As organizations are becoming increasingly aware of the importance of selecting inclusive leaders, this paper proposes measuring inclusive leadership proficiency as an assessment center (AC) dimension. We propose that ACs present a novel way to effectively assess inclusive leadership using interpersonal behavioral simulation exercises, such as role plays. It is argued that AC-measured inclusive leadership can provide incremental prediction of leader performance beyond commonly assessed AC dimensions; and that it positively predicts follower performance and follower demographic diversity. We conclude by suggesting ways future research might empirically investigate the validity and reliability of AC-measured inclusive leadership in organizational settings.

Preliminary research has demonstrated that not all assessment center (AC) exercises are viewed as equally just or motivating. The current research builds upon this research and investigates the relationships between six AC exercises and perceptions of self-efficacy, motivation, assessor bias, and fairness. Using a 2 × 2 × 2 experimental design (two informational justice interventions and one rating timing intervention), 286 working adults completed a survey designed to investigate differences between AC exercises and to investigate interventions designed to influence AC exercise perceptions. The results show not only significant perceptual differences between assessor-rated exercises and an ability test but also differences among the rated exercises. The results suggest that an ability test can be perceived as both among the most just and motivating exercises. Lastly, even though the experimental interventions did not have their anticipated effects, the results suggest benefits to having assessors rate recorded participant behaviors versus rating “live” behaviors, benefits that to a certain extent depend on whether participants had previously attended an assessment center.

To make informed decisions, assessment theorists, researchers, and practitioners can evaluate the overlap among (1) relevant theories, (2) empirical contributions, and (3) best practices. Unfortunately, such a task may seem daunting due to the so-called science-practice gap, which can thwart collaboration among these parties. This paper presents an epistemology for delineating the importance of integrating these three sources of knowledge. We then apply this epistemology to show that our current knowledge of assessment and development topics are well integrated in some places, but still quite lacking in others.

Evidence from previous research suggests that frame-of-reference (FOR) training is effective at improving assessor ratings in many organizational settings. Yet no research has presented a thorough examination of systematic sources of variance (assessor-related effects, evaluation settings, and measurement design features) that might influence training effectiveness. Using a factorial ANOVA and variance components analyses on a database of four studies of frame-of-reference assessor training, we found that (a) training is most effective at identifying low levels of performance and (b) the setting of the training makes little difference with respect to training effectiveness. We also show evidence of the importance of rater training as a key determinant of the quality of performance ratings in general. Implications for FOR training theory and practice are discussed.