Selection and Assessment November 2012 - CIPD

Selection and Assessment 

EXAMINER'S REPORT 

November 2012 

Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development 

Professional Development Scheme 

Specialist Personnel and Development 


November 2012 

9 November 2012 08:50–12:00 hrs 

Time allowed - Three hours and ten minutes 

(including ten minutes’ reading time) 

Answer Section A and SEVEN of the ten questions in Section B. 

Please write clearly and legibly. 

Questions may be answered in any order. 

Equal marks are allocated to each section of the paper. 

Within Section B equal marks are allocated to each question. 

If a question includes reference to ‘your organisation’, this may be 

interpreted as covering any organisation with which you are 

familiar. 

The case study is not based on an actual company. Any 

similarities to known organisations are accidental. 

You will fail the examination if: 

• you fail to answer seven questions in Section B and/or 

• you achieve less than 40 per cent in any section.

SECTION A – Case Study 




Note: It is permissible to make assumptions by adding to the case study 

details given below, provided the essence of the case study is neither changed 

nor undermined in any way by what is added. 

You have been recruited as the technical adviser on selection and assessment for a 

brand-new consultancy business called The Orient Partnership (TOP), which has 

been set up specifically to cater for three rapidly-growing market segments: 

1) British graduates, managers and executives who seek out expatriate roles in 

China or India whilst working for UK companies. 

2) British graduates, managers and executives who want to gain experience, or 

even build their entire careers, whilst being employed by indigenous 

companies in China. 

3) Chinese companies that want to attract western talent in preparation for 

planned growth in Europe Australasia and/or the Americas. 

One of TOP's first contracts is on behalf of a major Chinese white-goods 

manufacturer that plans to expand its market into the West over the next five years (it 

already produces some own-label washing machines for two UK retail chains), and 

your job is to devise selection and assessment policies, systems and processes 

which will identify graduates and managers who can make effective contributions for 

their new employer. It goes without saying that all remuneration and relocation 

issues will be handled very generously, and there will be no shortage of candidates 

for the roles on offer. However, the Chinese business culture is quite different from 

that typically found in the UK, so the selection and assessment systems will have to 

be tailor-made accordingly. 

To furnish you with knowledge about the Chinese culture, TOP has provided you with 

a copy of 'Chinese Leadership' by Barbara Xiaoyu Wang and Harold Chee (Palgrave 

Macmillan, 2011), from which you have extracted the following key points: 

• In China, face-saving really matters. 'Face' is about dignity and respect and a 

person's social role; it is not just about feelings, but a key part of what holds 

Chinese society together. Face can be lost by declining a social or business 

function on a weak pretext, refusing a present, showing uncontrolled 

emotions or being too independent. Loss of face can result in reduced social 

resources and a poorer personal network. 

• Harmony matters too. According to Confucian thought, group stability is more 

important than individual achievement. So standing out from the crowd by, 

for example, being the first to come up with a new idea can be seen as 

showing off and is frowned upon. Much the same would apply to the 

behaviour of the child who is the first to put up his/her hand when the class is 

asked a question. 

Registered charity no: 1079797 

2




• Sometimes courtesy is more important than truth. For example, Chinese 

employees leaving a company for a new job elsewhere may tell their boss 

that they are leaving because a family member is ill, or that their partner has 

had to move to another city. This is because employees want to show their 

appreciation. 

• Decisions take time. Westerners believe in the value of making quick 

decisions and then taking action. Chinese want to be sure that all angles of 

an issue are reviewed and all matters are completely thought through before 

coming to a conclusion. This process often involves starting the thinking and 

the discussion again. 

• Chinese people don't like to say ‘no’. Such bluntness involves disharmony 

and loss of face, so never assume a deal is struck until you are told so 

explicitly. 

In the light of the above, your task is to design a bespoke selection and assessment 

process for graduates and for more experienced managers/executives, initially 

intended for Chinese businesses that want to recruit staff with a Western 

background. 

