ASSESSMENT CENTRE STUDY GROUP. 2010
description
Transcript of ASSESSMENT CENTRE STUDY GROUP. 2010
![Page 1: ASSESSMENT CENTRE STUDY GROUP. 2010](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062322/56815004550346895dbdd3cb/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
ASSESSMENT CENTRE STUDY GROUP. 2010THE ROLE AND EFFECT OF UNCONSCIOUS DEFENSIVE
STRUCTURES IN ASSESSMENT CENTRES. A SYSTEMS
PSYCHODYNAMIC PERSPECTIVE
Frans Cilliers
Department of Industrial & Organisational Psychology
UNISA
![Page 2: ASSESSMENT CENTRE STUDY GROUP. 2010](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062322/56815004550346895dbdd3cb/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
PROBLEM STATEMENT
• AC paradigm, theory, technology focus on rational, observable, conscious behavior
• Realization: “more is going on” below the surface of conscious observation, of a defensive nature, influencing AC outcomes
• AC literature gives little access to these behaviors - in search for another paradigm
![Page 3: ASSESSMENT CENTRE STUDY GROUP. 2010](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062322/56815004550346895dbdd3cb/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
RESEARCH QUESTION
● What kind of defensive behaviours (or structures) could underlie AC observation which could influence assessment outcomes?
● How do these behaviours manifest in and influence our work as consultants and behavioural observers in AC?
![Page 4: ASSESSMENT CENTRE STUDY GROUP. 2010](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062322/56815004550346895dbdd3cb/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
RESEARCH AIM
• To describe the role and effect of unconscious defensive structures on assessment centre outcomes
![Page 5: ASSESSMENT CENTRE STUDY GROUP. 2010](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062322/56815004550346895dbdd3cb/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
RESEARCH PARADIGM
● Systems Psychodynamics
● Systemic psychoanalysis (Freud), object relations (Klein), systems thinking (Bertalanffy), Social systems as defense against anxiety (Menzies, Jaques)
● Depth psychology and organisational theory
● OD consultancy stance
![Page 6: ASSESSMENT CENTRE STUDY GROUP. 2010](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062322/56815004550346895dbdd3cb/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
THEORY
● Basic assumptions (Bion)
Dependency, fight/flight, pairing, me-ness, one-ness / we-ness
● Behavioral constructs
● CIBART (Cilliers & Koortzen)
Role, task, (anxiety), conflicts, authorisation, boundaries, identity
![Page 7: ASSESSMENT CENTRE STUDY GROUP. 2010](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062322/56815004550346895dbdd3cb/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
DEFENSIVE STRUCTURES
• System domain defensive structures (Bain)
• Social defenses (Menzies)
• Individual defenses (Freud, Blackman)
![Page 8: ASSESSMENT CENTRE STUDY GROUP. 2010](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062322/56815004550346895dbdd3cb/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
RESEARCH DESIGN
• Research approach
Qualitative, motivation, ontology, epistemology
• Research strategy
Multiple case studies to test theory
• Descriptive research
![Page 9: ASSESSMENT CENTRE STUDY GROUP. 2010](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062322/56815004550346895dbdd3cb/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
RESEARCH METHOD 1
• Research setting
Assessment centres. IOP Masters student applicants at UNISA over 4 years
• Entrée and researcher roles
Participant observer, analytical third
![Page 10: ASSESSMENT CENTRE STUDY GROUP. 2010](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062322/56815004550346895dbdd3cb/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
RESEARCH METHOD 2
• Sampling
Purposive sampling, 8 psychologists, in role of AC observers
• Data collection. In-depth interviews
Q1. Tell me about how you took up your role in the assessment centre
Q2. How did your own dynamics influence the AC outcomes
![Page 11: ASSESSMENT CENTRE STUDY GROUP. 2010](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062322/56815004550346895dbdd3cb/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
RESEARCH METHOD 3
• Recording of data
Procedure, 1 week after AC, recordings
• Data analysis
Discourse analysis, generating working hypotheses, themes and research hypothesis
• Ensuring quality data
Trustworthiness, ethics
![Page 12: ASSESSMENT CENTRE STUDY GROUP. 2010](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062322/56815004550346895dbdd3cb/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
FINDINGS 1. SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY
• Sentiments, attitudes, values
• Perceptions
Stereotypes (gender, race, age)
Halo effect, contrast effort, selectivity
Attribution (errors, biases)
Prejudices
![Page 13: ASSESSMENT CENTRE STUDY GROUP. 2010](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062322/56815004550346895dbdd3cb/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
FINDINGS 2. DEFENSES
• System domain defensive structures
• Social defenses / collusions
• Individual defenses
Splitting
Introjections, projection, projective identification
Transference, counter transference
