Human Resource Development International ISSN: 1367-8868 (Print) 1469-8374 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rhrd20 Assessing global leadership competencies: the critical role of assessment centre methodology Ann M. Herd, Meera Alagaraja & Denise M. Cumberland To cite this article: Ann M. Herd, Meera Alagaraja & Denise M. Cumberland (2016) Assessing global leadership competencies: the critical role of assessment centre methodology, Human Resource Development International, 19:1, 27-43, DOI: 10.1080/13678868.2015.1072125 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2015.1072125 Published online: 10 Aug 2015. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 172 View related articles View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rhrd20 Download by: [University of Liverpool] Date: 22 March 2016, At: 13:52 Human Resource Development International, 2016 Vol. 19, No. 1, 27-43, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2015.1072125 Assessing global leadership competencies: the critical role of assessment centre methodology Ann M. Herd*, Meera Alagaraja and Denise M. Cumberland Organizational Leadership and Learning, Leadership, Foundations, and Human Resource Education, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY, USA Downloaded by [University of Liverpool] at 13:52 22 March 2016 (Received 12 October 2014; accepted 9 July 2015) The purpose of this conceptual paper is to examine the use of assessment centre (AC) methodology for addressing the ever-increasing demand for effective talent management of global leaders. Research is reviewed on the most commonly used questionnaire tools for assessing global leadership competencies, which lack the AC's ability to provide behavioural evidence of leadership competency. A literature search is conducted to identify the extent to which scholarly research to date has examined the use of ACs to measure global leadership competencies. Based on the findings from the review of the literature, the authors recommend further exploration of a leadership AC approach as a 'best practice' talent management tool for measuring global leadership competencies. A framework is provided for designing ACs to evaluate and provide developmental feedback on the competencies identified as critical for successful leadership performance in an organization's global environment. Keywords: global leadership competencies; leadership assessment and development; assessment centres The performance of leaders in global leadership positions is increasingly recognized as critical for the success of organizations in a borderless world (Brake 1997; Jokinen 2005; Kanter 1995). The question of what skills are needed by global leaders to perform successfully has been the subject of intense study during the past decade, as organizations have increasingly turned to international strategies in various aspects of their operations to maintain or attain a position of competitive advantage in the global marketplace (Lobel 1990; Morrison 2000; Tubbs and Schulz 2006). As a result of this intense scrutiny, global leadership skills have been described as a set of competencies (e.g. Brownell 2006; Jenkins 2012; Jokinen 2005; Lobel 1990), meta-competencies (e.g. Tubbs and Schulz 2006), characteristics and traits (e.g. Alon and Higgins 2005), skills, and mindsets (e.g. Cohen 2010; Jeannet 2000), with the term 'competencies' being used most frequently in this regard (Bernardin and Russell 2013; Brownell 2006; Jenkins 2012; Mendenhall et al. 2013). Effective assessment and measurement of leadership competencies is an important undertaking for organizations operating in a global environment. While a plethora of tools are touted as effective for assessing global leadership competencies (Bird and Stevens 2013), most of these assessment tools are paper-and-pencil questionnaire tests measuring personality or attitudinal competency components, and there is a dearth of research examining their criterion-related validity (Bird and Stevens 2013). In contrast, leadership assessment centres (ACs) measuring all competency components, including job-specific *Corresponding author. Email: ann.herd@louisville.edu 2015 Taylor & Francis Downloaded by [University of Liverpool] at 13:52 22 March 2016 28 A. M. Herd et al. behaviours and skills as well as personality and attitudinal dimensions, are ideally suited for assessing global leadership competencies (Povah and Thornton 2011). The purpose of this conceptual paper is to review the literature defining global leadership competencies and methods to assess these competencies, with specific focus on AC methodology as a global leadership competency assessment tool. Specific research questions to be addressed in this study are as follows: (1) what methods are used to assess global leadership competencies? (2) To what extent does the extant scholarly literature examine AC methodology as a tool for global leadership competency assessment? (3) How may AC methodology be used to measure global leadership competencies? To address the research questions, literature pertaining to global leadership competencies, and the validity of the most commonly used questionnaire measures to assess these competencies, will first be reviewed. Next, a literature search is conducted to evaluate the extent to which research has investigated the use of ACs to measure global leadership competencies. Evidence pertaining to the construct and criterion-related validity of AC methodology will be examined in light of this methodology's uniquely suited use for assessing global leadership competencies. A conceptual decision framework including illustrative examples for developing a global leadership AC will highlight the usefulness of AC methodology as a foundational talent management tool in the assessment of global leadership competencies. Global leadership competencies The term 'competency' is most often used to describe the skills needed by global leaders (Bird 2013). While the term 'competency' is used in a variety of ways in a variety of human resource and organizational contexts (Stone, Webster, and Schoonover 2013), there is agreement among practitioners and scholars that at its core, the term 'competency' connotes something an employee must know and be able to do in order to perform successfully (Lucia and Lepsinger 1999). Components of a competency, e.g. 