great eight competencies), and the alignment of

appropriate assessment procedures for measuring them. A full

consideration of this procedure is beyond the scope of the present

benchmarking surey. !ere "e focus on understanding the assessment

methods and tools used in current indiidual assessment practices "ith

a speci#c focus on senior leadership $i.e., e%ecuties) and high&

potential employees. 'he concept of ('(( is still releant, ho"eer,

7/25/2019 cpb-a0034381


"hen dierent methods are used in combination in talent management

eorts to assess multiple traits such as leadership competencies $ia

*+0 feedback), personality factors, and cognitie capabilities.

7/25/2019 cpb-a0034381


A A5" A"A4" 9"CAR 7(; 203

!esearc on Assessment Practices in "ndustry Today

As noted earlier, assessments ha>e ?ecome Fuite <o<ular in <ractice, <articularly in the talent

management area. *t is increasingly common, @or e=am<le, @or recruiting @irms to use <reem<loy%

ment assessments to aid in decision maing @or their clients Dtamoulis, 200#E. eanhile,

assessment consultants ha>e gron in <rominence resulting in consolidation o@ the @ield in the <astse>eral years De.g., Cor<orate =ecuti>e 9oard acFuired Valtera and 5, *9 acFuired ene=a,

and orn&Nerry *nternational acFuired P(* "inth ouseE.

/here e ha>e seen the most mo>ement recently, hoe>er, is in the use o@ leadershi<

assessment, <articularly ith more senior le>el e=ecuti>es. istorically there has ?een hat e

ould call an assessment Lglass ceilingM <er<etuated ?y se>eral generally acce<ted ?elie@s. hese

consist o@ the @olloing: D1E leaders at senior le>els @eel that assessments are ?eneath themH D2E

organiBations >alue e=<erience o>er com<etenceH and D3E <olitics trum< <recision Dtamoulis,

200#E. he trend in assessment has ?egun to shi@t ?ac, hoe>er, gi>en recent high <ro@ile

e=<ensi>e C) e=its @rom maKor cor<orations such as ome (e<ot and P@iBer De.g., Paese, 200-E.

*nterestingly enough, hoe>er, des<ite the increasing em<hasis on senior leader assessments, a

re>ie o@ the mainstream talent management ?oos De.g., 9oudreau G Ramstad, 200+H Ca<<elli,

200-H @@ron G )rt, 2010E indicate that hile most authors mention the im<ortance o@ assessment

as <art o@ a ?roader strategic talent management <rocess, @e <ro>ide detailed guidance in this area.

*nstead <ractitioners are directed to more targeted <ro@essional <u?lications, many o@ hich ha>e

?een <u?lished in conKunction ith the ociety @or *%) Psychology De.g., 4roth$arnat, 200#H

Jeanneret G ilBer, 1##-H cott G Reynolds, 2010H ilBer G (oell, 2010H tamoulis, 200#E. hese

>olumes contain a ealth o@ noledge and <ro>ide e=cellent guidance @or im<lementing assess%

ments at all le>elsH hoe>er, they do not <ro>ide a re>ie o@ the current <ractice.

/hile there ha>e ?een some studies o@ high%<otential identi@ication e@@orts, some o@ hich do

touch on assessments, the @indings ha>e ?een inconsistent. Nor e=am<le, Cam<?ell and mith

D2010E re<orted that !S o@ attendees at Center @or Creati>e 5eadershi< DCC5E leadershi<

<rograms indicated that their organiBations had a @ormal <rocess in <lace @or identi@ying talent. *n

com<arison, Ready, Conger, and ill D2010E indicated ?ased on their sur>ey o@ ! com<anies that#1S <ur<ose@ully identi@ied high%<otentials as <art o@ their <rocess. imilarly, ilBer and Church

D2010E noted that 100S o@ their sam<le o@ 20 ell%non organiBations had high%<otential

identi@ication models in <lace. /hile generaliBations are di@@icult ?ecause o@ the >aria?ility o@

sam<les ?eteen studies, it a<<ears that at least !0S or more o@ these organiBations ha>e some

<rocess @or identi@ying high%<otentials. )@ course this is not a >ery <recise estimate and is unliely

to in@luence a clientIs decision as to hether or not to im<lement an assessment <rogram.

o other studies do <ro>ide some insight into current <ractice, yet they @ocused solely on

high%<otential identi@ication <rocesses, not ?roader assessment e@@orts. <eci@ically, agemann and

attone D2011E conducted a sur>ey using a sam<le o@ -1 organiBations re<resenting <u?lic D!SE,

<ri>ate D3!SE, and not%@or%<ro@it D11SE entities. 9ased on this more di>erse sam<le o@ organiBations

they re<orted that 0S had @ormal high%<otential identi@ication <rocesses in <lace. *nterestingly, the

num?er one method o@ high%<otential identi@ication as the o<inion o@ senior e=ecuti>es D!#SE,@olloed ?y <er@ormance a<<raisals D!1SE, and then a @ormal talent re>ie <rocess D2SE similar

to those descri?ed elsehere De.g., Church G /aclasi, 2010H @@ron G )rt, 2010H 4ru?s, 200H

ilBer G (oell, 2010E. *nterestingly, only 1S o@ this sam<le utiliBed customiBed 30 @eed?ac

?ased com<etency assessments, 1S <sychological testing, #S cogniti>e measures, +S assessment

centers, and S ?usiness simulations.

A similar study conducted ?y American edical Association DAAE nter<rise D2011E ?ased

on their data?ase o@ contacts re<orted that only -S o@ com<anies used systematic methods @or

identi@ying high%<otentials, ith another 2S indicating ha>ing in <lace some com?ination o@

systematic and in@ormal a<<roach. he <rimary methods used @or identi@ying high%<otentials as

cited ?y this study included <er@ormance a<<raisals D+SE, senior management D#SE,

inno>ati>e&uniFue contri?utions to the ?usiness D2SE, assessments D3!SE, in<ut @rom <eers D3!SE,

and educational ?acground D1-SE.

7/25/2019 cpb-a0034381


20 C7RC A"( R))5)

/hile it is not uncommon in <ractice to see senior leader <erce<tions in@luence talent decisions, the

@act that senior management as raned at or near the to< o@ the list in ?oth studies a?o>e is trou?ling. *n

addition, and des<ite <ractitioner concerns o>er the comingling o@ <er@ormance and <otential Dthat has

?een descri?ed as the performance-potential parado ?y Church G /aclasi, 2010E, <er@ormance as

also a highly used method. *n com<arison, the more >alid and em<irically grounded a<<roaches to

assessment ere used @ar less @reFuently in these sur>eys.*n summary, ?ased on the a?o>e data it a<<ears that hile the identi@ication o@ high%<otential

talent is idely ?elie>ed to ?e critical, not all organiBations ha>e a @ormal classi@ication <rocess,

and many rely on ungrounded methods. /hile this may accurately re@lect organiBations o@ all ty<es,

e hy<othesiBed that those com<anies ith a @ocused talent management agenda ould ha>e a

signi@icantly more com<le= assessment a<<roach, <articularly @or their most im<ortant

talent <ools. o test that assertion, <articularly ith res<ect to the use o@ multi<le assessment

methods, a study as initiated ith organiBations that ha>e strong talent management and&or

leadershi< de>elo<ment @unctions. Although not re<resentati>e o@ all com<anies, this sam<le as

chosen ?ecause o@ its utility in <ro>iding data against a ?enchmar or standard o@ e=cellence in

<ractice.

Assessment Practices #encmark Study

he assessment practices benchmark study as designed and administered in the early <art o@ 2013. he

study as initiated and s<onsored ?y the authors ith no a@@iliation to any assessment <roduct o@@ering.

he <ur<ose o@ the study as to gather data @rom a num?er o@ large and ell%res<ected organiBations

ith strong talent management and leadershi< de>elo<ment&organiBation de>elo<ment @unctions

regarding their current assessment <ractices. Although the @irst Fuestion in the sur>ey ased a?out the use

o@ assessment <rograms o>erall across a >ariety o@ <o<ulations, the <rimary em<hasis o@ the study as on

the num?er and ty<es o@ assessments used ith senior e=ecuti>es and high%<otential <o<ulations as noted

a?o>e.1 ore s<eci@ically, the intention as to collect data on the @olloing to<ics: use o@ assessments

ith these <o<ulations relati>e to other <ossi?le target <o<ulations in organiBational settings <ur<ose o@

the assessments Di.e., de>elo<ment >s. decision%maing or some com?inationE utiliBation o@ commonmethods o@ assessment De.g., <ersonality, 30 @eed?ac, indi>idual inter>ies, assessment centers,

simulations, etc.E, and the num?er o@ di@@erent methods ty<ically used together sco<e and onershi<

models De.g., glo?al >s. regional >s. localE currently in use ty<es o@ resources de<loyed to su<<ort the

<rocesses Dinternal >s. e=ternalE.

Metod

Sample

4i>en that this ?enchmar study as intended to identi@y ?est case contem<orary assessment <ractices, a

targeted sam<le as used @or data collection. <eci@ically, e sought to include in our sam<le only those

com<anies ho are at the @ore@ront o@ talent management, Lthe ?est o@ the ?est,M i@ you ill. Althoughthis is a somehat su?Kecti>e Kudgment guided largely ?y our on <ro@essional o<inion ?ased on many

years o@ acti>e in>ol>ement in the @ield, e also relied on more o?Kecti>e @actors. he sam<le as

de>elo<ed using to sources. he @irst re<resented the mem?ershi< roster o@ senior e=ecuti>es Din most

cases the senior%most talent management leader o@ their res<ecti>e organiBationE in a <ro@essional

association @ocused s<eci@ically on talent management, leadershi<, and organiBation de>elo<ment. he

mem?ers o@ this association meet se>eral times a year to share and re>ie ?est <ractices, current to<ics,

and trends in the talent management domain. 7nlie in

1 Although the use of dierent types of methodsmeasures togetheras part of an assessment program might re-ect a ('(( approach

7/25/2019 cpb-a0034381


$e.g., including leadership competencies, personality traits, andcognitie abilities), this research "as only focused on the methodsused not the speci#c content domains being assessed.