In the expectation that some of those ultimately interviewing these career migrants 

will not be trained interviewers, TOP also wants you to put together a collection of 

guidelines about selection interviewing for such candidates. 

1. Develop, design and (where appropriate) defend a cost-effective 

selection and assessment system which could be applied initially to the 

selection of Western graduates and managers as new additions to the 

global teams employed by TOP's white-goods manufacturing client. 

2. Construct a 'fact sheet' about selection interviewing, initially for use 

among those TOP consultants who will be responsible for selecting UK 

managers to work in China, but also to be used when they are 

interviewing Chinese managers who wish to migrate to the UK. The 

'fact sheet' should provide specific answers to each of the following 

questions - and because its 'customers' will include a proportion of 

academically- and professionally-qualified managers, plus a smattering 

of pure academics, you should reinforce any 'factual' assertions with 

persuasive evidence where you can possibly do so. 

1) What are the objectives of a selection process? 

2) Why interview? 

3) What are the objectives of a selection interview? 

PLEASE TURN OVER 


3




4) What are the special features of a UK/Chinese interview scenario? 

5) What kind of interview: one-to-one, panel, sequential, structured, 

semi-structured, unstructured? 

6) Planning for the interview: arranging the interview location 

7) Planning for the interview: the documents to study 

8) Planning for the interview: designing appropriate questions (and the 

questions to avoid) - with examples 

9) The interview itself: Introduction - Development – Conclusion 

10) What to do after the interview is over 

It is recommended that you spend an equal amount of time on each task. 

You should incorporate references to and citations from respectable third-party 

evidence in partial support of your recommendations. 


4




SECTION B 

Answer SEVEN of the ten questions in this section. To communicate your 

answers more clearly you may use whatever methods you wish, for example 

diagrams, flowcharts, bullet points, so long as you provide an explanation of 

each. 

1. Email from the Graduate Programme Manager in another organisation: “I 

need your advice. Our Chief Executive Officer (CEO) has told me she's 

increasingly concerned about 'grade inflation' at UK universities - yet 

hitherto we've used degree results as the principal criterion in our own 

graduate selection process. Yet the numbers of students with firsts have 

increased by 14% in just 12 months (2010-2011) and have gone up by 

125% in the last decade. Because so many people are leaving university 

with top degrees, many employers have been forced to introduce 

increasingly sophisticated systems to screen graduate job applicants. We 

aren't using any ‘sophisticated systems’, but you're an expert on selection 

and assessment - so what do you advise?” 

Write a balanced and helpful response to the Graduate Programme 

Manager. 

2. Email from a professional colleague: “I've been thinking about our 

obsession with evidence-based thinking and research evidence when 

discussing different selection methods. That approach might make sense 

when developing psychometric tests, where the rules specify the exact way 

in which the test is administered and how the results are scored, but it's 

much less effective when looking at selection interviews, because the 

whole process can be so heavily influenced by the dynamics of the 

interviewer/candidate relationship. How far do you agree? To what extent 

can we ever make definitive statements about the effectiveness of 

interviewing?” 

Indicate how you will respond helpfully and positively to the two questions 

presented above. 



5




3. Formerly one of the dominant telecoms companies in Europe, CP (a 

fictional acronym) has seen its share price collapse as its market share has 

dropped to below 10%. Urgent action is needed and a new Chief Executive 

Officer (CEO) has been recruited to turn the business round. 

The major problem he needs to tackle concerns the fact that the company 

has separate divisions – for mobile, fixed-line and systems integration. 

Each has evolved its own corporate culture, hierarchy and decision-making 

processes. 

You are a Selection and Assessment Consultant recruited by the new CEO 

to help him solve the problem summarised above. 

Outline five ways in which you consider that the CEO should proceed, 

giving reasons and evidence to support your views. 

4. Email from a selection and assessment adviser for a large local authority: 

“We've been using assessment centres (ACs) for a long time, but lately I've 

noticed some evidence of a low construct validity, i.e., poor correlations 

across performance dimensions which the ACs are seeking to measure. 