'problem-solving,' include less-observable aptitudes and personal characteristics as well as more-observable knowledge, skills, and behaviours (Lucia and Lepsinger 1999). These competency components also vary by the degree to which they can be characterized as stable or amenable to development (Osland and Bird 2013), as well as the degree to which they serve as building blocks for other competencies (Jokinen 2005). In general, competency-based selection, performance management, and leadership development programmes have been noted for their ability to enhance firm-specific expertise and skills, and have been adopted extensively by human resource professionals and those concerned with global leadership assessment and development (Bird 2013; Brownell 2006; Gatewood, Field and Barrick 2011; Lucia and Lepsinger 1999). In terms of competencies related to global leadership effectiveness, scholars and practitioners have grappled with challenges associated with identifying the aptitudes, personal characteristics, knowledge, and skills needed for success in global leadership positions (Brake 1997; Felcio, Caldeirinha, and Rodrigues 2012; Mendenhall et al. 2013; Nummela, Saarenketo, and Puumalainen 2004; Thorn 2012). Global leadership positions, where a leader's work takes place in a global context, exist at all levels of an organization and may vary in their job-specific technical and leadership demands (Brownell 2006) as well as in the amount of time the employee spends outside their home country (Baruch 2002). Multinational corporations (MNCs) are also no longer the primary seeker of global Downloaded by [University of Liverpool] at 13:52 22 March 2016 Human Resource Development International 29 talent. More small and medium enterprises (SMEs) are competing on the global front, and there has been a continual increase in the number of firms that are international from inception, referred to as 'born globals' (Nummela, Saarenketo, and Puumalainen 2004). Regardless of level, organizational role, or size of organization, scholars agree that leading in a global context requires competencies above and beyond those needed for successful leadership at the local level (Brake 1997; Chaudhuri and Alagaraja 2014; Conger and O'Neill 2012; Javidan et al. 2006). Over the last 20 years, different terminologies have been crafted to delineate the competencies needed for global leadership, including terms such as: a global orientation, a global mindset, culture adaptability, and cultural intelligence (Cumberland 2015). For example, early seminal work by Adler and Bartholomew (1992) suggests that individuals need to have a global perspective. The skills captured under this term include: being knowledgeable about many cultures; possessing a willingness to learn from individuals in different cultures; having the ability to assimilate into different foreign cultures; and having the capacity to interact daily and as equals with individuals from different cultures (Adler and Bartholomew 1992). While competency models for global leaders have some differences, most models emphasize the need for managers to have a global business orientation, interpersonal skills to adapt to different cultures, and a learner mindset (Brake 1997; Kefalas 1998; Rhinesmith 1992; Smith and Victorson 2012). As one example of a recent content analysis and mapping review of the literature, Bird (2013) categorized 160 global leadership competency terms found in the extant literature into three broad competency categories related to business and organizational acumen, managing people and relationships, and managing self (pp. 87-92). In another major effort to expand what global leadership means beyond having global business acumen and cultural sensitivity, Project GLOBE's research with 13,000 managers from around the world suggested that global leadership requires 'the ability to influence individuals, teams and organizations from different parts of the world to achieve their organizations' objectives. And they need to do this without relying on traditional lines of authority' (Javidan and Walker 2012, p. 39). Assessing global leadership competencies While many of the identified global leadership competencies ostensibly apply to leaders working locally, Conger and O'Neill (2012) make a compelling argument that those concerned with talent management of global leaders should use a 'separate competency framework for their global managers' (p. 53), one that measures a distinct subset of competencies related to global leadership. These separate and distinct global leadership competencies are those specifically related to skills in reading and responding appropriately to cross-cultural cues and norms, and working in a variety of cultural contexts to influence others in order to achieve organizational objectives. In order to identify and help leaders develop the distinct competencies needed for global leadership, assessment of these competencies is essential. Rigorous assessment of global leadership competencies serves as the foundation of effective talent management practices for global leaders (Conger and O'Neill 2012). Effective assessment practices are necessary for the selection and identification of current and potential global leadership talent, such as for succession planning and career planning purposes. Effective assessment is also critical for the development and retention of global leadership talent. Thus, effective assessment of global leadership competencies requires a well-informed and Downloaded by [University of Liverpool] at 13:52 22 March 2016 30 A. M. Herd et al. deliberate commitment of organizational resources to this pivotal source of competitive advantage in today's global marketplace. In order to answer the first research question of what assessment tools are being used to measure global leadership competencies, our literature search revealed a recent scholarly source (Bird and Stevens 2013) which provides a comprehensive review of the global leadership competency assessment tools most commonly used by scholars and practitioners. The authors of this review found hundreds of self-report questionnaire measures available on the Internet to measure an individuals' cultural values and preferences; however, these measures of cultural preferences do not address an individual's competency in leading across cultures and so were not