What Trump teaches us about the impact of development centers in the field of HR

The use of development centers are common practice within the HR field. Through assignments, the assessor evaluates skills, competencies, behaviors and performance in a simulated professional environment. A lab environment is created in which the candidate is immersed in a simulated business reality. These assessments take half a day or a whole day and aim in this short time frame to provide an assessment of the candidate’s potential. The importance to the candidate is significant; socially desirable behavior is recommended; failing on that day is not an option. A gap analysis then informs the employer about the path the employee still needs to take to reach full professional maturity in the current or future role. Reports have a hint of mathematics, with behavior translated into numbers, graphs, histograms, and even algorithms with ROI predictions. Many conclusions based on, after all, limited contact. They do not always seem to align with the internal observations, which is not surprising. ?

The Importance of Solid Obervations

In 1964, the Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater ran against the Democrat Lyndon B. Johnson. Johnson won the election, but during the campaign Goldwater faced negative framing from over 1,000 psychiatrists who, in a survey by the now-defunct magazine ‘Fact Magazine’ (how ironic), declared Goldwater unfit for the Presidency.? They concluded he was 'mentally ill'. Their diagnosis was largely ?based on the Freudian theory, which would later prove somewhat comical. Moreover, none of the psychiatrists had personally spoken to Goldwater. Goldwater filed a lawsuit, won, and the American Psychiatric Association subsequently initiated the ‘Goldwater Rule’, prohibiting psychiatrists from diagnosing public figures without personally examining them.

?

Sounds logical...and yet....60 years later, although still in effect, the 'Goldwater Rule' seems to miss its relevance. The world has changed, and the ins and outs of public figures are easier to follow through various media. Moreover, when narcissism is at play, public figures seem inclined to provide a very intimate view of their lives, often without restraint and full of themselves.

?

The embodiment of extreme narcissism is undoubtedly Donald Trump: the man who believes he was sent by God. After Trump's election, several psychiatrists and psychologists ventured to diagnose Trump's mental state. Their main argument for breaking the "Goldwater Rule" was that it is extremely easy to make well-founded diagnosis. Trump's behavior could be easily observed over a long period: his statements on social media, his behavior during press conferences, the personal attacks on opponents during public gatherings, private conversations with biographers and journalists, direct testimonies... ?A wealth of information, enough to substantiate the diagnosis of ‘malignant narcissist’ without face-to-face contact. The essence of a qualitative assessment lies in the ability to bring together solid observations from different perspectives.?

?

That does not seem unreasonable. John Gartner, psychologist, author and faculty member at Johns Hopkins University, argues that the psychiatric interview is the most unreliable method of making a diagnosis. In the privacy of an interview, the patient can easily manipulate the truth. A long-term observation in the natural environment avoids this vulnerability. Everything revolves around solid information. The more you gather, the better the diagnosis.?

Objectified subjectivity

In contrast to a one-off instrument like the development center, there are daily observations from all possible corporate stakeholders: supervisors, direct colleagues, clients, suppliers, and so on. Employees do not function in isolation. Organizations are networks of collaborations, which has the advantage that employees can be observed by multiple people, in different situations, and from different perspectives. Some observers will see the employee excel in decisiveness because they make firm and deliberate ?decisions. Perhaps this was done under time pressure, but the employee managed to control his emotions and react calmly at all times. So it seems he has sufficient stress resilience. The immediate supervisor has come to know him as a true problem solver because in various contexts he often knows how to correctly assess the size and scope of a problem situation in order to then work out solutions. When working out those solutions, ?he does not always have an eye for detail. Accuracy is probably not his strongest competence. Managers from other departments, on the other hand, are charmed by his skills as a project manager and the enthusiasm with which he can drag the other project team members along.

?

Such observations are relatively straightforward and establish factual behavior in a relevant context. The latter is not insignificant and a positive aspect that is underemphasized compared to the technique of the development center. Critics may argue that removing someone from their context is a crucial part of the exercise. However, this is not always helpful. Assessing the unique interaction between the employee and the company-specific context to determine their potential is of significant relevance. Assessors may not be able to take this into account as they may not be familiar enough with it. Another criticism may be that every assessment carries a certain subjectivity and its quality is limited by the level of the assessor. This is true, but the development center does not escape from it either.

?

As Gartner suggested, long-term observations are critical to make a proper diagnosis. Therefore, when deciding on potential, it is essential to bring relevant observers together and consolidate available information about the employee from various ?perspectives and conclude through a standardized decision-making process. The estimation of employees' potential thus does not depend on that one perfor-mance on that one day but is the result of objectified subjectivity based on solid observation. This should, on the one hand, provide the employer with a better basis for promotion decisions and, on the other hand, reassure the employee that not everything depends on that one moment on that one day.

?

Whether Trump has ever gone through a development center in his life is highly doubtful. What we do know is that he previously boasted about his results on an IQ test. Trump flawlessly counted down from 100 in steps of 7 (100, 93, 86, etc.). Not reassuring. Let us continue to observe his actual behavior with seriousness. No test or assessment could be as enlightening.

Peter Catry