Logically, ratings given for the same dimension in various exercises should 

be highly correlated, e.g., if 'Planning and Organising' is measured through 

an in-tray exercise, the interview and a case-study analysis. However, the 

actual correlations between such dimension ratings can be very low, often 

ranging from 0.05 to 0.15. This suggests a low level of 'discriminant 

validity'. Is this a serious flaw with assessment centres, or is there some 

other explanation?” 

Formulate a constructive response together with some useful advice. 

5. Email from your HR Director: “Our consultants have advised us that we 

should introduce a well-established and widely used personality test as part 

of our management selection process. They have left it to us to determine 

which test (or tests) we would deploy. What do you recommend? Describe 

the test(s) and justify your recommendation.” 

Draft your reply. 


6




6. Email from an HR manager colleague: “The August 2011 issue of 'People 

Management' reported a research project from Orion Partners which 

concluded that there is a ‘core set of characteristics that are common to 

those HR functions that have genuine strategic impact and that drive the 

right behaviours.’ Briefly described, these characteristics are: 

(1) INSIGHT - about what the business needs and what other leadingedge 

organisations are doing 

(2) INTIMACY - close relationships throughout the business 

(3) BALANCE - between local and global, between what needs to 

change and what needs to be nurtured 

(4) COLLABORATION - HR needs to co-operate with the business to 

develop the right people solutions but also working together 

internally as a team 

(5) DISCIPLINE - when prioritising and measuring outcomes; and 

(6) COMMUNICATION - keeping it simple and tailoring messages to fit 

the audience 

Assess the degree to which this list could usefully form the basis of 

selection mechanisms intended to identify the suitability of individuals for 

employment within the HR function.” 

Write a constructive and helpful reply. 

7. Email from a selection and assessment colleague who works for a sales 

company: “I read that there are major issues about the validity of Emotional 

Intelligence (EI). First, there are at least 15 different definitions of EI. 

Second, there's no certainty about how to measure EI and its bottom-line 

impact. In short, the ratio of hyperbole to hard evidence is rather high.” 

How far do you agree and why? 

8. Email from Jasper Robinson, founder of a new marketing agency, 

Aardvark: “You may not know it yet, but the next generation of marketers 

won't look like it used to. Everyone in marketing now should know how to 

write programming code, because mashing up all sorts of data gives you 

the insights that enable you to develop much bolder creative propositions. 

The craft skills to do that are those of mathematicians. Shortly I'm going 

round to various universities to examine the talent that's available, but I 

need some guidance, please, on the selection and assessment methods I 

should be using in order to identify people with the skills I am looking for.” 

Draft your constructive response, incorporating evidence from authoritative 

sources to reinforce your recommendations. 



7




9. Email from one of the writers for your local CIPD branch newsletter: 

“According to CIPD figures published in July 2011, the ‘top ten’ selection 

methods used by organisations are: competency-based interviews (70%), 

interviews following contents of CV or application form (63%), structured 

panel interviews (56%), tests for specific job-related skills (49%), telephone 

interviews (43%), literacy and/or numeracy tests (38%), 

personality/aptitude/psychometric questionnaires (35%), assessment 

centres (35%), pre-application elimination/progression questions (25%) and 

general ability tests (23%).” 

As a professional selection and assessment practitioner, what conclusions 

in general do you draw from these figures, and specifically from the fact that 

tests are used by fewer than 50% of employers. 

10. Email from the HR Manager at a nearby local authority: “Like every local 

authority in the current economic climate, we're faced with an urgent need 

to retrench. Redeployment is one option, but our values mean that we'd 

prefer not to compel staff to take particular alternative jobs. Compulsory 

redeployment doesn't work well, either, because you end up with too many 

square pegs in round holes, and we don't want to undermine our presently 

high 'engagement' levels. So we think that the way forward is to create an 

internal jobs market, so that staff in parts of the organisation which are 

shrinking are encouraged to seek new roles in vacant posts or in services 

which are expanding. 