included in their final analysis of the most commonly used assessment tools. The most commonly used global leadership competency assessment tools (12 in total) were all questionnaire measures which fell into one of two categories in terms of their focus: those measuring intercultural adaptability (such as the Cross-Cultural Adaptability Inventory), or those measuring global leadership competency at a broader level (such as the Global Mindset Inventory). All 12 of the questionnaire tools were self-report measures of interests, values, or evaluations of performance, with three of the measures also offering a 360-degree rating option, where the person could solicit ratings from others such as peers, supervisors, or subordinates. In evaluating the psychometric properties of the 12 most commonly used global competency assessment questionnaire tools, Bird and Stevens (2013) reported acceptable reliability and internal validity indices. Thus, the questionnaire measures have some evidence of construct validity for measuring the attributes they purport to measure. However, only two of the measures had some research evidence pertaining to the tool's predictive validity relating to how well scores on the questionnaire predict actual behaviour or performance in global settings. This predictive validity evidence was limited, with criterion measures being others' ratings of performance, or learning performance in a training setting. Content validity of the questionnaire assessments is another concern. Questionnaire assessments of global leadership competencies do not provide an opportunity to assess behaviour in a realistic job-related global setting, and thus neglect to measure the all-important behaviour and skill components of competencies. Overall, in their summary evaluation of global leadership competency assessment tools, Bird and Stevens (2013) suggest that a gap in the global leadership assessment research and practice is tools and research with a focus on what global leaders actually do; that is, the behaviours which predict superior performance on the part of global leaders. They note in their review that the questionnaire assessment tools 'focus on soft competencies, i.e. characteristics of personality or worldview or attitude' and that it would be useful to also assess 'hard competencies, identifiable skills or behaviors that contribute to high performance' of global leaders (p. 140). They suggest that assessment methodologies which actually measure leader behaviours and skills need to be identified and examined in terms of how much additional variance in performance these assessments can provide over and above that provided by the questionnaire assessment tools. Likewise, research by Meriac and colleagues (2008) on assessment devices in general suggests that questionnaire measures of personality, interest, and past behaviour evaluations can only provide what they term 'signs' of possible potential behaviour. That is, questionnaire measures can only suggest what actual performance may look like, and require leaps of inference that may not translate into an accurate picture of a person's actual behaviour in various situations. They, and other researchers, suggest that better/ more valid measurement can be gained from assessment tools which provide 'samples' of behaviour in a variety of job-related situations (Bartram 2004). Human Resource Development International 31 Downloaded by [University of Liverpool] at 13:52 22 March 2016 AC methodology for global leadership competency assessment An assessment methodology that provides 'samples' of behaviour, and directly addresses the skill and behaviour measurement gaps related to questionnaire and self-report tools, is the AC. In contrast to questionnaire measures alone, leadership ACs are designed specifically to measure all components of competencies (Jackson, Lance, and Hoffman 2012), including attributes, skills, and behaviours. ACs have proven construct, content, and criterion-related validity as well as notable levels of utility for both selection and development talent management objectives (Thornton, Rupp, and Hoffman 2015; Thornton et al. 2000; Thornton and Rupp 2006). Advantages of ACs as a measurement tool include their reliance on multiple raters and multiple methods/exercises to assess multiple leadership performance dimensions or competencies identified as important by a job analysis (Gatewood, Field, and Barrick 2011; Simonenko et al. 2013; Thornton and Byham 1982). During an AC, which typically is conducted for 1-5 days, trained raters evaluate the extent to which assessees exhibit behaviours indicative of successful leadership performance during a variety of assessment exercises. Typical assessment exercises utilize a variety of measurement methods to tap into all facets of competencies, and include the following: leaderless group discussion, role play, in-basket, case analysis, structured interview, personality and cognitive ability tests, and in-depth simulation exercises (Thornton, Rupp, and Hoffman 2015). Most notably for the purposes of global leadership competency assessment, and in contrast to questionnaire measures, AC exercises provide a context for exhibited behaviour. Leadership performance dimensions commonly measured in ACs include planning and organizing, initiative, consideration/awareness of others, adaptability, tenacity, oral communication, and tolerance for stress (Gatewood, Field, and Barrick 2011; Meriac et al. 2008; Thornton and Byham 1982). As noted earlier, many of these performance dimensions typically measured in ACs, such as adaptability and awareness of others, are competencies identified as critical for global leadership (Mendenhall et al. 2013). Other competencies specifically identified as essential for global leadership, such as cultural awareness, are ideally suited for measurement using AC methodology, with its use of multiple methods to assess the multilayered knowledge, personality/trait, and behavioural components of the competency. ACs have been formally in use by organizations for many decades, beginning in the 1950s with the Office of Strategic Services' (OSS) design and implementation of ACs to select the critical thinking and situational awareness competencies needed by unconventional military operatives, and gaining even more widespread use in the US private sector after AT&T made them a