7/25/2019 cpb-a0034381


A A5" A"A4" 9"CAR 7(; 20!

other ?roader R <ractice sur>eys, here the target res<ondent may not ?e dee<ly noledgea?le

a?out assessment methods used in their organiBations, the indi>iduals in this association are directly

res<onsi?le @or the senior le>el and high%<otential talent management <rograms and <rocesses in

their com<anies.

he second source o@ sur>ey res<ondents as com<rised o@ indi>iduals in senior talent

management, leadershi< de>elo<ment, internal consulting, and&or organiBation de>elo<ment <osi%tions in other large and ell%res<ected organiBations not included in the mem?ershi< o@ the

<ro@essional association a?o>e. hese com<anies include those hose talent management sta@@

<resent at con@erences, <u?lish <ro@essional articles on their <ractices, and ho are identi@ied in

third%<arty ranings and e>aluations as nota?le @or their @ocus on leadershi<. he indi>iduals

re<resenting these com<anies ere included to e=<and the re<resentation o@ the sur>ey <ool. 4i>en

the nature o@ the sur>ey e@@ort, e=ternal consultants ere not included.

*n total, indi>iduals @rom #! uniFue com<anies ere in>ited to <artici<ate in the assessment

practices benchmark study. All o@ the organiBations targeted in the sam<le re<resented large,

multinational or glo?al com<anies that had a re<utation @or ha>ing some le>el o@ so<histication and

credi?ility in their talent management and leadershi< de>elo<ment e@@orts. Nor instance, most had

?een recogniBed ?y the Aon&eitt raning o@ Lo< Com<anies @or 5eadersM <u?lished in !ortune

Dur<hy, 2011E.

9ecause the in@ormation ?eing collected could ?e considered highly sensiti>e and&or

<ro<rietary ?y many organiBations, there as a concern that an identi@ied sur>ey a<<roach ould

result in some com<anies choosing not to res<ond. hus, the sur>ey as conducted anonymously.

his decision as made to ma=imiBe res<onse rates at the e=<ense o@ demogra<hic detail associated

ith the res<onses. As a result, and to @urther <rotect the con@identiality o@ the com<anies in>ited,

the names o@ the organiBations are not re<orted. Nor conte=t and generaliBa?ility concerns, hoe>er,

a?le 1 <ro>ides the characteristics o@ the organiBations included in the sam<le. *n general the

sam<le as com<rised <rimarily o@ <u?lically traded organiBations D--SE ith a mean annual net

re>ue o@ !.+ ?illion, a range o@ em<loyees Do>er #0S ith 10,000 or more and 2-S ith

1!0,000 E, <rimarily headFuartered in the 7nited tates, and @rom >ery di>erse industries.

Survey $uestionnaire

A standard online sur>ey methodology as used to gather the data. he Fuestionnaire as short and

consisted o@ @i>e core items, some ith su?<arts, and included one rite%in Fuestion Dsee A<<endi=

@or a com<lete listing o@ the Fuestions includedE. *t reFuired 10 min to com<lete.

he @irst item on the sur>ey ased a?out the use o@ assessments in the res<ondentIs organiBation

ith a ?road range o@ target <o<ulations ranging @rom senior e=ecuti>es to @ront%line su<er>isors. *@

<artici<ants selected either senior e=ecuti>es or high%<otentials as grou<s currently ?eing assessedin their organiBation, they ere directed to com<lete the rest o@ the sur>ey and o@@ered more

Fuestions. *@ on the other hand they did not use assessments at all or used them ith one o@ the

other grou<s, they ere dismissed @rom the study.2

Res<ondents ho com<leted the rest o@ the sur>ey ansered the remaining Fuestions s<eci@i%

cally in the conte=t o@ either high%<otentials or senior e=ecuti>es. Additional Fuestions ere aseda?out each target grou< regarding <ur<ose, methods, sco<e, and associated resources Dsee A<<en%

di=E. 7<on com<letion o@ the sur>ey all res<ondents ere o@@ered the o<tion o@ reFuesting a co<y o@

the results. he data, hoe>er, ere not lined to the organiBation to <rotect the con@identiality o@

the res<onses.

%efinitions

he content o@ the sur>ey as ?ased on ?ased on a com?ination o@ the researchersI e=<erience inthe area o@ assessment and in@ormation o?tained @rom current <ractice te=ts De.g., 4roth$arnat,

7/25/2019 cpb-a0034381


2 9ecause sur>ey res<onses ere anonymous it as not <ossi?le to determine i@ any systematic di@@erences

e=isted ?eteen organiBations that did assess high%<otentials and senior e=ecuti>es >ersus those that did not.

7/25/2019 cpb-a0034381


20 C7RC A"( R))5)

a?le 1

"r#ani$ational Characteristics of In%ited &ur%ey &ample

Per Cent DSE

y<e o@ organiBationa

Pri>ate --.Pu?lic +.!

)ther 1.1

"um?er o@ em<loyees

1!0,000 2-.

100,000$1#,### -.

!0,000$##,### 2.2

10,000$#,### 31.

1$#,### +.

eadFuartered

7.. #2.

)utside 7.. +.

Countries ith o<erations100 1#.2

!0$## 22.3

10$# 2-.+

2$# 1.0

1 13.-

*ndustry grou<

Automoti>e&trans<ortation !.3

Construction 3.2

Consumer <roducts&a<<arel #.!

%Commerce&*nternet 3.2

nergy 3.2

ntertainment&media 2.1

Ninancial&<ro@essional ser>ices 1.+

Nood&restaurant -.

os<itality 2.1

*nsurance -.

anu@acturing 11.!

Pharmaceuticals&healthcare #.

Retail +.

echnology&so@tare -.

elecom 3.2

Annual re>enue

' !.+ ?illion

edian2.0 ?illion

a (ata @or this ta?le o?tained @rom <u?lically a>aila?le sources @or those

organiBations in>ited to <artici<ate in the sur>ey.

200#H cott G Reynolds, 2010H tamoulis, 200#E. 9ecause organiBations use di@@erent talent%?ased

segmentation models and @rameors @or high%<otentials DilBer G Church, 2010E, and o@@icial

titles and management le>els di@@er, standard de@initions ere o@@ered at the ?eginning o@ the

sur>ey. he @olloing de@initions <ro>ided a res<onse conte=t @or the sur>ey <artici<ants:

&ig'potential( someone ?elo the VP le>el ho is seen as ha>ing the ca<a?ility to <rogress into leadershi< <ositions to or more le>els ?eyond their current role.

7/25/2019 cpb-a0034381


Senior )*ecutives( leaders in the mid% to u<<er leadershi< le>els in the organiBation De.g., ice /resident and aboe), regardless of "hether they areconsidered high&potential or not.

7/25/2019 cpb-a0034381


A A5" A"A4" 9"CAR 7(; 20+

Assessment( use o@ standardiBed tools and methods to e>aluate an indi>idualIs ca<a?ilitiesand&or ?eha>iors to mae <ersonnel decisions and&or <ro>ide de>elo<ment @eed?ac.

here are to im<ortant <oints to note regarding the de@initions <ro>ided. Nirst, hile many

organiBations identi@y high%<otentials among their e=ecuti>e le>els as ell as loer don in the

hierarchy, the intent here as to di@@erentiate assessment <ractices ?eteen e=ecuti>es and midle>elhigh%<otentials. 4i>en that talent management @unctions @ocus on these grou<s as distinct <o<ula%

tions ith res<ect to dedicated time and resources, it as im<ortant to de@ine them se<arately @or

res<ondents.

econd, hile the term LassessmentM is ell understood among certain grou<s De.g., *%)

<sychologists and consulting <sychologistsE, ?ecause leaders in talent management @unctions some%

times ha>e di@@erent <ro@essional ?acgrounds De.g., R generalists, sta@@ing, or other @unctions

outside o@ RE it as im<ortant to align res<ondents to a single construct. <eci@ically, the @ocus

as on @ormal assessment <rocesses a<<lied in a consistent and standardiBed manner >ersus those

that might re@lect uniFue indi>idual a<<lications De.g., a single coaching or @eed?ac inter>entionE

that are also Fuite common in many organiBations.

!esults and %iscussion

*n total, res<onses ere o?tained @rom - indi>iduals Deach re<resenting a uniFue organiBationE

yielding an --S res<onse rate. Although the sur>ey achie>ed a high res<onse rate o>erall, gi>en the

nature o@ the data De.g., multi<le res<onseE and ith limited demogra<hics ?ecause o@ sur>ey

anonymity, the analysis consisted o@ standard <aired com<arison t tests and <earman ran%order

correlations.

+se of Assessments

)>erall, +0.2S o@ all com<anies res<onding to the sur>ey indicated that they used some @orm o@

assessment, as de@ined a?o>e, ith at least one <o<ulation in their organiBation. Although similar studies o@ this nature are not directly com<ara?le D?ecause they ere @ocused solely on high%

<otential identi@ication and not @ormal assessmentsE, this @inding <ro>ides a more realistic counter%

?alance to the <erha<s somehat unrealistic highs o@ #0 $100S re<orted in smaller studies cited

a?o>e. *t also su<<orts the o?ser>ation made earlier that assessments may ha>e ?ecome more

<o<ular recently, at least in large organiBations ith ell%esta?lished talent management and

leadershi< de>elo<ment @unctions. *n short, o>er to%thirds o@ these to< com<anies do ha>e @ormal

standardiBed assessments e@@orts in <lace today.

Target of Assessments

)@ those currently using assessments Di.e., !# o@ the - sur>ey res<ondentsE ?ased on the list o@ o<tions

<ro>ided, ?y @ar the most @reFuent targets o@ their e@@orts are senior e=ecuti>es D#0SE, middle managersD-1SE, and high%<otentials D+!SE. o>ing don the hierarchy, hoe>er, the data indicate that as the Ko?

le>el o@ the em<loyee decreased the lielihood o@ a @ormal assessment <rocess also decreased.

<eci@ically, the ne=t most cited <o<ulation, @irst line su<er>isors at +S, are signi@icantly less liely to

?e assessed com<ared ith the to< three grou<s Dsenior e=ecuti>es t D!-E !.+-, p

.001, middle managers t D!-E !.0-, p .001, and high%<otentials t D!-E .01, p .001E. *nterestingly and

<erha<s somehat sur<risingly gi>en the le>el o@ em<hasis on generation ; talent in the <o<ular

?usiness literature, cam<us hires are the least liely to ?e the @ocus o@ assessments ?y these

cor<orations at only 1!S. Nigure 1 <ro>ides the detailed ?readon o@ results @or this item.

*n total, all mean di@@erences ?eteen the to< three selections and the remaining @our <ossi?le

target grou<s yielded signi@icant t >alues at p .00. 'he minor dierences in the top

three targets of assessments, ho"eer, "ere not statistically

7/25/2019 cpb-a0034381


signi#cant, suggesting that these populations are about e1ually oftenthe targets of assessment.