You're an expert in selection and assessment, so can you please advise us 

about how to make an internal jobs market work?” 

Formulate your constructive response. 

END OF EXAMINATION 


8




Introduction 

The decision was taken earlier this year that it would no longer be appropriate to 

provide a statistical analysis of student and centre performance where the number of 

scripts were less than 10. 

Significantly less than 10 candidates sat the November 2012 Selection and 

Assessment paper. The diet produced a pass rate of 0%. 

Section A 

Knowledge indicators: 1.1, 2.1, 3.1, 4.1, 6.1, 7.1, 8.1, 9.1, 10.1, 11.1 

There were two specific tasks associated with the case study, and candidates were 

invited to devote approximately half their time to each. This meant that theoretically 

up to 50 marks were available for each answer. The fact that there were ten 

sequential parts to Task 2 did not make it intrinsically more important or significant 

than Task 1. 

Given the scenario described in the case-study brief, markers expected to see 

answers which focused on all the key issues, which are here deconstructed from the 

information provided: 

• The competencies relevant for managers working in a cross-cultural context; 

these competencies should have drawn on material on the book about China 

also identified in the text. 

• The extent to which the cultural sensitivities of the local company, employer 

and country could be properly catered for by the recommended selection and 

assessment system. 

• A detailed account and rationale for the proposed selection methods, 

probably comprising a mixture of psychometric testing, assessment centre 

events, interviewing, and on-line pre-selection. 

In truly outstanding responses, the examiners hoped to see a discussion about the 

likely attitudes of Chinese nationals towards time-constrained psychometric, 

personality, capability and aptitude tests. Had integrity tests been seen as part of 

the solution, then a review of their relevance in a Chinese environment would have 

been essential. 

I have frequently indicated that regular reading of journals and periodicals like People 

Management is not only relevant for everyone’s CPD but is especially relevant for 

those who need to prepare to take this examination (and the other CIPD electives, of 

course). The January 2012 issue of People Management would have been 

especially helpful because it contained an article (“From expats to global citizens”) 

exploring a new category of global careerists called “Millennials”, who have no loyalty 

to any given employer or country, who expect to travel and who will go wherever 

interesting and challenging assignments can be found. They have a lot in common 


9




with similar groups in other countries, said People Management, and the first 

MIllennials are just beginning to enter middle-management roles. Very alert 

candidates could have made significant use of the information contained in this 

article. 

Another feature of competent coverage for Section A should have included 

processes for ‘teasing out’ the attitudes of spouses, partners and families. The 

“trailing spouse” phenomenon has been shown to be one of the major reasons why 

expatriates resign their assignments/secondments before completion. 

Task 2 specifically asked for third-party references and citations, so the opportunity 

to acquire marks was constrained if such material was not included. Also, it may 

seem self-evident to say it, but to qualify for full marks answers had to address every 

one of the ten requirements. 

The above model was, and is, entirely straightforward, so what can go wrong? Well, 

here are some possibilities: 

• If no attempt was made to communicate the answer in a businesslike fashion. 

The absence of headings, the failure to divide each topic into separate 

paragraphs, the appearance of having produced the treatment as a ‘stream of 

spontaneous consciousness’, all would have counted against the candidate in 

terms of impression management and confidence in the individual’s 

fundamental capabilities. 

• If the coverage of the case completely lacked any respectable third-party 

references or citations, then the mark awarded could not exceed 45 per cent, 

because this is a postgraduate examination where the requirement to 

assemble evidence-based argument is compulsory. 

• If the treatment of the case was couched entirely in descriptive and narrative 

terms, without any noticeable attempts at analysis, evaluation and critique, 

then again the mark would not exceed 45%. At the risk of seeming tedious, I 

feel it necessary to remind readers again that this is a postgraduate 

examination, where analysis, evaluation and critique take precedence over 

the ‘mere’ reproduction of facts, knowledge or conventional wisdom. 