formal part of their internal promotion processes (Thornton and Byham 1982). Currently, ACs are used throughout the world to measure general managerial and leadership competencies needed for success in leadership positions, and they are used for both selection and leadership development purposes (Eurich et al. 2009; Simonenko et al. 2013; Spychalski et al. 1997). A review of the literature reveals that ACs are used in a variety of countries, including the United States, Germany, England, Korea, Japan, South Africa, Switzerland, Brazil, Sweden, Singapore, China, Belgium, Israel, and Russia (Povah and Thornton 2011). As an example, Mendenhall, Kuhlmann, and Stahl (2001) created AC techniques used by German MNCs to evaluate managers' competencies with respect to international business assignments. Evidence of AC effectiveness was derived from appraisals of the intercultural skills of employees made by their colleagues. Candidates who scored high on intercultural competence were 'appraised by Downloaded by [University of Liverpool] at 13:52 22 March 2016 32 A. M. Herd et al. their peers as being more adaptable to a foreign environment and more effective when posted abroad' (Mendenhall, Kuhlmann, and Stahl 2001, p. 206). Although AC methodology has been used extensively across the globe, it is unclear whether and to what extent this methodology has been used to measure global leadership competencies. Our second research question focuses on the extent to which the extant scholarly literature surrounding global leadership competency assessment examines the AC as a methodology for measuring global leadership competencies. In order to address this research question, we conducted a systematic review of the scholarly literature on global competencies. We identified 'global leadership competencies' and 'assessment centers' as the primary keywords to conduct our initial search, and also searched on minor variants of these terms (e.g. 'global competence,' 'assessment center methodology.') We relied on two computerized databases commonly used in the field of HRD - ABI Inform and Psych Info. Each article was screened for relevance by reading the article in its entirety. Finally, we took into account any duplication of articles across the databases. The final tally of publications which specifically addressed, in some fashion, both global leadership competencies and AC methodology yielded eight publications, including one dissertation. These articles are presented in Table 1. The results from the literature search suggest that scholars know much about the importance of global leadership. The search also suggests that scholars know much about the importance of AC methodology. However, very little is known empirically about global leadership competency assessment using AC methodology. Of the eight publications shown in Table 1, only three (Fleenor 2002, reporting on a study by Stahl 2001; Mendenhall and Stahl 2000; Wiechmann, Ryan, and Hemingway 2003) reported on Table 1. Literature database search results pertaining to 'Global Leadership Competencies' and 'Assessment Centers.'* No. 1 2 3 4 4 5 6 7 8 Article title Developing global business leaders: Policies, processes, and innovations. Global leadership development: An analysis of talent management, company types, and job functions, personality traits and competencies, and learning and development methods. Expatriate training and development: Where do we go from here? What we talk about when we talk about 'global mindset:' Managerial cognition in multinational corporations. Leadership development: Learning from best practices. Managing complexity: Systems thinking as a catalyst of the organization performance. Early identification of international executive potential. Authors Fleenor (2002) Gillis (2012) Mendenhall and Stahl (2000) Levy et al. (2007) Leskiw and Singh (2007) Skarzauskiene (2010) Spreitzer, McCall, and Mahoney (1997) Competency-based human resource development mechanism: A Rao and Pratibha (2012) case study of NTPC. Designing and implementing global staffing systems: Part 1 - Wiechmann, Ryan, and Leaders in global staffing. Hemingway (2003) *Note: Publications listed are those resulting from a database search in ABI Inform and Psych Info that included some discussion of both of the terms 'global leadership competencies' and 'assessment centers.' Human Resource Development International 33 examples of ACs used to measure global leadership competencies. The remaining publications mention the concepts of global leadership competencies and ACs; however, there were no studies that empirically examined the use of ACs to measure global leadership competencies. Downloaded by [University of Liverpool] at 13:52 22 March 2016 Designing global leadership ACs The third research question to be addressed by this conceptual paper explores how AC methodology may be used to measure global leadership competencies. In order to address this question, we present a model of the design stages involved in AC development. Subsequently, we discuss and provide examples of how each of these stages can be adapted to focus on global leadership competency measurement. The development of an AC specifically geared towards measuring global leadership competencies includes the design stages of (1) competency identification and definition, (2) method choice and exercise design, (3) behaviourally anchored rating scale development, and (4) rater training. Figure 1 summarizes these design steps, which will be further described below. Competency identification and definition. The first step in developing an AC focused on measuring global leadership competencies is a job analysis and competency modelling process to identify the specific global leadership competencies to be targeted (Jokinen 2005; Lievens and Thornton 2005; Lucia and Lepsinger 1999). The competency modelling process includes an analysis of the job situation, tasks, and contextual factors (including global and cultural contextual factors) on which to focus, as well as identification of the behaviours, skills, and attributes needed to be successful in the identified job situation. As part of the competency modelling process, job-related data are collected from coworker raters and exemplary performers in the targeted job positions in order to identify the specific behaviours, skills, and attributes that make up a particular