7/25/2019 cpb-a0034381


20- C7RC A"( R))5)

enior e%ecu es 304

(iddle managers 4

!igh poten als 654

7irst line superisors 864

9ndiidual contributors *64

:arly career professionals *64

;ampus hires 54

04 204 804 +04 04 004

!i#ure (. 7se o@ assessments. *n hat <arts o@ your organiBation do you use assessments8

/hile @inding that high%<otentials are assessed is <erha<s not that sur<rising gi>en the earlier

studies cited, the @act that #0S o@ these com<anies are currently using assessments @or their senior

most e=ecuti>es DVPs and a?o>eE is a >ery use@ul and im<ortant @inding @or <ractitioners. *t signals

signi@icant su<<ort and in>estment ithin these to< com<anies in e>aluating and <otentially

de>elo<ing their senior most talent @or succession <ur<oses.

Also o@ interest as that middle managers and high%<otentials are ?eing assessed at >ery high

rates among these com<anies as ell. *t a<<ears that organiBations are <lacing as much o@ an

em<hasis on midle>el assessments as they are senior leaders. his suggests a greater @ocus on

?uilding long%term succession ?ench than <erha<s has ?een the case in the <ast. his liely re@lects

an intentional strategic human ca<ital res<onse to the ar @or talent.

umming res<onses across this sur>ey item, it as also interesting that the maKority D+0SE o@ organiBations are engaged in assessments at any le>el. ore s<eci@ically the mean num?er o@ target

grou<s ?eing assessed as 3.3- D&) 1.-1E out o@ the list o@ se>en o<tions <ro>ided. his indicates

that those com<anies ith assessment <ractices are a<<lying them Fuite ?roadly, and ha>e an

aggressi>e talent de>elo<ment <ractice o>erall.

9ecause senior e=ecuti>es and high%<otentials ere o@ <articular interest @or this study, therelationshi< ?eteen the use o@ assessments @or these to @ocal grou<s as e=amined. Although the2 as not statistically signi@icant gi>en the small siBes o@ the to nonassessment grou<s, the cross%

ta?ulation clearly indicates a trend toard shared assessment ?eteen the to targets. Nor e=am<le,#.!S o@ the organiBations using assessments do so ith ?oth <o<ulations, hile 20.3S assesse=ecuti>es only and not high%<otentials, and 10.2S assess high%<otentials ?ut not their senior e=ecuti>es.

Purpose of Assessments

he second Fuestion in the sur>ey <ro>ided a list o@ eight <otential <ur<oses @or the use o@

assessments. he o<tions <ro>ided re@lected ?oth de>elo<mental and decision%maing a<<lications.

Res<ondents ansered >ia multi<le res<onses to these choices inde<endently @or ?oth senior

e=ecuti>es and high%<otentials. )>erall, assessment @or addressing de>elo<ment needs as ?y @ar

the most commonly cited <ur<ose @or ?oth target <o<ulations and raned signi@icantly higher than

the ne=t closest o<tion chosen.

<eci@ically, -2S o@ res<ondents indicated using assessments @or de>elo<ment ith high% <otentials >ersus !0S using assessments @or the identi@ication o@ that <otential, t D3E .0+, p

.001E, con@irmation o@ <otential at -S, t D3E .30, p .001, or succession <lanning <ur<oses at 1S,

t D3E !.01, p .00. imilarly, 684 of those using assessments "ith senior

7/25/2019 cpb-a0034381


e%ecuties indicated doing so to meet deelopment needs ersus amuch smaller percentage at *04 identifying

7/25/2019 cpb-a0034381


A A5" A"A4" 9"CAR 7(; 20#

<otential, t D!2E !.!2, p .001, con@irming <otential at 2-S, t D!2E .!, p .001, or assessing senior

e=ecuti>es indi>iduals @or succession <lanning at +S, t D!2E 3.2, p .01. Aside @rom de>elo<ment

?eing most common use o@ assessment @or ?oth target grou<s de>elo<ment, there ere some

interesting di@@erences ?eteen them Dsee Nigure 2E. A nonsigni@icant <earman correlation

?eteen the ranings con@irmed that the order as not the same, r .!!, p .1 ns.

*n e=amining the res<onses across target grou<s it as e>ident that assessments ere signi@i%cantly more liely to ?e used @or the identi@ication o@ <otential among high%<otential talent than @or

senior e=ecuti>es D!0S >s. 30S, res<ecti>elyE, t D!-E 2.2, p .01, and the con@irmation o@ that

<otential as ell D-S >s. 2-S, res<ecti>elyE, t D!-E 2.2, p .0!. *n com<arison, assessments ere

less liely to ?e used @or succession <lanning <ur<oses ith high%<otentials than ith senior

e=ecuti>es D3#S >s. +S, res<ecti>elyE, t D!-E 2.03, p .0!. Although the other utiliBation rates ere

not statistically signi@icantly di@@erent ?eteen the to grou<s, a similar trend toard greater use o@

decision maing a<<lications @or senior e=ecuti>es a<<lied De.g., @or e=ternal recruitment and

selectionE. *n summary, the data indicate a greater em<hasis on using assessments @or the identi@i%

cation and de>elo<ment o@ emerging talent and a greater @ocus on succession at the more senior

e=ecuti>e le>els.

his <attern o@ results is telling a?out the current state o@ assessment <ractices in organiBations

today. *t liely re@lects DaE the di@@erences in em<hasis at >arious le>els hen it comes to talent

decision%maing, and D?E the im<lications o@ a @alse <ositi>e or @alse negati>e among senior

e=ecuti>e and C) le>el sta@@ing decisions. he organiBations res<onding to this sur>ey a<<ear to

?e a<<roaching their talent agendas ?y ?eing more inclusi>e o@ indi>idual leadershi< <otential at

loer le>els Das demonstrated ?y their greater use o@ assessments @or identi@ication and

con@irmation o@ @uture <otentialE, hile simultaneously a<<lying more <recision in the <rocess at

the highest layers in their com<any Das demonstrated ?y their greater em<hasis on de<loying

assessments @or succession <lanningE. *n other ords, assessments are ?eing used to select more

<eo<le into the talent de>elo<ment <i<eline at the none=ecuti>e le>el, hile these tools are ?eing

used to select senior e=ecuti>es in or out of the <i<eline at higher le>els hen they are ?eing

considered @or C%suite succession <lanning. his a<<roach has im<lications @or the design o@

assessment <rograms @rom a >alidation and legal de@ensi?ility <ers<ecti>e.

!i#ure *. Pur<ose o@ assessments. Nor hat <ur<oseDsE are assessments used @or ?oth your senior

e=ecuti>e and high%<otential <o<ulations8

7/25/2019 cpb-a0034381


210 C7RC A"( R))5)

Although it as clear @rom the data that a @ocus on de>elo<mental needs as the singular most

im<ortant reason cited @or conducting assessments, gi>en the multi<le res<onse nature o@ the data,

the results ere @urther e=amined @or additional com?inations o@ res<onses. 9y classi@ying the

res<onse o<tions into either de>elo<ment or decision%maing collecti>ely, it as <ossi?le to

determine the <ercentage o@ organiBations using assessments solely @or de>elo<ment, decision%

maing, or ?oth.

igni@icant results @rom2 analyses indicated the <resence o@ a relationshi< ?eteen de>elo<%

ment and decision%maing uses @or assessments ?oth @or high%<otentials,2D1, E .#1, p .0!E and

senior e=ecuti>es,2D1, !3E #.+#, p .01E. <eci@ically, @or ?oth grou<s organiBations ere more liely

to use assessments @or dual <ur<oses D!+S @or high%<otentials and 2S @or senior e=ecuti>esE than@or either de>elo<ment or decision maing only. *n @act, only a >ery small <ercentage o@ res<ondents indicated using assessments @or decision maing only D2S @or high%<otentials and -S@or senior e=ecuti>esE, ith the remainder using assessment @or de>elo<ment only D1S and 30S,res<ecti>elyE. *n short, e>en though almost all com<anies a<<roach assessments @rom ade>elo<ment <ers<ecti>e, taen together 0S$+0S are using the data @or de>elo<ment and decision%maing <ur<oses a@ter all.

Metods of Assessment +sed

he ne=t Fuestion in the sur>ey @ocused on the choice o@ >arious methods, tools, and measures used

@or assessment. 9ased on a list o@ 13 o<tions res<ondents ere ased to select all o@ those

a<<roaches currently in use in their organiBation @or assessing high%<otentials and senior

e=ecuti>es, again rating each grou< inde<endently. *n general, and somehat sur<risingly, the to<

three most commonly used methods ere e=actly the same, and ith >ery little di@@erentiation in

utiliBation across the to <o<ulations. ultisource or 30%degree @eed?ac as the most commonly

used method @or ?oth high%<otential and e=ecuti>es at S and 0S, res<ecti>ely, @olloed >ery

closely ?y <ersonality in>entories DS and !+SE, and then one%on%one inter>ies ith candidates

D!#S and !+SE. Nigure 3 <ro>ides the detailed results.

"one o@ the mean di@@erences @or the to< rated methods ere signi@icant @rom each other either

ithin or across grou<s indicating a >ery consistent trend in the use o@ these three methods @or assessment. Ninally, the use o@ ?iogra<hical data as raned th at 3S @or ?oth e=ecuti>es and

high <otentials. *n general these results suggest se>eral interesting <oints. Comments on each

method ill ?e descri?ed se<arately ?elo.

,-. Feedback

Nirst, it is intriguing that 30 @eed?ac as rated as one o@ the most commonly used @orms o@

assessment @or ?oth senior e=ecuti>es and high%<otentials in these to< com<anies. *n many ays

this re<resents a @undamental change in the industry and @or this tool. istorically, 30 @eed?ac

?een seen <rimarily a de>elo<mental tool De.g., 9racen, 1##H Church et al., 2001H orno G

5ondon, 1##-E. >en the most recent ?enchmar o@ 30 @eed?ac utiliBation rates across o>er 200

com<anies D3( 4rou<, 2013E indicates that at #S, 30 is still used @or <rimarily de>elo<mental <ur<oses. /hile the 3( 4rou< data sho a trend toard greater utiliBation o@ 30 @or <er@ormance

manage%ment, hich is consistent ith recent arguments @rom @eed?ac <ractitioners De.g., 9racen

G Church, 2013E, it is not ty<ically seen as an administrati>e tool @or use ith e=ecuti>es. *nstead,

it is almost alays <ositioned in the conte=t o@ de>elo<ment <articularly ith res<ect to senior le>el

e=ecuti>es D4oldsmith G 7nderhill, 2001E. Ninally, 30 @eed?ac has ?een discussed in the conte=t

o@ talent management more ?roadly De.g., @@ron G )rt, 2010H 5e<singer G 5ucia, 200E, ?ut is

rarely descri?ed as e=<licitly in@luencing talent management decision%maing De.g., succession

<lanningE either.