• If recommendations were presented without any underpinning rationale. 

• If the recommendations consisted of nothing more incisive than general 

exhortations and vacuous platitudes. 

• If the recommendations were difficult to find because they were not 

highlighted in the report’s text. 

• If information was provided that had not been asked for; for example, detailed 

cost and resource breakdowns. 

• If the coverage of Task 2 was too elementary and superficial to pass muster 

in a postgraduate examination system. 


10




Section B 

Question 1 

Knowledge indicators: 1.1, 3.1, 4.1, 6.1, 7.1, 8.1, 10.1, 11.1 

As with all Section B questions, there were 20 marks available for the answer. Marks 

of 10 or more were only awarded for responses which offered a systematic ‘action 

plan’ for selecting graduates more scientifically, but which also reinforced these 

proposals with some relevant arguments derived from research evidence and/or 

corporate experiences elsewhere. 

Undoubtedly the figures about grade inflation are compelling. Almost 15.5% of 

students left UK universities in 2011 with firsts, and 64% received either firsts or 2:1 

degrees. This represented an increase of 14% in a single year, far outstripping the 

5% increase in student numbers. A decade ago, just 9% of students emerged with 

firsts. It is notable, by the way, that this inflation has affected well-established 

universities like Cambridge as well as the newer establishments. 

To some extent, the situation is now being eased because (from 2012) universities 

will be issuing each graduate with a Higher Education Achievement Report, providing 

a detailed breakdown of academic achievement and a range of details about extracurricular 

activities. Even this will not be totally objective, however, because of 

concerns about the grades awarded for student assignments and exam scripts – and 

even the credibility of whole ‘academic’ disciplines. 

The treatment of Question 1 was unsatisfactory because it didn’t deal forensically 

with the question but instead skirted superficially around some of its implications. 

Generalised advocacy for personality questionnaires and vague comments about 

competencies are not enough: at this level the examiners expect to see informed 

advice about specific personality-measuring instruments, plus a persuasive rationale 

for their use, and a review of the competencies which could legitimately be sought 

among newly-qualified graduates. 

Question 2 

Knowledge indicators: 1.1, 2.1, 5.1, 7.1, 8.1, 11.1, 12.1 

Question 2 invited discussion about the possibility of producing definitive statements 

about the reliability and validity of the selection interview – statements like those 

which are frequently trotted out when the evaluation of psychometric tests is being 

explored. It is sensible enough to conclude that “definitive statements about any 

selection technique are fraught with danger”, but it is then quite weak to supplement 

such a conclusion with this sentence: “Organisations should consider [weasel word 

and my emphasis] a portfolio of techniques and apply accordingly, depending on the 

role and organisational requirements.” Such a view would make more sense if it were 

to be reinforced with at least one example, perhaps from the candidate’s own 

organisation – and in any case the question was focused on selection interviewing, 

not selection “techniques” in general. 


11




Undoubtedly evidence-based management has its limitations, not least because it 

militates against innovation. If all proposed innovations had to be supported by 

evidence before they were introduced or even tried out, then innovation would by 

definition be impossible. With interviewing, the problem is compounded because of 

the difficulties of experimentation and distinguishing between the ‘experimental 

group’ and the ‘control group’. Results may rely on experimental findings alone, but 

inevitably they will be somewhat problematic. 

The dynamics of interviewing can vary because of the uncertain interactions between 

interviewer and candidate – except for remote online interviews, or if avatars are 

used instead of human interviewers. Even when interview questions have been 

organised in advance and are adhered to rigidly, there remain nuances of body 

languages and vocal inflexions which can prevent successive interviews remaining 

absolutely identical. More broadly, research evidence about the efficacy of 

interviewing is sparse and typically not well conducted or constructed, because so 

much depends on self-evaluations and self-administered performance ratings. 