competency to be measured. Behavioural examples and critical incident situations in which the global leadership competency is demonstrated can then be used to specifically define the competency, so that assessment of the competency is clear. In addition, the behavioural examples and critical incident situations collected during the competency identification process can be used to develop realistic, high-fidelity behavioural assessment exercises with which to measure the competency, which is the next step in the design process. In terms of deciding on the number of competencies to include in a model, numerous AC researchers have noted the potential construct validity problems associated with measuring large numbers of dimensions, many of which may be overlapping in meaning (Arthur et al. 2003; Arthur, Woehr, and Maldegen 2000; Meriac et al. 2008). Given the myriad of global leadership competencies identified by researchers in this area, the job analysis process in the first stage of AC development is particularly critical for targeting a smaller and specific subset of those competencies identified in the general literature. In an Global Competency Identification and Definition Figure 1. Method Choice and Exercise Design Global leadership AC design stages. Behaviourally Anchored Rating Scale Development Rater Training Downloaded by [University of Liverpool] at 13:52 22 March 2016 34 A. M. Herd et al. example of one AC found in the literature which specifically attempted to measure global leadership competencies, Livings and Mitchell (2011) report focusing on the competency dimension of 'learning agility' as their overarching competency to be assessed in their centre. The learning agility dimension was further defined in terms of responsiveness to feedback, adaptability and flexibility, openness to change, and innovation in problemsolving. Thus, the assessors in this example had a relatively small number of competencies on which to focus, an AC best-practice. Method choice and exercise design. After the global leadership competencies have been identified and defined in the context of a targeted job situation, the next step in the AC design process is to choose appropriate methods and exercises to measure the identified competencies. These methodologies will most often include the measurement of both 'soft' or trait-based dimensions as well as 'hard' or behaviour-based dimensions of each identified global leadership competency (Bird and Stevens 2013; Zaccaro 2007). AC specialists consider the 'core' exercises to include those focused on behavioural and skill components of a competency, such as the leaderless group discussion, role play, in-basket, case study, and simulations involving multiple exercises such as public speaking, group discussion and persuasion, and media relations activities (Thornton, Rupp, and Hoffman 2015). Personality, aptitude, interest, and cognitive ability questionnaire tools are also often included to measure trait-based dimensions of a competency and as supplemental measures to the behavioural exercises which form the core of the AC. Examples of AC exercises that provide powerful assessment of global leadership competencies include cross-cultural negotiation simulations and role plays, and those involving a simulated crisis situation having global ramifications (Brownell 2005; Livings and Mitchell 2011; Prewitt, Weil, and McClure 2011; Reeves, Malone, and Driscoll 2008; Stahl 2001). As an example from the primary author's experience, one global US-based company designed a leadership AC simulation exercise around a fictitious (although reality-based) earthquake disaster which affected not only the regional headquarters in another country but also the supply chain and operations in all of the organization's eight country locations. The simulated crisis situation required the leader participants (who were identified high-potentials flown in to the AC from their locations all over the world) to make decisions and take action on all business fronts, including decisions about notifying and caring for family members of employees directly affected by the earthquake, handling media inquiries, prioritizing supply chain operations, communication with global customers and other stakeholders, and long-term strategic and tactical planning. The exercise was particularly useful in assessing the leader participants' skills in communicating and influencing leaders and stakeholders from multiple cultures, as well as assessing leader participants' 'values in action' (Argyris and Schon 1978) as they prioritized between human and profit-based considerations inherent in the decision parameters of the crisis situation. An advantage of the crisis simulation described above is its basis in an actual situation that affected the organization and required global leadership competencies. This 'fidelity' of the assessment device in simulating the global demands of the job situation studied in the first step of the AC design process is the most critical criterion for deciding on, and designing, the measurement exercises and tools to be included in an AC (Brownell 2005; Gowing, Morris, Adler and Gold, 2008; Thornton and Byham 1982; Thornton, Rupp, and Hoffman 2015). The end result of the method choice and exercise design stage of the AC design process is a competency exercise matrix, which depicts each of the identified competencies in columns of the matrix along with each of the exercises to be used to measure Human Resource Development International Table 2. 