<hile there hae been debates in the #eld oer the years as to the

appropriateness of a deelopmental ersus administratie focus $e.g.,:d"ards = :"en, 33+> ?ondon, 200), some e%perts hae predicted

that oer 'ime *+0 "ould indeed migrate to"ard more decision&

7/25/2019 cpb-a0034381


making applications $e.g., @racken et al., 200). ien that thecompanies in this surey are using these

7/25/2019 cpb-a0034381


A A5" A"A4" 9"CAR 7(; 211

!i#ure +. y<es o@ assessment methods used. /hat ty<es o@ assessments do you use8

methods largely @or ?oth de>elo<mental and decision%maing <ur<oses, hoe>er, this data ouldsuggest that 30 @eed?ac has shi@ted in em<hasis toard more administrati>e uses in the high%

<otential and e=ecuti>e assessment area among organiBations ith strong talent management

@unctions.

his o?ser>ation is liely to ?e recei>ed ith mi=ed res<onse. /hile some <ractitioners ill ?e

<leased that the @eed?ac <rocess is ?eing gi>en increased accounta?ility and im<act in organiBa%tions,

others may raise methodological and de@ensi?ility concerns. ome o@ these include the im<act o@ small

sam<le siBes hen maing com<arisons across ratings and a common lac o@ agreement ?eteen raters

Dount, Judge, cullen, ytsma, G eBlett, 1##-E. )thers re@lect <otential design @las in many

measures ith res<ect to Ko? rele>ance and the Fuality Di@ anyE o@ the >alidation or ?e@ore utiliBation

@or decision%maing. *n addition, meta%analytic research on the <ur<oses o@ <er@ormance a<<raisal ratings

across 22 di@@erent studies DJaahar G /illiams, 1##+E has indicated that hen indi>iduals no that

their ratings ill ?e used @or decision%maing >ersus de>elo<mental <ur<oses they tend to in@late their scores. *@ this same e@@ect ere to ?e o?ser>ed across 30 @eed?ac ratings hen used @or decision%

maing in talent management <rocesses, it ould raise signi@icant concerns regarding the >alidity o@ the

results @rom this tool as ell. Ninally, there is also the concern o>er the <otential im<act o@ L<oisoning the

ellM in an organiBationIs culture @or @uture de>elo<ment e@@orts ?y using 30 @eed?ac @or ?oth

de>elo<ment and decision%maing <ur<oses simultaneously.

(es<ite these issues and concerns, hoe>er, many talent management <ractitioners ill argue

that talent <lacement decisions ill ?e made ?y leaders hether these tools e=ist or not. he central

Fuestion @or the talent management @unction in an organiBation then ?ecomes ho to im<lement a

<rocess that <ro>ides greater <recision ?ased on em<irical data >ersus decisions more dri>en ?y

idiosyncratic criteria, ?iases and limited o?ser>ations Dsee Church G /aclasi, 2010, @or a

discussion o@ ho these issues can im<act talent management decisionsE. "onetheless, i@ an

organiBation decides to <ursue 30 @eed?ac as <art o@ their assessment <rotocol, it is im<ortant that

7/25/2019 cpb-a0034381


212 C7RC A"( R))5)

an a<<ro<riately trained )( consultant or *%)&consulting <sychologist ?e in>ol>ed in the <rocess.

his indi>idual ould or to ensure that the 30 @eed?ac design and im<lementation meets

certain standards and conditions, and that the <ur<ose and utiliBation o@ results @or talent manage%

ment decision%maing is @ully trans<arent to <rogram <artici<ants.

Personality

Another interesting @inding o?ser>ed in the data are the degree to hich <ersonality in>entories are

currently ?eing used in these organiBations @or assessment <ur<oses. *n general, this le>el o@

utiliBation @or ?oth high%<otentials DSE and senior e=ecuti>es D!+SE as Fuite sur<rising, and

con@irms the <erce<tion o@ resurgence in its usage. (es<ite this trend, hoe>er, many e=ecuti>es

and talent management <ro@essionals continue to raise concerns o>er the use o@ <ersonality @or

anything ?eyond solely de>elo<mental <ur<oses. *n @act the use o@ <ersonality measures is @ar more

concerning to many non<sychologist <ractitioners than is 30 @eed?ac. *ssues o@ >alidity, rele%

>ance, intrusi>eness and the <erce<tion o@ ?eing o>erly <sychological and not ?usiness @ocused

ha>e all ?een raised in@ormally in discussions, at con@erences and in the <ractice literature De.g.,

9ure G "oumair, 2002H Ca<<elli, 200-H @@ron G )rt, 2010E.

)ne might thin that these concerns ould result in a signi@icantly greater use o@ these toolsith loer le>el em<loyees >ersus senior e=ecuti>es ?ut the data do not su<<ort that notion. All

three o@ the to< raned methods ere e@@ecti>ely used at the same le>el. 4i>en that <ersonality

measures ha>e ?een a common com<onent o@ more integrated assessment methodologies, and the

trend in this study suggests a cluster o@ assessment methods are ty<ically used together, e ould

ho<e that the im<lementation o@ these tools ould ?e done ith a<<ro<riate care. till, i@ an

organiBation is <ursuing the use o@ <ersonality measures in their assessment e@@orts, the same ad>ice

ith res<ect to the use o@ 30 @eed?ac a<<lies here as ell Di.e., designing the <rocess @or legal

de@ensi?ility, selecting measures ith sound <sychometric <ro<erties, and <ro>iding trans<arency to

<artici<ations regarding use o@ the dataE.

"nterviews

he @act that traditional one%on%one candidate inter>ie methods re<resented the other most

commonly used method o@ assessment Dat !#S @or high%<otentials and !+S @or senior e=ecuti>esE

is the least sur<rising @inding o>erall. *n @act, e had e=<ected this to ?e the most commonly used

as it is generally the least DaE e=<ensi>e and D?E di@@icult to design and im<lement i@ done using

internal resources. )ne%on%one inter>ies ha>e ?een the mainstay o@ ?oth internal talent manage%

ment e@@orts and e=ternal search @irm <rotocols @or decades. (es<ite the @act that many o@ these are

unstructured and there@ore not >ery ro?ust measures Das ty<ically conducted ?y nontrained <ro@es%

sionalsE, inter>ies o@ this nature are the @irst method many leaders select in the a?sence o@ a more

ad>anced >ie o@ assessment. )@ course, hen designed and e=ecuted ?y *%) <sychologists,

structured inter>ie <rotocols do ha>e a much higher degree o@ >alidity and can ?e e@@ecti>e as <art

o@ a ?roader multimethod assessment <rocess o>erall.

/hat as somehat sur<rising, hoe>er, as that inter>ies ere not more commonly usedith senior e=ecuti>es than ith high%<otentials. 4i>en the sensiti>ities regarding senior e=ecuti>es

and the use o@ more <sychological and ?eha>ioral measures Das noted a?o>eE e e=<ected a

di@@erence here. )ur e=<erience has ?een that many com<anies are reticent to su?Kect their senior%

most <o<ulation Di.e., the C%suite in <articularE to @ormal assessments or e>en <urely de>elo<ment

tools >ersus <otentially less intimidating inter>ies. (es<ite the increasing <o<ularity o@

assessments and the trend re<orted here the use o@ these measures at the >ery to< o@ the

organiBation is liely to ?e somehat limited. his is ?ecause a @ormal assessment <rocess can ?e

seen as demeaning to some De.g., Lhy should * ha>e to tae an *O test, *Im a C)ME. ore

im<ortantly, they may also ha>e negati>e conseFuences outside o@ the control o@ the <rocess oner

i@ the data ere someho released <u?lically. Nor e=am<le, i@ a C%suite leader ’s personality

and *+0 feedback results "ere gien to a member of the @oard of

7/25/2019 cpb-a0034381


Birectors it could impact the future succession plans for that indiidual

in an une%pected manner. 9f the trends reported in this study

7/25/2019 cpb-a0034381


A A5" A"A4" 9"CAR 7(; 213

continue o>er time, hoe>er, e ould e=<ect the concerns regarding other ty<es o@ assessments toa?ate e>en @or the senior most leaders in an organiBation.

Cognitive Ability Tests

9elo the to< three methods cited there ere some other @indings o@ note as ell. *n <articular,cogniti>e a?ility tests, once Fuite in >ogue, ere cited as ?eing used 3#S o@ the time @or high%

<otentials and 3-S @or senior e=ecuti>es. his is considera?ly higher than might ?e e=<ected gi>en

the agemann and attoneIs D2011E re<orted only #S o@ their sam<le o@ -1 com<anies used

cogniti>e measures @or identi@ying <otential. *t is also interesting gi>en the num?er o@ issues and

concerns that ha>e ?een raised in the literature o>er the years regarding legal de@ensi?ility o@ this

ty<e o@ tool. oreo>er, cogniti>e measures also ha>e the disad>antage o@ ?eing limited in their

utility @rom a de>elo<mental <ers<ecti>e. here are legitimate Fuestions as to ho de>elo<mental a

<rocess truly is hen it <laces <rimary em<hasis on a cogniti>e com<onent. Although e did not

as the Fuestion a?out the utiliBation o@ indi>idual results @rom each measure @or de>elo<ment

>ersus decision maing e ould hy<othesiBe that these might di@@er in assessment @rameors

ith multi<le methods.

Oter Metods

Ninally, other additional traditional methods o@ assessment Dnot already descri?ed a?o>eE ere

indicated ?y 20S to 0S o@ res<ondents. hese included such a<<roaches as administrati>e De.g.,

in%?asetE and interacti>e simulations, assessment centers, career in>entories, and moti>ational @it

indices. 7tiliBation o@ these measures as not signi@icantly di@@erent across target grou<s ith one

nota?le e=ce<tion. *nteracti>e simulations Dde@ined in the sur>ey as role <lays and grou<

discussionsE ere used signi@icantly more @reFuently @or high%<otentials than @or senior e=ecuti>es,

t D!+E 2.21, p .0!. ProKecti>e techniFues in contrast ere not used ?y any o@ these organiBations @or

either <o<ulation. /hile the LotherM assessment o<tion as selected ?y !S and 2S o@ res<ondents

@or the to target grou<s, a re>ie o@ the three e=<lanatory comments did not yield any ne

insights De.g., ogan and inter>ies ere citedE.