In this answer it could have been argued that an element of subjectivity is no bad 

thing in selection, because in the end the chosen candidate has to work with others, 

including (often) the person responsible for the selection choice: so considerations of 

personal, interpersonal and mutual empathy/rapport are entirely appropriate. 

Question 3 

Knowledge indicators: 2.1, 3.1, 4.1, 7.1, 10.1, 11.1 

The situation described in Question 3 had its roots in the problems facing Deutsche 

Telekom [discussed in the Financial Times, 2 June 2011]. The article described a 

state of affairs which existed in 2009 and which had subsequently been addressed to 

the point where Deutsche Telekom has re-established its dominant position and 

thereby averted the danger of bankruptcy. For the purposes of the question, 

however, the following issues were thought to be crucial: 

• The need to integrate all the divisions into a single business and to establish a 

universal set of selection and assessment practices. 

• A re-orientation of the firm’s performance management and appraisal systems, to 

be used as the underpinning for the company’s managerial promotion and 

selection priorities. 

• The need to ‘manage out’ some of the under-performing executives who appear 

unwilling to shift their attitudes and behaviours. 

Question 4 

Knowledge indicator: 7.1 

There were the customary 20 marks available for this answer, but to be 

comprehensive it had to address two separate issues: first, whether what was being 

observed was an endemic flaw with assessment centres [up to 8 marks]; and 


12




secondly, whether there might be alternative explanations [up to 8 marks]. A further 

4 marks were allocated for the concluding advice. 

The question itself had been inspired by a remark on p. 503 of Selection in Human 

Resource Management, by Barrick, Feild and Gatewood [Cengage Publishing, 2011 

edition]. According to these authors, there is no substantial body of evidence to 

support the argument that this is an endemic feature of assessment centres, but one 

possible explanation is that cognitive ability and personality traits underlie 

participants’ performance in assessment centres, and therefore confuse the results. 

It is also possible that assessment centre exercises intended to measure the same 

candidate dimensions are too dissimilar actually to do so. Certainly some research 

suggests that assessors’ ratings of a performance attribute are more similar when 

based on similar types of exercise than on different types of exercise, even though 

the latter are allegedly measuring the same attribute. What this could show, in turn, 

is that people perform differently in different situations, even when the same 

capabilities are being deployed. 

Coverage of this topic was weak, with some ‘vanilla’ recommendations (“a review of 

test methods” and “a review of the level of training provided to assessors”) and some 

unpromisingly banal comments about the need “to ensure that a particular test is 

measuring what it is supposed to and not something else (construct validity).” On the 

whole, then, a disappointing response which merely skated over the surface of the 

dilemma. 

Question 5 

Knowledge indicators: 1.1, 2.1, 4.1, 6.1, 7.1, 8.1, 9.1, 10.1 

There are many organisations where it seems plausible to assume that more 

attention to personality factors in recruitment and selection would lead to significant 

improvements in service performance, customer loyalty and customer acquisition. 

On the other hand, there are some service encounters which involve organisations 

and customers who don’t want to be customers, so the kind of upbeat, optimistic 

context favoured by Timpson and Disney might not be welcomed. On balance, it 

would be sensible to conclude that an unequivocal focus on personality (and 

‘attitudes’) has its limitations if unthinkingly transferred to and adopted by all other 

businesses, and in other countries with different cultures. 

Question 6 

Knowledge indicators: 1.1, 2.1, 3.1, 6.1, 7.1, 8.1, 9.1, 10.1, 11.1 

Within the 20 marks allocated for this answer, markers gave substantial credit for 

comparative references to the CIPD’s HR Profession Map with its associated 

behaviours and attitudes: curious, decisive thinking, skilled influencer, driven-todeliver, 

collaborative, personally credible, willing to challenge, and role model. In 

addition, Orion’s six dimensions could have formed the basis of a competency 

framework for high-level HR vacancies, and good responses were expected to 

incorporate some guidance about the selection methods that would enable Orion’s 

six characteristics to be identified and evaluated in any given applicant. 