35 Competency dimension matrix example. Assessment tool/global leadership competency Global flexibility/adaptability Cross-cultural awareness/ sensitivity Cross-cultural team influence Case study Leaderless group discussion Role play Structured interview Personality test X X X X X X X X X X Downloaded by [University of Liverpool] at 13:52 22 March 2016 Note: X denotes a competency measured by the assessment tool. the competencies in the rows of the matrix. Table 2 presents a summary example of a competency exercise matrix for an AC designed to measure three global leadership competencies. Behaviourally anchored rating scale (BARS) development. The development of behaviourally anchored rating scales (BARSs) is the next key stage for ensuring valid measurement of competencies in the skill-based AC exercises (Brownell 2005; Eurich et al. 2009). These rating scales are typically presented as a 1-5 effectiveness scale, with specific behaviours depicting each of the scale anchors for each competency. The behaviours used as scale anchors are those identified during the competency modelling and job analysis data collection stage (the first design stage described above). For example, interviews and observations of exemplar global leader performers during the competency identification stage can provide not only the scenarios, which can serve as the basis for simulation, role play, and leaderless group discussion exercises, but also behavioural examples that raters should look to observe during these assessment exercises. In the crisis simulation described above, leaders at various levels from each of the organization's country sites were interviewed about their leadership experiences during an actual crisis situation upon which the AC exercise was based. Data from these leader interviews served as key inputs for the development of BARS scales which then were used by trained raters/ assessors to record their observations of the leader assessees' behaviour during the simulation exercise. These observations, in turn, were shared with the assessees during individual coaching sessions after the AC. During these post-AC coaching sessions, a coach (who was also an observer during the crisis simulation exercise) provided developmental feedback specifically related to the global leadership competencies assessed with the multiple exercises used in the AC, and this feedback was used to help the leader assessee develop an individual development plan (IDP). The more stakeholders involved in identifying, verifying, and validating the behaviours used for each of the competency BARS scales, the more definitional clarity and convergent validity there is likely to be about the construct to be measured by each exercise in the AC (Thornton, Rupp, and Hoffman 2015). The end result of the BARS scale development process is a clear and easy-to-use rating scale for each competency measured by each AC exercise, so that raters know what behaviours are associated with each assessment rating scale anchor and can provide meaningful feedback about observed competency behaviours. Rater training. The final critical stage of AC development involves training of the raters on the specific competency definition and behaviours they will be assessing during each of the AC exercises, as well as training on how best to observe and accurately evaluate these behaviours. For example, most rater training includes practice on distinguishing among inferences, assumptions, and observations made about leader participant Downloaded by [University of Liverpool] at 13:52 22 March 2016 36 A. M. Herd et al. behaviour during AC exercises (Gatewood, Field, and Barrick 2011), and the BARS scales are used to provide a common frame of reference for assessors. This skill practice in distinguishing among observations, assumptions, and inferences is seen as a critical best practice in ensuring that AC methodology is free from bias and promoting of diversity talent management objectives. Thus, rater training helps ensure reliability of measurement, which in turn serves as a foundation for ensuring the valid measurement of global leadership competencies (Brownell 2005). The four design stages described above provide the basis for a valid, effective, and fair assessment system formulated to measure global leadership competencies identified by a job analysis and competency modelling process. Best practices for each of these design stages are addressed in the major document providing guidance on the AC method, namely the Guidelines and Ethical Considerations for Assessment Operations (International Task Force, 2009; www.assessmentcenters.org/articles). Additional considerations for the effective leveraging of the strengths of the AC methodology for talent management purposes include the provision of feedback to the assessees, based on their performance during the assessment exercises (Kudisch, Ladd, and Dobbins 1997). As described in the example, this feedback process can include using executive coaching to help the leader participant understand his/her global leadership competency areas of strength and needed improvement, as well as help him/her develop an IDP with goals geared specifically towards improving competency areas most important for their future global leadership responsibilities. Discussion Results of the present study suggest that, while trait-focused questionnaire methods are the most commonly used methods for assessing global leadership competencies, leadership AC methodology is a potentially advantageous alternative, because it provides measurement of both behavioural and trait components of a competency. However, a literature search revealed that scant published research exists to explore the use of AC methodology specifically geared towards measuring global leadership competencies. Based on a review of the extensive literature pertaining to each of the two separate domains of interest, AC methodology and global leadership competency literature, we provide a suggested framework that can be used for designing an AC specifically geared towards measuring global leadership competencies. This AC design framework may be used for global leadership competency assessment needed for both selection and development purposes as part of an organization's talent management strategy. Effective talent management for organizations working across borders requires the assessment of current and future leaders' global leadership competencies. The most commonly reported assessment tools for measuring global leadership competencies are questionnaire instruments that measure personality-type traits and value preferences (Bird and Stevens 2013). These assessment tools, while reportedly valid in measuring the constructs they are designed to measure, have limited usefulness in terms of helping current and future global leaders gain insights into their actual behaviours in realistic scenarios they might encounter in global business situations. Questionnaire tools do not provide a context for behaviour, which is important in assessing cross-cultural competencies. ACs, on the other hand, provide meaningful and valid measurement of both trait and behavioural components of global leadership competencies, and have