+se of Multiple Assessment Metods

)nce again gi>en the nature o@ the sur>ey Fuestion it as <ossi?le to e=amine the degree o@

multi<le a<<lications o@ assessment technologies. Results o@ this analysis indicated that -2S o@

organiBations sur>eyed used more than a single method o@ assessment ith high%<otentials and +S

used to or more methods ith senior e=ecuti>es. he a>erage num?er o@ assessments used as

.! D&) 2.##E and .0 D&) 3.0#E, res<ecti>ely. Although the num?ers ranged u< to 11 di@@erent

a<<roaches at most, the median num?er o@ methods used as ! @or high%<otentials and @or senior

e=ecuti>es @rom the list in Nigure 3. his @inding suggests that organiBations ith strong talent

management @unctions that are acti>ely in>ol>ed in assessment e@@orts are highly liely to use

multi<le methods in their assessment <rocess @or ?oth senior e=ecuti>es and high%<otentials.

Scope and Ownersip of Assessments

he ne=t Fuestion on the sur>ey as intended to determine the le>el o@ sco<e and cor<orate onershi< o@

the assessment <ractices descri?ed earlier. As ith any core R <rocess or tool the a<<roach taen can ?e

centrally designed and led, dri>en @rom ithin some segment o@ the ?usiness, or a com?ination o@ the

to. he same alternati>es a<<ly to the management o@ the results o?tained @rom an assessment <rocess

De.g., data, @eed?ac, action <lans, coaching re<orts, etc.E. /hile there are <ros and cons to each o<tion,

ith res<ect to assessments in <articular, there is an ongoing de?ate in <ractice regarding the a<<ro<riate

onershi< o@ high%<otential talent. ore s<eci@ically, the Fuestion concerns hether these @uture leaders

re<resent enter<rise or Lcor<orate assetsM to ?e de<loyed @or talent management decisions glo?ally >ersus

em<oering indi>idual ?usinesses, regions or units ith control o>er their on talent. he argument

made is that the greater the degree

7/25/2019 cpb-a0034381


21 C7RC A"( R))5)

o@ centraliBation o@ talent onershi< the greater the DaE consistency in assessments used, and D?Etrans<arency and o<en access to the talent @or de<loyment.

hus, res<ondents ere ased i@ their assessment <rocesses ere glo?al, regional, or local in

sco<e. Results indicate a signi@icant trend toard ha>ing a glo?al @ocus in the assessment <rocess

@or ?oth high%<otentials at 3S and senior e=ecuti>es at +-S >ersus either regional or local

a<<roaches, t D3E .# and .1!, and t D!2E 10.! and -.20, p .001 @or all com<arisons. Nigure contains the com<lete set o@ res<onses.

*n summary, those ho are ?eing assessed in the organiBations res<onding to this sur>ey are

liely to ?e seen as Lcor<orate assets.M his trend toard a limited @ocus on regional and local

sco<e in assessments maes sense @or to reasons. Nirst is the glo?al nature o@ the ?usiness

en>ironment and the increasing em<hasis on ha>ing a Lglo?al mindsetM as a leadershi< com<etency

De.g., Rogers G 9lonsi, 2010E. econd is the continued ar @or talent Deister G /illyerd, 2010E

and, as a result, the need @or greater >isi?ility and access to internal high%<otential and&or highly

silled talent <ools that can ?e de<loyed across the organiBation hen critical Ko? o<enings occur.

!esources to Support Assessments

Another Fuestion on the sur>ey ased a?out the use o@ >arious resources Dhether internal sta@@ or e=ternal >endorsE to su<<ort the assessment <rocess. )>er the last se>eral decades there ha>e ?een

se>eral <endulum sings in assessment strategy @or organiBations to either ?uild internal ca<a?ility

De.g., in the @orm o@ trained assessorsE >ersus rely e=tensi>ely on the use o@ e=ternal consultants.

ore recently, @olloing industry consolidation, e=ternal search @irms are no o@@ering their on

e=ternal assessment <ractices as ell.

9ased on the sur>ey results the utiliBation o@ assessment resources a<<ears to ?e somehat

mi=ed. Nor high%<otentials 3S o@ res<ondents re<orted using e=ternal >endors only, 2S internal

resources only, and 3-S selected ?oth. "one o@ these <ercentages ere signi@icantly di@@erent @rom

one another. Nor senior e=ecuti>es the <attern as slightly di@@erent ith +S using e=ternal

>endors only, 11S internal resources only, and 2S indicating ?oth. *n this case internal resources

alone ere used signi@icantly less @reFuently than either e=ternal >endors or a com?ination o@

resources t D!2E 3., p .001, t D!2E 3.0-, p .0!.his @inding maes sense gi>en the di@@erences in seniority le>el o@ the target audience ?eing

assessed. *t is <otentially more challenging @or <olitical and <ercei>ed credi?ility reasonsH @or

!i#ure . co<e and onershi< o@ assessments. /hat is the sco<e o@ the de<loyment o@ your assessment

processC

7/25/2019 cpb-a0034381


A A5" A"A4" 9"CAR 7(; 21!

e=am<le, in most organiBations, it ould ?e <ro?lematic @or loer le>el internal sta@@ to assess

higher%le>el e=ecuti>es in the same com<any regardless o@ their sillset. *n addition, a @ormal

assessment <rocess is liely to result in heightened sensiti>ity and >isi?ility ith senior le>el

e=ecuti>es as noted earlier, and this too might reFuire more e=ternal o?Kecti>ity. Perha<s this issue

also re@lects the <ersistent em<hasis on <roducti>ity and there@ore outsourcing o@ these e@@orts, as

ell as in>estor scrutiny that most o@ these <u?lically traded organiBations @ace today. *n summary,there is a general <re@erence @or either e=ternal assessment ?y itsel@ or in conKunction ith internal

resources, ?ut less utiliBation o@ solely internal a<<roaches.

Temes From /rite'"n Comments

he @inal item on the sur>ey as a rite%in Fuestion that ased @or additional details or comments

regarding the assessment <ractices currently in use. )>erall 32 com<anies Dor !S o@ those

currently using assessmentsE <ro>ided res<onses to this Fuestion. hese ranged @rom relati>e short

statements to Fuite long descri<tions. 4i>en the <ro<rietary and <otentially sensiti>e nature o@ the

details o@ a s<eci@ic talent assessment <rogram, e ere not sur<rised that this item recei>ed @eer

res<onses com<ared to the rest o@ the sur>ey. any organiBations are unilling to <u?lically

descri?e their assessment a<<roaches <articularly @or senior e=ecuti>es most, hich is hy sur>eyresults o@ this ty<e are so di@@icult to @ind in the literature.

A content analysis o@ the comments yielded se>eral ey themes. 9ecause res<ondent comments o@ten

re@lected more than one theme the statements could ?e classi@ied under more than one category. a?le 2

<ro>ides the details o@ the analysis including a sam<le comment re@lecti>e o@ each.

*n general, se>eral o@ these themes re@lected the im<ortance o@ maing ?road linages ?eteen

assessment and de>elo<ment. he @irst and most common o@ these, @or e=am<le, as the use o@

assessment data as in<ut into indi>idual leader de>elo<ment <lans. enty%three o@ the 32 com<a%

nies res<onding to this Fuestion D+2SE s<eci@ically mentioned this as<ect as integral to their talent

management <rogram. his trend is Fuite consistent ith the to<%most raning recei>ed @or

de>elo<ment needs as the most commonly cited <ur<ose @or engaging in assessments ith either

high%<otentials or senior e=ecuti>es. imilarly, 10 com<anies D31SE e=<licitly mentioned lining

their assessment <rocesses to more @ormal leadershi< de>elo<ment <rograms or courses. here asalso a smaller grou< o@ se>en com<anies that mentioned the use o@ assessments in a @ormaliBed

coaching and de>elo<ment <rocess D22SE.

he second theme concerned more s<eci@ic methodological or design elements o@ their <rocess.

<eci@ically, 20 com<anies D3S o@ those res<onding to this FuestionE cited the @ocus o@ their

assessment e@@orts on the measurement o@ leadershi< <otential in >arious @orms. hirteen organi%

Bations D1SE mentioned leadershi< com<etencies and&or 30 @eed?ac s<eci@ically and eight

D2!SE mentioned <ersonality measures ith the ogan Assessment uite Dogan, ogan, G

/arren@eltB, 200+E ?eing identi@ied se>eral times in <articular. *nterestingly, hoe>er, and des<ite

the Fuantita%ti>e sur>ey res<onses only @i>e com<anies D1SE directly discussed their e=ternal

assessment <artners in their res<onse to this item. )nce again this may re@lect the con@identiality

concerns inherent in collecting this ty<e o@ in@ormation.

Ninally, the remaining theme not descri?ed a?o>e and mentioned ?y eight com<anies D2!SE

concerned the <re>iously @ragmented nature o@ <rior e@@orts in these areas and the e=tent to hich

some o@ the assessments descri?ed in the sur>ey ere relati>ely ne to their organiBations. his

@inding is intriguing. *n other ords, des<ite the clear trend in the data regarding the use o@

assessments @or many grou<s >ia multi<le methods, some o@ the organiBations res<onding are still

relati>ely ne to assessments in general.

Summary and "mplications for Practice

4i>en the results <resented a?o>e it is e>ident that assessments are a >ery current and im<ortant

to<ic @or senior leaders today, <articularly in large organiBations ith ell%esta?lished talent

management @unctions. his is in contrast to the o>erall statistics and trends re<orted in the <rior

studies ?ased on ?roader organiBational sam<les De.g., AA nter<rise, 2011H agemann G

7/25/2019 cpb-a0034381


21 C7RC A"( R))5)

a?le 2

Content nalysis !rom rite-In Comments

"o. o@ S o@ am<le commenta

heme mentions comments

5ined to de>elo<ment <lans 23 +2S /e in>ite them to tae <art in a detailedde>elo<ment <lanning <rocess, inhich e ill or ith them to hel<ensure they ha>e a ro?ustde>elo<ment <lan they can e=ecuteith their manager. /e do not la?el <eo<le Lhigh%<otentialM as such, sothey do not @eel lie they are enteringanything elite, ?ut @eel good a?out the@ocused su<<ort on their de>elo<ment.

easures <otential 20 3S 7sed to identi@y and de>elo< <eo<le

ho may ha>e the <otential to mo>einto more senior roles.