13




Question 7 

Knowledge indicators: 2.1, 3.1, 4.1, 5.1 

Competent approaches to Question 7 were expected to allude to at least one 

respectable, authoritative source of research-based evidence about EI. 

Unfortunately, such evidence is thin on the ground, because writing about EI is 

principally undertaken by passionate devotees for the concept or by iconoclastic 

critics. 

EI stems from the entrepreneurial spirit of Daniel Goleman, who was fortunate 

enough to come across some academic work by Peter Salovey and John Mayer, who 

defined EI as a “subset of social intelligence that involves the ability to monitor one’s 

own and others’ feelings and emotions.” Nothing was initially said about ‘learning’ to 

become more emotionally mature, yet undoubtedly there are highly intelligent people 

who have low EI, and vice versa. Intuitively, therefore, there is substance in the view 

that EI is a distinctive phenomenon. 

On the negative side, some unverified (bolstered by nothing more substantial than 

their plausibility) assumptions have been made about the contribution of EI to 

occupational success; for example, in leadership roles. Arguably, in fact, some of the 

world’s best leaders had low EI scores (or would have had), and arguably, too, it was 

this indifference to EI which made them great leaders. 

The attributes associated with EI include self-motivation, optimism, 

conscientiousness, trustworthiness and so forth, yet there is no reason to suppose 

that these distinctive traits are part of EI. Moreover, no studies have yet proved a 

relationship between high EI and the ‘bottom line’, partly because there are too many 

mediating factors involved. Arguably (but controversially), it may be sensible to 

believe that an organisation with a collectively high EI rating would be poor at 

generating profits – but this is a debate best left to another time (and another 

examination diet). 

Robert Sternberg [Professor of Psychology, Oklahoma State University] has written 

that “The positive side of the EI movement is that it helps broaden our concept of 

intelligence and gets us away from the common fixation on IQ-based or IQ-related 

measures. The negative side of the movement is that it is often crass, profit-driven, 

and socially and scientifically irresponsible.” 

Question 8 

Knowledge indicators: 1.1, 2.1, 3.1, 6.1, 9.1, 10.1, 11.1 

Question 8 was inspired by an article about Jason Goodman and his Albion agency 

[“Geeks to inherit the Mad Men legacy”, Daily Telegraph, 2 August 2011], but clearly 

candidates did not have to be familiar with this specific source in order to address the 

task in a competent, professional and authoritative fashion. On the other hand, the 

routes being pursued by Jason Goodman are relevant: he seeks to build alliances 

with appropriate universities, and has already signed a deal with Southampton 


14




University and its senior academic team in order to create a new breed of data-led 

marketers. 

The use of internships is one method that could test the suitability of otherwise 

promising candidates – and discover whether they are as attracted to data-led 

marketing as they might have originally thought they were. Unfortunately responses 

to Question 8 were insufficiently specific, with some unfocused talk about “craft skills” 

(without any reference to the actual craft skills called for), the need for a “structured 

interview” (but no discussion about its actual structure), and advocacy of an “ability 

test centred around mathematics and numerical reasoning” which should be “allied to 

an interview/application form process”. 

Question 9 

Knowledge indicators: 1.1, 2.1, 11.1 

In reality, the popularity of a selection method is no guide to its validity and reliability. 

As is the case with other aspects of human existence (for example, Strictly Come 

Dancing), popularity can be linked to factors other than relevance or utility; the panel 

interview, for instance, remains immensely popular despite the complete lack of any 

evidence to justify its use. Structured and programmed interviews are equally 

widespread, but they do have disadvantages, such as the inability to pursue 

potentially valuable (yet unforeseen) lines of questioning, or the strait-jacket of having 

to work through a predetermined sequence of questions which have been assembled 

without any knowledge about any applicant and which therefore don’t cater for 

infinitely-variable human beings. 

