Development centres‐ a review of assumptions

Employee development:an organizational justice perspective

“…It may also be fruitful to further consider actual development outcomes, as overall we still know comparatively little about the kind of developmental needs that groups of individuals have and how these are best met by a particular development activity (e.g. Carrick & Williams, 1998). (Greenberg, 1986), Voice (Thibaut & Walker, 1975) Two items representing Reconsideration Opportunity: The opportunity to correct or challenge decisions made prior to or during the review process At points where my and the reviewer's/ personal development champion's views differed, there was ample opportunity for discussion Ability to Challenge (Greenberg, 1986) Two items representing…”

The commercialisation of law and the enterprising legal practitioner: continuity and change

“…Commonly termed 'assessment centres' (AC), 27 this approach to recruitment refers not to a location but to a structured combination of assessment techniques based on an analysis of the skills (or competencies) needed for a particular job (Iles, 1992;Carrick & Williams, 1999). Concurrent with its emergence was the trend towards the 'Japanisation' of organisations, characterised by cultures of consensus and co-operation, and associated with 'hyper-working' and a dissolution of distinctions between work and private life (Pongratz & Voss, 2003), and an increased emphasis on flexibility (Townley, 1989).…”

Developing a framework for assessing effective development activities

“…More informal activities, such as shadowing or buddying, are less unlikely to comprise such an assessment element. However we note that while the emphasis differs, many development activities have a 'hybrid' function (Carrick & Williams, 1998;Fletcher, 1997). They are first a diagnostic tool which assesses respective strengths and weaknesses (on which reward and promotion decisions could be based) and secondly a development tool through the formulation of future-directed development plans and objectives.…”

“…The fundamental assumption that DC participation will increase individuals' motivation to develop their skills and career and engage in follow up activities needs to be critically evaluated (Carrick & Williams, 1998). In a correlational study Halman and Fletcher (2000) showed that rating congruence between self-and observer-ratings increased significantly post event, indicating that DCs enhance self-awareness, but did not consider the link to long-term outcomes.…”

“…Thus, the importance of integrating DCs into a wider facilitative environment and organisational strategy is reinforced (Vloeberghs & Berghman, 2003). Also, as Carrick and Williams (1998) pointed out, one might be faced with a paradox as candidates who perform well are likely to stay motivated to drive their own -16 -development following positive feedback; whereas those who do not perform so well might become de-motivated following negative ratings, starting a vicious circle, which is unlikely to meet their (greater) development needs. Future research is needed to determine whether a strengths-based DC approach is more effective for motivating and sustaining long-term self-led development than a focus on the diagnosis and remediation of perceived weaknesses.…”