*ncludes leadershi< com<etencies&30 13 ,1S A@ter the structured con>ersation they

@eed?ac undergo a multi%rater @eed?ac <rocess Dusing com<etency sets thatha>e ?een aligned ith our onleadershi< modelE.

5ined to leadershi< <rograms 10 31S Assessments are used in a de>elo<ment

<rogram that occurs annually @or !0hi%<otential enior (irectors. he <ur<ose is to increase aareness andto esta?lish a Lcall to actionM @or themto or ith their manager, e=ternalcoach and internal mentor to ?uildca<a?ility in those areas here theymay need to @ocus to dri>e ?usinessresults.

*ncludes <ersonality measures - 2!S /e ha>e le>eraged the ogan suite o@ tools much more rigorously in the last2 years.

>ol>ing <ractice area - 2!S i<o <rocesses are @ragmented at this

time. (is<arate <ractices across ?usiness units and geogra<hies . . .4oal is to assess current state andde@ine some consistent <ractices and <rocesses.

*ntegrated ith @ormal coaching + 22S igh%<otential indi>iduals are selected

@or inclusion in a hi<o de>elo<ment <rogram D1- months longE hichincludes . . . an e=ternal coachingcom<onent and e o?tain @eed?ac

@rom the coaches.7ses e=ternal @irm ! 1S /e ha>e a <rogram . . . that uses an

assessment suite Ddeli>ered ?y aconsulting @irmE as a core com<onento@ the <rogram. Assessments consisto@ a 30, <ersonality, and se>eralassessment%center style acti>itiesduring the <rogram itsel@.

a Comments ha>e ?een edited @or clarity, grammar, and to <re>ent identi@ication.

(attone, 20). 9t is helpful to hae this assertion con#rmed ia the

benchmark data reported here, particularly in light of the increasing

7/25/2019 cpb-a0034381


popularity of assessment methods at professional conferences and theinterest in identifying and segmenting arious categories of talent$ilDer = ;hurch, 2003).

7/25/2019 cpb-a0034381


A A5" A"A4" 9"CAR 7(; 21+

*n general, +0S o@ the com<anies res<onding to the <resent sur>ey re<orted the use o@

assessments @or some <o<ulation, and the maKority targeted more than one ith senior e=ecuti>es,

middle managers, and high%<otentials ?eing the most @reFuent targets. Nurther, although a @ocus on

de>elo<ment needs as the single%most cited reason @or engaging in assessments regardless o@ the

<o<ulation, the maKority o@ these organiBations utiliBed assessments @or ?oth de>elo<mental and

decision%maing <ur<oses simultaneously.he eFually high usage o@ 30 @eed?ac, <ersonality measures, and inter>ies as <art o@ the

assessment <rocess is encouraging. his suggests that these ty<es o@ organiBations are in @act a<<roaching

their talent management and assessment agenda @rom a @rameor. *n addition it su<<orts the

recommendations made ?y ilBer and Church D200#E @or <ractitioners to ?roaden the identi@ication o@

leadershi< <otential ?eyond Kust single unidimensional measures and constructs. *@ e a<<ly the results o@

this study to that conce<tual model o@ <otential, it a<<ears that these organiBations are in @act measuring

the >arious @acets ith res<ect to those that are @oundational De.g., cogniti>e a?ility, <ersonalityE, groth

oriented De.g., learning a?ility, o<enness to @eed?ac, etc.E and com<etence%related De.g., leadershi< and

@unctional noledge and sillsE domains.

*n addition, @rom a classical test theory <ers<ecti>e DAllen G ;en, 2002E it is sim<ly good

measurement <ractice to use multi<le measures. he more so<histicated and multi@aceted an

assessment <rocess ?ecomes, the greater DaE the >alue o@ the de>elo<mental @eed?ac gi>en to

<artici<ants, D?E the s<eci@icity o@ the indi>idual career and e=<erience <lanning created, and DcE the

relia?ility and >alidity o@ the o>erall <rocess. *n summary, the results indicate that organiBations

ith strong talent management @unctions are liely to ?e acti>ely engaged in an integrated,

assessment <rocess @or ?oth high%<otentials and senior e=ecuti>es.

he study does raise some interesting Fuestions, hoe>er, ith res<ect to challenges that

<ractitioners ha>e o>er using classic *%) and )( related tools and assessments @or dual de>elo<ment and

decision maing <ur<oses. Nirst, hile @e o@ these com<anies use assessments @or decision maing only,

there is a clear em<hasis on in@luencing ?oth ty<es o@ outcomes ith contem<orary assessment tools.

hus, hile de>elo<ment is a great reason @or engaging in assessment or Dand in our e=<erience o@ten

the means ?y hich these tools are introduced to organiBations to create a le>el o@ com@ortE, there a<<ears

to ?e signi@icant interest in using the data collected to mae an im<act on the ?usiness through talentmanagement. his maes sense gi>en that leadershi< sta@@ing and succession decisions are one o@ the

most critical outcomes o@ a talent management <rocess. )ne reason @or this trend may ?e the increasing

em<hasis on measuring the >alue and R)* Dreturn on in>estmentE on talent management e@@orts and the

human resources @unction in general.

econd, it should ?e noted that using assessments @or decision%maing <ur<oses in an organi%

Bation is ?y no means an inherently <oor a<<lication o@ these tools. *ndeed adding a @ormal

measurement <rocess o@ any ind re<resents a signi@icant im<ro>ement o>er less in@ormed gut%le>el

<erce<tions. *@ data @rom assessments are intended to in@luence <ersonnel or talent%related

decisions, hoe>er, this rein@orces the im<ortance o@ ensuring a legally de@ensi?le, relia?le and

>alid set o@ assessment measures are in <lace and consistently a<<lied Dsee /rito 0s. 1ia Co., 1#+3,

@or using <er@ormance a<<raisals and ?y e=tension 30sE. /hile im<lementing <rocesses against

these criteria are standard training in most *%) and consulting <sychology curricula, it can re<resenta challenge @or other talent <ro@essionals ith ?acgrounds less grounded in @ormal assessment

methods. ae, @or e=am<le, the common situation here a non<sychologist is enamored ith a

<articularly <o<ular measure De.g., eyers$9riggs y<e *ndicator, Cli@ton trengthsNinderE and

ould lie to use it @or <ur<oses ?eyond the ?oundaries @or hich it has ?een designed or >alidated.

Related to this concern is that ith greater use is the <otential @or greater misuse. As talent

management @unctions mo>e @orard in designing and im<lementing assessment <rograms, it is

im<ortant that these are ell%grounded ?oth theoretically and em<irically. 4i>en the <o<ularity o@

some o@ these tools De.g., 30 @eed?ac, the ogan uiteE, and the increasing <resence o@ e=ternal

@irms o@@ering their on measures and @rameors DilBer G Church, 200#E, additional o>ersight is

needed. *n the a?sence o@ regulation and o>ersight in this area, it is a L?uyer ?eareM maret<lace

@or assessments designed and deli>ered ?y e=ternal assessment >endors. any organiBations @aced

a similar issue in the late 1##0s and early 2000s hen 30 @eed?ac @irst ?ecame <o<ular and

7/25/2019 cpb-a0034381


21- C7RC A"( R))5)

concerns ere raised. hus, it is im<ortant that organiBations design and im<lement assessment

<ractices @or the right reasons and according to <ro@essional standards rather than solely ?ecause

they re@lect a trend in the maret<lace.

A third im<ortant @inding @rom this sur>ey is that the maKority o@ the organiBations a<<roach their

talent assessment or @rom a glo?al @rameor. his is im<ortant ?ecause it <ro>ides direction

regarding the talent onershi< de?ate in organiBations today. *@ le@t to their on de>ices many leaders in

organiBations ould <re@er to <lan and de>elo< their talent >ertically ithin their on ?usiness or region.

/hile this ?uilds <i<eline continuity and a de<th o@ noledge in a single ?usiness unit, it is less liely to

result in ?road%?ased learning @or indi>iduals that ould ?e o?tained @rom e=<eriences in other @unctions

or <arts o@ the ?usiness. 4i>en that many organiBations today su<<ort the e=<eriential learning model

De.g., 5om?ardo G ichinger, 2000H cCall, 5om?ardo, G orrison, 1#--H ;ost G Plunet, 2010E the

a?ility to mo>e high%<otential indi>iduals and e=ecuti>es across organiBational ?oundaries re<resents a

strategic talent management <riority. he most e@@ecti>e ays to ena?le this trans@er o@ talent are to DaE

<ut glo?al or enter<rise resources in <lace that on ey talent <ools, D?E ensure consistency o@ assessment

and measurement <rocess, and DcE institute metrics and reards that trac and rein@orce the right

?eha>iors. Results o@ this sur>ey su<<ort the argument that organiBations ith strong talent management

@unctions rely on more glo?al @rameors ith res<ect to assessment <rocess, onershi<, and sco<e.

9ecause o@ this em<hasis on glo?al talent management, hoe>er, it is im<ortant that assessment

e@@orts ?e designed and im<lemented ith care@ul attention to the <otential issues inherent in norms,

language translations, and >alidation ith di@@erent <o<ulations. he more that these tools are used @or

talent decision%maing <ur<oses across multinational settings the more im<ortant it is to ensure

measurement eFui>alence and cross%cultural >alidity. his is another area here *%) and consulting

<sychologists can assist organiBations in the design o@ their assessment <rograms.

Ninally, the @act that the maKority o@ organiBations in this sam<le are utiliBing either e=ternal

>endors or a com?ination o@ internal and e=ternal resources @or their assessment <rograms is good

nes @or *%) and consulting <sychologists. *t means that in the <resent ?usiness en>ironment ith

an em<hasis on talent management and high%<otential assessments, silled <ractitioners ha>e a real

o<<ortunity to in@luence the Fuality o@ the e@@orts ?eing deli>ered to organiBations in su<<ort o@ their talent management goals.

*n the end, it is im<ortant to recogniBe that designing and im<lementing any assessment <rocess in an

actual organiBational setting is <art science and <art art. he e=tent to hich the em<hasis is <laced on art

>ersus science, hoe>er, de<ends largely on the theoretical and em<irical grounding o@ the talent

management <ractitioner Dor *%) or consulting <sychologistE designing and e=ecuting the <rocess. *n

summary, i@ e ere to a<<ly talent management <arlance to our ad>ice regarding assessments it ould

?e as @ollos: Nor any target role, you must ensure you are measuring the right content, ith the right

methods, @or the right reasons. he organiBations res<onding to this sur>ey a<<ear to ?e a<<roaching their

talent agendas ?y @olloing this ad>ice as ell. hey are ?eing more inclusi>e o@ indi>idual leadershi<

<otential using a<<roaches hile simultaneously a<<ly%ing more <recision in the <rocess at the

highest layers in their com<any here decisions ha>e more <otential ?usiness im<act. *n short, these

organiBations are @ocused on the assessment o@ their leadershi< succession ?ench @or ?oth de>elo<mentaland decision maing <ur<oses, and ha>e in>ested in the methodologies and resources to ?etter in@orm and

e=ecute their talent strategy.