So interviews retain their strong and passionate supporters even though there is little 

research foundation to justify them, whilst tests may appear problematic despite the 

strength of empirical evidence in their support. Some observers and practitioners are 

sceptical about the very notion of testing, are reluctant to accept so-called research 

evidence, and doubt whether test results would be appropriate for what they imagine 

to be their unique requirements. These were arguments skilfully presented in a 

treatment of Question 9, though the coverage was partially undermined by some 

vague observations about “different industries” being more appropriate for testing 

than others – but no guidance given about the factors in these industries which might 

account for such differences. 

Question 10 

Knowledge indicators: 1.1, 2.1, 3.1, 4.1, 6.1 

Again this was a question inspired by an article from People Management – a piece 

about Sunderland Council in the July 2011 issue. Apparently Sunderland used a 

customised version of SHL’s web-enabled GPI test, which has just 14 dimensions: 12 

personality strengths (such as collaboration, flexibility, thoroughness) and two types 

of cognitive ability (verbal and numerical reasoning). Managers in Sunderland have 

used the framework to build job profiles, defining the six most important strengths for 

each role, and employees could use the same approach to generate their own 


15




personal profiles, identifying their own top six strengths. In this way the aspirations of 

the applicant could be more easily matched with the components of the vacancy. 

Moreover, using the assessment framework described here meant that more 

attention could be given to a candidate’s potential, thereby allowing some individuals 

to change their line of work and develop more specific skills/experience on the job. 

When the web-enabled assessments were completed, they were then computermatched 

against employee profiles, and those with the closest matches were invited 

to apply. In a public-sector environment like Sunderland, it was thought particularly 

crucial that manager and employee should ‘choose’ each other. 

After some initial resistance from managers (who didn’t want to be constrained by an 

internal jobs market) and unions (who saw the testing as psychological mumbojumbo), 

opinions have altered. Fortunately, some very good people have been 

selected, and unions are now persuaded that objective, impartial methods of 

selection have been used. 

Conclusions 

There are some key lessons to be learned as a result of the November 2012 

examination diet. These lessons are not new, but clearly deserve to be repeated. 

• If the Section A brief specifies that the answers are to be produced in the 

form of a businesslike report, then you should adhere to the conventional 

canons of report-writing as outlined in an earlier part of this commentary. 

This does not mean you should devote a lot of attention to ingredients 

which cannot earn you significant marks (like the title page and the list of 

contents), but they should not be ignored altogether. With many Section 

A case-studies, though not in this instance, up to 10% of the total Section 

A mark can be attributable to presentation issues, and that 10% could 

make all the difference. Even in November 2012, where no special format 

for the answer was specified, it is always helpful to make the text readerfriendly. 

• All recommendations (whether in Section A or Section B) should be tested 

against this killer question: If I were the intended addressee for this 

proposal, does it tell me enough to enable me to determine precisely (a) 

what is being suggested and (b) what benefits it will deliver and/or what 

damage it will remove. If you genuinely believe that the answer to this 

question is “No”, then of course you should take such steps as will be 

needed in order to change that answer to “Yes”. 

• You will only pass if your answers contain a reasonable amount of 

respectable third-party references and citations, plus some use of benchmark 

examples from named organisations. You should not rely solely on 

using your own employer as the source of ‘expert’ evidence. 

• Tedious though it may appear, you must focus on the obligations spelt out 

in each question and not allow your answers to deviate into topics for 

which you cannot possibly secure marks, however erudite your material. 

The examiner is not trying to catch you out. 


16




• It should be clear from the commentary about each of the Section B 

questions that some of them were inspired by articles from People 

Management or the Selection and Assessment supplement which is 

occasionally published with People Management. When preparing for 

future exam diets, therefore, it would make sense to become an 

assiduous reader of People Management to retain cuttings of any items – 

articles, features, news, book reviews – that appear to have links to the 

Selection and Assessment syllabus. It would also make sense to do this 

more generally as a CPD instrument. 

Ted Johns 

Examiner 


17

Selection and Assessment November 2012 - CIPD

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?