been found to have high content, construct, and criterion-related validity and utility beyond that provided by the sole use of personality assessments (Meriac et al. 2008; Simonenko et al. Downloaded by [University of Liverpool] at 13:52 22 March 2016 Human Resource Development International 37 2013). AC methodology may be particularly useful for the developmental objectives inherent in global leadership talent management. Because leadership is essentially a social influence process, the social constructivist theories underlying the development of interactive exercises and simulations used in ACs are particularly applicable and helpful in providing feedback to leader assessees about their behaviour in situations they may encounter while leading globally (Prewitt, Weil, and McClure 2011). AC methodology involves experiential learning activities, and can be used to trace the development of leaders as they advance through each stage of learning. While participating in the various AC exercises, which include cognitive and writing activities as well as in-the-moment decision and persuasive discussion activities involving other leaders, high-potential leaders have opportunities for increasing their awareness, motivation, and sense of selfefficacy for meeting the actual challenges inherent in global leadership work (e.g. Bhagat and Prien 1996; Black and Mendenhall 1990; Brownell 2005; Deshpande and Viswesvaran 1992). Likewise, AC methodology focused on assessing global leadership competencies is particularly useful in helping assessees become more aware of, and test, their assumptions regarding cross-cultural situations and the behaviours which are appropriate and effective in these situations. The immersive crisis simulations described in the AC examples which particularly focused on assessing global leadership competencies suggest that AC methodology can provide a context-rich environment with which to explore cross-cultural nuances in behavioural interactions (Livings and Mitchell 2011). Limitations and future directions Limitations of the study include the possibility that the literature search methodology, while extensive, may have 'missed' some empirical studies reporting on the use of AC methodology to assess global leadership competencies. Given the vast number of articles found on global leadership competencies as well as on AC methodology, it was indeed surprising to find only a handful of articles that linked the two concepts together and no studies which empirically examined the efficacy of AC methodology for the assessment of global leadership competencies. Given the very real and growing need to assess global leadership competencies in meaningful ways for a variety of human resource development purposes, it seems likely that HRD practitioners are currently using AC methodology for this purpose. It is hoped, therefore, that future research will report on whether, how, and to what extent AC methodology has been found to be useful in measuring global leadership competencies. From a critical perspective, the use of AC methodology to measure global leadership competencies presents particular challenges in recognizing and avoiding ethnocentric biases, particularly during the competency modelling and rating design stages described in the earlier sections of this paper. Research on general diversity challenges in AC methodology by Woodruffe (2011), for example, reports on a company that listed 'aggressive' as one of the desired competencies to be measured with an AC. As 'aggression' is a term that is often positively associated with males rather than females, use of this term as a desired competency may inadvertently cause female leader assessees to be rated lower on this dimension than their male counterparts, even though their behaviours during the assessment exercises may result in the desired outcomes. Likewise, one could imagine that, if the top management team of a global company with headquarters in the United States defines 'competitive' or 'initiative' as a desired competency, their description of the behaviours associated with this desired competency Downloaded by [University of Liverpool] at 13:52 22 March 2016 38 A. M. Herd et al. may reflect their own cultural background and not take into account the equifinality principle, which suggests that different behaviours in different situational contexts can lead to the same positive outcomes that the organization desires. Thus, as pointed out by Woodruffe (2011) when reporting on AC methodology in general, care must be taken during the competency modelling and BARS development design stages to avoid defining competency behaviours too narrowly and without regard to principles of equifinality. Woodruffe (2011) suggests that, in addition to defining competencies and behaviours more broadly and with an awareness of assumptions and potential biases, ensuring that those involved in the AC design process represent a range of backgrounds and cultures is a strategy for avoiding potential bias. Rater training, with a focus on definitional clarity and potential cultural biases, is another suggestion for addressing this concern. Another often-cited concern with ACs in general is cost (Thornton, Rupp, and Hoffman 2015). Best-practice use of AC methodology entails a great deal of time and expertise to carefully identify and define the competencies, identify and develop exercises designed to measure the competencies, develop the BARS scales and train the assessors, and conduct the AC. However, studies have clearly established the utility and pay-off to the organization of implementing AC methodology; the benefits outweigh the costs (e.g. Bhagat and Prien 1996; Black and Mendenhall 1990; Deshpande and Viswesvaran 1992), particularly when compared to the high costs of alternative global competency developmental programmes involving travel and immersion (Espedal, Gooderham, and Stensaker 2013; Kealey and Protheroe 1996; Oddou, Mendenhall, and Ritchie 2000). AC methodology is especially crucial in today's competitive economy compared to other human resource development assessment tools that offer no guarantee of measurement validity and therefore have little value for selection and development purposes across cultural contexts (Joiner 2002; Reeves, Malone, and Driscoll 2008). By using assessment measures that have low validity, organizations stand to