0imitations

<hile the results from this benchmark are interesting and suggest

some important implications for practice, there are seeral limitations

that should be recogniDed. 7irst, the study used a targeted sample of

large corporations kno"n to hae strong talent management,

leadership deelopment, andor EB functions $based on a ariety of

criteria). As a result, "hile the trends reported here are re-ectie of the

7/25/2019 cpb-a0034381


sample identi#ed $gien the 4 response rate), they may not re-ect a

cross&section of assessment eorts at all types of organiDations.

7urther, they are probably not generaliDable to other types of social

systems such as goernment agencies, family businesses, academic

institutions,

7/25/2019 cpb-a0034381


A A5" A"A4" 9"CAR 7(; 21#

non<ro@its, or <ro@essional associations. Nuture research could e=<lore these same ty<es o@

Fuestions in other organiBational @orms using a similar a<<roach.

econd, the indi>idual res<onses to the sur>ey ere collected anonymously to enhance the o>erall

res<onse rate. his a<<roach <recludes additional @ollo%u< data collection or analyses ?ased on

demogra<hic >aria?les. 4i>en the sensiti>ity in>ol>ed in <u?lically sharing this ty<e o@ data @or many

organiBations, it is unliely that a ?enchmar study o@ this nature could ha>e ?een more trans<arentregarding indi>idually attri?uta?le <ractices. Additionally, the indi>idual res<onses e collected ere the

>ies solely o@ the sur>ey res<ondent, and hile e ?elie>e that they ere the most in@ormed

res<ondents @or this ty<e o@ sur>ey Das noted <re>iouslyE, it is an assum<tion that their >ies are

reasona?ly com<lete and re@lect <ractices throughout their organiBations.

hird, hile it ould ha>e ?een use@ul to as a num?er o@ additional Fuestions to <ro>ide

@urther de<th o@ res<onses sur>ey as e<t >ery short and targeted to ma=imiBe the res<onse rates

gi>en the senior le>el o@ cor<orate <ractitioners targeted. ome additional Fuestions that might ?e

added in @uture sur>eys o@ this nature include: DaE the ty<es&names o@ e=ternal >endors used, D?E the

length o@ time the assessment <ractice has ?een in <lace, DcE the >alidation <rocedures associated

ith the usage o@ assessments <articularly @or decision%maing <ur<oses, and DdE the degree o@

integration ith coaching e@@orts, leadershi< de>elo<ment <rograms, <er@ormance management, and

other R e@@orts.

Ninally, although the conce<t o@ the is rele>ant to the @indings a?o>e, the @ocus o@ this

research as on the multi<le%methods as<ect not the multi<le%traits or content ?eing assessed ?y the

organiBations res<onding to the sur>ey. Nuture research should e=<lore the <er@ormance domain o@

assessment <ractices in high cali?er talent management e@@orts in more detail. <eci@ically, DaE hat

ty<e o@ content is ?eing assessed, D2E hich tools&methods are ?eing used @or each content domain,

and D3E the <ur<ose Dde>elo<ment >s. decision%maingE o@ each uniFue tool ?eing de<loyed as <art

o@ the assessment <rocess.

!eferences

Allen, . J., G ;en, /. . D2002E. Introduction to measurement theory . 5ong 4ro>e, *5: /a>eland Press. American

edical Association nter<rise. D2011E. Identifyin# and de%elopin# hi#h-potential talent. *2(( study

by merican 'edical ssociation 3nterprise. "e ;or, ";: American anagement Association. Re%

trie>ed @rom .amaenter<rise.org

Arthur, /. Jr., (ay, . A., c"elly, . 5., G dens, P. . D2003E. A meta%analysis o@ the criterion%related >alidity

o@ assessment center dimensions. Personnel Psycholo#y, 45, 12!$1!3. doi:10.1111&K.1+%

!+0.2003.t?001.=

9arric, . R., G ount, . . D2012E. "ature and use o@ <ersonality in selection. *n ". chmitt Dd.E, 6he "ford

handbook of personnel assessment 7 selection D<<. 22!$2!1E. "e ;or, ";: )=@ord 7ni>ersity Press.

9artram, (. D200!E. he great eight com<etencies: A criterion%centric a<<roach to >alidation. 8ournal of pplied

Psycholo#y, 92, 11-!$1203. doi:10.103+&0021%#010.#0..11-!

9oudreau, J. /., G Ramstad, P. . D200+E. /eyond ;: 6he new science of human capital . 9oston, A:

ar>ard 9usiness chool Press.9racen, (. /. D1##E. ultisource D30%degreeE @eed?ac: ur>eys @or indi>idual and organiBational de>el%

o<ment. *n A. *. raut Dd.E, "r#ani$ational sur%eys: 6ools for assessment and chan#e D<<. 11+$13E. an

Nrancisco, CA: Jossey$9ass.

9racen, (. /., G Church, A. . D2013E. he L"eM <er@ormance management <aradigm: Ca<italiBing on the

unrealiBed <otential o@ 30 degree @eed?ac. People 7 &trate#y, +5, 3 $0.

9racen, (., immrec, C. /., G Church, A. . Dds.E D2001E. 6he handbook of multisource feedback: 6he

comprehensi%e resource for desi#nin# and implementin# '&! processes. an Nrancisco, CA: Jossey%9ass.

9ray, (. /., G 4rant, (. 5. D1#E. he assessment center in the measurement o@ <otential @or ?usiness

management. Psycholo#ical 'ono#raphs: <eneral and pplied, =2, 1$2+. doi:10.103+&h00#3-#!

/rito 0. 1ia Co., +- N. 2d 1200 D10th. Cir. 1#+3E.

9ure, /. /., G "oumair, (. A. D2002E, he role o@ <ersonality assessment in organiBation de>elo<ment. *n J.

/aclasi G A. . Church Dds.E, "r#ani$ation de%elopment: data-dri%en approach to or#ani$ational

chan#e D<<. !!$++E. an Nrancisco, CA: Jossey$9ass.

7/25/2019 cpb-a0034381


220 C7RC A"( R))5)

Cam<?ell, (. ., G Nise, (. /. D1#!#E. Con>ergent and discriminant >alidation ?y the multitrait%multimethod

matri=. Psycholo#ical /ulletin, 45, -1$10!. doi:10.103+&h0001

Cam<?ell, ., G mith, R. D2010E. i#h-potential talent: %iew from inside the leadership pipeline. 4reens%

?oro, "C: Center @or Creati>e 5eadershi<.

Ca<<elli, P. D200-E. 6alent on demand: 'ana#in# talent in an a#e of uncertainty. 9oston, A: ar>ard

9usiness Press.Carey, (. C., G )gden, (. D200E. C) succession <lanning: nsuring leadershi< at the to<. *n 5. A. 9erger G

(. R. 9erger Dds.E, 6he talent mana#ement handbook: Creatin# or#ani$ational ecellence by identifyin#,

de%elopin#, and promotin# your best people D<<. 23$2!2E. "e ;or, ";: c4ra$ill.

Church, A. . D200E. alent management. 6he Industrial-"r#ani$ational Psycholo#ist, , 33$3.

Church, A. ., G /aclasi, J. D2010E. ae the Pe<si Challenge: alent de>elo<ment at Pe<siCo. *n R. ilBer

G 9. . (oell Dds.E, &trate#y-dri%en talent mana#ement: leadership imperati%e D<<. 1+$0E. an


Church, A. ., /aclasi, J., G 9ure, /. /. D2001E, ultisource @eed?ac @or organiBation de>elo<ment and

change. *n (. /. 9racen, C. /. immrec, G A. . Church Dds.E, 6he andbook of multisource

feedback: 6he comprehensi%e resource for desi#nin# and implementin# '&! processes D<<. 301$31+E. an


(alton, . A., G ollen?ec, 4. P. D2001E. A model @or ?eha>ior change. *n (. /. 9racen, C. /. immrec, G

A. . Church Dds.E, 6he andbook of multisource feedback: 6he comprehensi%e resource for desi#nin# and implementin# '&! processes D<<. 3!2$3+E. an Nrancisco, CA: Jossey$9ass.

3( 4rou<. D2013E. Current practices in +52 de#ree feedback: benchmark study of North merican companies.

mery>ille, CA: 3( 4rou<.

(u9ois, P. . D1#+0E. history of psycholo#ical testin# . "eedham eights, A: Allyn G 9acon.

dards, . R., G en, A. J. D1##E. +52> feedback: 6he powerful new model for employee assessment 7

performance impro%ement . "e ;or, ";: AAC).

@@ron, ., G )rt, . D2010E. "ne pa#e talent mana#ement: 3liminatin# compleity, addin# %alue . 9oston,

A: ar>ard 9usiness chool Pu?lishing.

4oldsmith, ., G 7nderhill, 9. ). D2001E. ultisource @eed?ac @or e=ecuti>e de>elo<ment. *n (. /. 9racen,

C. /. immrec, G A. . Church Dds.E, 6he andbook of multisource feedback: 6he comprehensi%e

resource for desi#nin# and implementin# '&! processes D<<. 2+!$2--E, an Nrancisco, CA: Jossey$9ass.

4roth$arnat, 4. D200#E. andbook of psycholo#ical assessment D!th ed.E. o?oen, "J, /iley.

4ru?s, 5. D200E. Achie>ing organiBational e=cellence through talent <lanning and de>elo<ment. *n 5. A.

9erger G (. R. 9erger Dds.E, 6he talent mana#ement handbook: Creatin# or#ani$ational ecellence by

identifyin#, de%elopin#, and promotin# your best people D<<. 1-!$1#-E. "e ;or, ";: c4ra$ill.

agemann, 9., G attone, J. D2011E. *2((?*2(* trends in eecuti%e de%elopment: benchmark report .

)lahoma City, ): =ecuti>e (e>elo<ment Associates D(AE *nc. and Pearson ducation *nc.

ale, . J. D1#-0E. uman science and social order: u#o '@nsterber# and the ori#ins of applied psycholo#y.