![Page 14: ASSESSMENT CENTRE STUDY GROUP. 2010](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062322/56815004550346895dbdd3cb/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
FINDINGS 2. THEMES
• Individual dynamics influencing outcomes
• Intergroup dynamics influencing outcomes
• Diversity dynamics influencing outcomes
• Moving from subject-subject relations tot object-object relations
• Concern about the participant
![Page 15: ASSESSMENT CENTRE STUDY GROUP. 2010](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062322/56815004550346895dbdd3cb/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS
The objectivity of AC observation is affected by unconscious psychodynamics in the form of individual and intergroup defensive structures. The awareness about these behaviours causes observers to start thinking about who’s behaviour is assessed – the participant’s or the observer’s
![Page 16: ASSESSMENT CENTRE STUDY GROUP. 2010](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062322/56815004550346895dbdd3cb/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
LIMITATIONS
• Only psychologists as observers and psychology students as AC participants used as sample
• System domain and social defensive structures not yet explored in depth
![Page 17: ASSESSMENT CENTRE STUDY GROUP. 2010](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062322/56815004550346895dbdd3cb/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
RECOMMENDATIONS
• Training of AC observers should include awareness of systems psychodynamic behavior, its role and effect in observation
• Self-development (as AC dimension) should be a requisite for observers, with thy focus on their sensitivity towards how the observer role is taken up in terms of behavioral dynamics
![Page 18: ASSESSMENT CENTRE STUDY GROUP. 2010](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062322/56815004550346895dbdd3cb/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
REFERENCES 1Armstrong, D. (2005). Organisation in the mind. Psychoanalysis, group
relations and organisational consultancy. London: Karnac.Bion, W.R. (1961). Experiences in groups. London: Tavistock.Blackman, J.S. (2004) 101 Defences. How the mind shields itself. New
York: Brunner-Routledge.Brunner, L.D., Nutkevitch, A. & Sher, M. (2006). Group relations
conferences. Reviewing and exploring theory, design, role-taking and application. London: Karnac.
Campbell, D. (2007). The socially constructed organisation. London: Karnac.
Campbell, D. & Gronbaek, M. (2006). Taking positions in the organisation. London: Karnac.
Campbell, D. & Huffington, C. (2008). Organisations connected. A handbook of systemic consultation. London: Karnac.
Colman, A.D. & Bexton, W.H. (1975). Group relations reader 1. Jupiter: The A.K. Rice Institute.
![Page 19: ASSESSMENT CENTRE STUDY GROUP. 2010](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062322/56815004550346895dbdd3cb/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
REFERENCES 2
Colman, A.D. & Geller, M.H. (1985). Group relations reader 2. Jupiter: The A.K. Rice Institute.
Cytrynbaum, S. & Noumair, A. (2004). Group relations reader. 3. Jupiter: A.K. Rice.
Czander, W.M. (1993). The psychodynamics of work and organizations. New York: Guilford.
French, R. & Vince, R. (1999). Group relations, management, and organization. New York: Oxford University Press.
Gold, L.J., Stapley, L.F. & Stein, M. (2001). The systems psychodynamics of organisations. London: Karnac.
Hirschhorn, L. (1997). Reworking authority. Leading and following in the post-modern organisation. London: MIT.
![Page 20: ASSESSMENT CENTRE STUDY GROUP. 2010](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062322/56815004550346895dbdd3cb/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
REFERENCES 3Huffington, C., Armstrong, A., Halton, W., Hoyle, L. & Pooley, J. (2004).
Working below the surface. The emotional life of contemporary organisations. London: Karnac.
Jaques, E. (1990). Creativity and work. Madison: International Universities.
Kets De Vries, M.F.R. (1991). Organisations on the coach. Clinical perspectives on organisational behaviour and change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kets De Vries, M.F.R. (2001). The leadership mystique. London: Prentice Hall.
Kets De Vries, M.F.R. (2007). Coach and couch. London: Palgrave.Kets De Vries, M.F.R. & Engellau, E. (2007): Organisational dynamics
in action.Klein, L. (2005). Working across the gap. The practice of social science
in organisations. London: Karnac.
![Page 21: ASSESSMENT CENTRE STUDY GROUP. 2010](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062322/56815004550346895dbdd3cb/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
REFERENCES 4Klein, M. (1988). Envy and gratitude and other works 1946-1963.
London: Hogarth.Lawrence, W.G. (1999). Exploring individual and organisational
boundaries. A Tavistock open systems approach. London: Karnac.Menzies, I.E.P. (1993). The functioning of social systems as a defence
against anxiety. London: Tavistock.Neumann, J.E., Keller, K. & Dawson-Shepherd,, A. (1997). Developing
organisational consultancy. London: Routledge.Obholzer, A. & Roberts, V.Z. (1994). The unconscious at work. London:
Routledge.Stapley, L.F. (1996). The personality of the organisation. A psycho-
dynamic explanation of culture and change. London: Free Association.
Stapley, L.F. (2006). Individuals, groups and organisations beneath the surface. London: Karnac.