Philadel<hia, PA: em<le 7ni>ersity Press.

eitt Associates. D200-E. <ettin# to i#h-potential: ow or#ani$ations define and calibrate their critical

talent . eitt Associates. Retrie>ed @rom .heitt.com

ighhouse, . D2002E. Assessing the candidate as a hole: A historical and critical analysis o@ indi>idual

<sychological assessment @or <ersonnel decision maing. Personnel Psycholo#y, 44, 33$3#.

ogan, R., ogan, J., G /arren@eltB, R. D200+E. 6he o#an #uide: Interpretation and use of o#an in%entories.

ulsa, ): ogan Press.ogan, R., G aiser, R. 9. D2010E. Personality. *n J. C. cott G (. . Reynolds Dds.E, 6he handbook of

workplace assessment: 3%idenced based practices for selectin# and de%elopin# or#ani$ational talent D<<.

-1$10-E. an Nrancisco, CA: Jossey$9ass.

Jaahar, *. ., G /illiams, C. R. D1##+E. /here all the children are a?o>e a>erage: he <er@ormance a<<raisal

<ur<ose e@@ect. Personnel Psycholo#y, 42, #0!$#2!. doi:10.1111&K.1+%!+0.1##+.t?01-+.=

Jeanneret, R., G ilBer, R. D1##-E. Indi%idual psycholo#ical assessment: Predictin# beha%ior in or#ani$ational

settin#s. an Nrancisco, CA: Jossey$9ass.

5e<singer, R., G 5ucia, A. (., D200E. 7sing 30%degree @eed?ac in a talent management system. *n 5. A.

9erger G (. R. 9erger Dds.E, 6he talent mana#ement handbook: Creatin# or#ani$ational ecellence by

identifyin#, de%elopin#, and promotin# your best people D<<. 11# $12-E. "e ;or, ";: c4ra$ill.

5om?ardo, . ., G ichinger, R. /. D2000E. igh%<otentials as high learners. uman ;esource 'ana#ement,

+9, 321$32#. doi:10.1002&10##%0!06D20002E3#: 321::A*(%R 3.0.C)H2%1

7/25/2019 cpb-a0034381


?ondon, (.. $200). 'he great debateF hould *+0 be used foradministration or deelopment onlyC 9n B. <.

7/25/2019 cpb-a0034381


A A5" A"A4" 9"CAR 7(; 221

9racen, C. /. immrec, G A. . Church Dds.E, 6he handbook of multisource feedback D<<. 3- $3-!E,

an Nrancisco, CA: Jossey$9ass.

cCall, . /., 5om?ardo, . ., G orrison, A. . D1#--E. 6he lessons of eperience: ow successful

eecuti%es de%elop on the Aob. "e ;or, ";: he Nree Press.

c(onnell, A. D2011E. till @ighting the Lar @or talentM8 9ridging the science >ersus <ractice ga<. 8ournal of

/usiness and Psycholo#y, *5, 1# $1+3. doi:10.100+&s10-#%011%#220%yeister, J. C., G /illyerd, . D2010E. 6he *2*2 workplace: ow inno%ati%e companies attract, de%elop, and

keep tomorrowBs employees today. "e ;or, ";: ar<erCollins.

ichaels, ., and@ield$Jones, ., G A=elrod, 9. D2001E. 6he war for talent . 9oston, A: ar>ard 9usiness

chool, cinsey G Co.

ount, . ., Judge, . A., cullen, . ., ytsma, . R., G eBlett, . A. D1##-E. rait, rater and le>el e@@ects

in 30%degree <er@ormance ratings. Personnel Psycholo#y, 4(, !!+$!+.

ur<hy, R. . D2011E. 6he top companies for leaders. Nortune, "o>em?er 21st, 1!$1+!.

"oac, . ., G ashihi, . D2012E. >idence%?ased ansers to 1! Fuestions a?out le>eraging 30%degree

@eed?ac. Consultin# Psycholo#y 8ournal: Practice and ;esearch, 5, 1!+$1-2. doi:10.103+&a0030011

"unnally, J. C. D1#+-E. Psychometric theory D2nd edE. "e ;or, ";: c4ra$ill.

)nes, (. ., (ilchert, ., G Vises>eran, C. D2012E. Cogniti>e a?ilities. *n ". chmitt Dd.E, 6he "ford

handbook of personnel assessment 7 selection. "e ;or, ";: )=@ord 7ni>ersity Press. doi:10.10#3&

o=@ordh?&#+-01##+32!+#.013.0010)nes, (. ., (ilchert, ., Vises>eran, C., G algado, J. N. D2010E. Cogniti>e a?ilities. *n J. 5. Narr G ". . i<<ins

Dds.E, andbook of employee selection D<<. 2!!$2+!E. "e ;or, ";: Routledge&aylor G Nrancis.

Paese, . J. D200-E. Your net C3": hy succession plannin# is more important than e%er . he Con@erence

9oard Re>ie, "o>&(ec, <<. 1- $23.

Ready, (. A., Conger, J. A., G ill, 5. A. D2010E. Are you a high%<otential8 ar%ard /usiness ;e%iew, ==, +- $

-.

Rogers, . ., G 9lonsi, (. D2010E. 6he #lobal leadership mindset . Chie@ 5earning )@@icer, June, 1- $21. Rogers, R.

/., G mith, A. 9. D200+E. !indin# future perfect leaders. 9ridge>ille, PA: (e>elo<ment (imensions

*nternational.

cott, J. C., G Reynolds, (. . Dds.E. D2010E. 6he handbook of workplace assessment: 3%idenced based

practices for selectin# and de%elopin# or#ani$ational talent . an Nrancisco, CA: Jossey$9ass.

ilBer, R., G Church, A. . D200#E. he <earls and <erils o@ identi@ying <otential. Industrial and "r#ani$ational

Psycholo#y: Perspecti%es on &cience and Practice, *, 3++$12. doi:10.1111&K.1+!%#3.200#.0113.= ilBer,

R., G Church, A. . D2010E. *denti@ying and assessing high%<otential talent: Current organiBational

<ractices. *n R. ilBer G 9. . (oell Dds.E, &trate#y-dri%en talent mana#ement: leadership imperati%e

D<<. 213$2+#E. an Nrancisco, CA: Jossey$9ass.

ilBer, R. N., G (oell, 9. . Dds.E, D2010E. &trate#y-dri%en talent mana#ement: leadership imperati%e, an


<earman, C. D1#0E. T4eneral intelligence,I o?Kecti>ely determined and measured. 6he merican 8ournal of

Psycholo#y, (4, 201$2#3. doi:10.230+&11210+

<ychalsi, A. C., Ouinones, . A., 4augler, 9. 9., G Pohley, . D1##+E. A sur>ey o@ assessment center

<ractices in organiBations in the 7nited tates. Personnel Psycholo#y, 42, +1$#0. doi:10.1111&K.1+%

!+0.1##+.t?00#01.=

tamoulis, (. D200#E. &enior eecuti%e assessment: key to responsible corporate #o%ernance . Chichester,

/est usse=, 7nited ingdom: /iley, 5td. doi:10.1002&#+-13102+

hornton ***, 4. C., ollen?ec, 4. P., G Johnson, . . D2010E. electing leaders: =ecuti>es and high%

<otentials. *n J. 5. Narr G ". . i<<ins Dds.E, andbook of employee selection D<<. -23$-0E. "e ;or,

";: Routledge, aylor, G Nrancis 4rou<.

orno, /. /., G 5ondon, . D1##-E. 'aimi$in# the %alue of +52-de#ree feedback: process for successful

indi%idual and or#ani$ational de%elopment . an Nrancisco, CA: Jossey$9ass.

;ost, P. R., G Plunett, . . D2010E. (e>elo<ing leadershi< talent through e=<eriences. *n R. N. ilBer G 9. .

(oell Dds.E, &trate#y dri%en talent mana#ement: leadership imperati%e D<<. 313$3-E. an Nrancisco,

CA: Jossey$9ass.

ppendi follows on net pa#e

7/25/2019 cpb-a0034381


222 C7RC A"( R))5)

Appendi*

Assessment Practices #encmark Survey

O1: *n hat <artDsE o@ your organiBation do you use assessments8 Delect all that a<<lyE

enior e=ecuti>es

iddle managers

Nirst line su<er>isors

arly career <ro@essionals

Cam<us hires

igh%<otential&@ast trac em<loyees

*ndi>idual contri?utors

D*@ senior e=ecuti>es and&or high%<otentials ere selected res<ondents ere directed to continue the sur>ey. *@ neither o@ these to grou<s ere identi@ied they ere not directed to <roceed @urther.E

O2: Nor hat <ur<oseDsE are assessments used @or ?oth your enior =ecuti>e and igh%<otential <o<ulations8 DChec all that a<<lyH lea>e ?lan i@ noneE

Pur<ose o@ assessment

igh%<otentials enior e=ecuti>es

*nternal Ko? <lacement and sta@@ing

=ternal recruitment&selection

*denti@ication o@ <otential

Con@irmation o@ <otential

uccession <lanning

*denti@ication o@ de>elo<ment needs

Con@irmation o@ sill acFuisition&ca<a?ility de>elo<ment

el@%initiated&ad hoc

O3: Please anser the @olloing Fuestions regarding the de<loyment o@ your assessment <ractices@or ?oth your enior =ecuti>e and igh%<otential <o<ulations:

/ho de<loys your /hat is the sco<eassessment <rocess8 o@ the de<loyment8Delect all that a<<lyE Delect all that a<<lyE

=ternal D>endorE *nternal 4lo?al Dcom<any%ideE Regional 5ocal

igh%<otentials

enior e=ecuti>es

D ppendi continues)

7/25/2019 cpb-a0034381


A A5" A"A4" 9"CAR 7(; 223

O: Nor ach o@ ;our enior =ecuti>e and igh%Potential Po<ulations, /hat y<es o@ Assess%ments (o ;ou 7se8 DChec All hat A<<lyE

y<es o@ assessments

igh%<otentials enior e=ecuti>es

Personality in>entories

Cogniti>e a?ility tests

*ntegrity tests

oti>ational @it Fuestionnaires

ProKecti>e techniFues

9iogra<hical data

Career achie>ement in>entories

Re@erence checs

*nter>ies

ultisource ratings

Administrati>e simulations De.g., in%?aset, case study, <ro?lem analysisE

*nteracti>e simulations De.g., role <lays, grou< discussionsE

Assessment centers)ther D<lease e=<lainE

O!: Please Pro>ide Additional (etail Regarding ;our Assessment Practices

Recei>ed ay , 2013

5atest re>ision recei>ed August 12, 2013

Acce<ted August 1, 2013

cpb-a0034381

Documents