lose out on selecting, developing, and retaining highly effective leaders (Gatewood, Field, and Barrick 2011; Schmidt and Hunter 1998). Furthermore, the cost of using less valid assessment tools results in a financial loss for the organization, a sacrifice of time, and, from a human capital standpoint, results in hardship on employees and their families who may unsuccessfully relocate to different countries. Another implication of our study relates to the competencies of organization development (OD) and change practitioners themselves, who may find themselves increasingly faced with the need to identify, select, and develop global leaders in a talent management context. Recent research suggests that OD practitioners report being most comfortable with interventions related to developing leadership potential but less comfortable with the talent management tasks associated with succession planning and selection, which they are increasingly called upon to do (Church 2014; Silzer and Church 2009). These researchers suggest that 'OD practitioners need to significantly upgrade their data acumen and skills' (Church 2014, p. 53) in order to engage in more of the measurement activities required by clients needing talent management selection functions. As we have pointed out in this paper, AC methodology is uniquely suited for the assessment of global leadership competencies for both selection and developmental talent management purposes. Practitioners' use of AC methodology likewise does require rigorous skills in measurement and data analysis during all four of the AC design stages described in this paper. Future research on the AC methodology's use for global leadership competency assessment may be most useful when it provides avenues and resources related to the measurement competencies needed to use the methodology. With regard to future research, several directions might be pursued. Descriptive research is needed to provide baseline measures to ascertain whether, how, and to what Downloaded by [University of Liverpool] at 13:52 22 March 2016 Human Resource Development International 39 extent AC methodology is being used by practitioners and organizations to measure global leadership competencies for either or both selection and global leadership development purposes. The specific competencies that are focused on, and the exercises found to be most efficacious in measuring those competencies, would be a helpful topic of research. Likewise, it would also be helpful to have research to suggest which AC design principles are most effective in assessing global leadership competencies and which are most effective in surfacing and avoiding potential cross-cultural biases by assessors during the rating process. Research evaluating assessee leaders' perceptions of the fairness and face validity of AC methodology for assessing global leadership competencies would also be useful, since previous research suggests that this methodology is generally perceived by assessees as fair and just for identifying high-potential leadership competencies (Jerusalim and Hausdorf 2007). Research is also needed to evaluate the convergent validity of questionnaire and behavioural measures of global leadership competencies. Since the most commonly used methods for measuring global leadership competencies appear to be questionnaire measures of personality, interests, and values, research is needed to evaluate the extent to which scores on these questionnaire measures 'converge' with, or 'diverge' from, scores on behavioural exercises measuring the same competencies. Since behaviour is often context-specific, one might expect more variability to be exhibited in behavioural exercises measuring global leadership competencies, and as researchers have pointed out, it is behaviour which more directly predicts performance (Bartram 2004). On the other hand, since questionnaire measures provide a one-time 'snapshot' without a rich context for measurement, and since the most commonly used questionnaire measures have reportedly high internal consistency and reliability indices, one would expect less variability in these scores for any given individual. Particularly for global leadership developmental purposes, the extent of convergent validity between the two types of measures can become a useful and insightful area for leader participants to explore, in terms of how or why their scores may be the same or different using questionnaire versus behavioural exercise assessments. From a practitioner standpoint, research on the convergent validity of questionnaire and behavioural measures of global leadership competencies is useful in deciding which measures to weight more heavily for which talent management purposes. As an example, when providing debriefing feedback to an AC leader participant, most coaches find it helpful to have behavioural data, which is sometimes perceived as more compelling than questionnaire scores, to complement and supplement scores on questionnaire measures. Taken together, the data from various sources can be used to 'paint a picture' that helps the leader identify developmental areas and strategies for moving forward with their development. In line with the above example, a final area for suggested research extends research related to global leadership competency development. More research is needed on how exemplary global leaders have developed and leveraged particular competencies throughout their careers, and how and to what extent these learning activities can be built in to an AC. Mining the learning experiences of global leaders who are in various stages of their careers may provide a rich source of data from which powerful AC exercises may be developed (Chin, Gu, and Tubbs 2001; Mendenhall, Kuhlmann, and Stahl 2001; Terrell and Rosenbusch 2013). Conclusion The current study addresses a gap in the leadership literature regarding the assessment of global leadership competencies. The assessment of global leadership competencies is of critical importance to HRD scholars and practitioners who are concerned with global 40 A. M. Herd et al. leadership competency assessment as the basis for further development and optimal placement of global leaders. While much research has been accomplished which explores the competencies needed to be a successful 'global leader,' there is a dearth of research investigating the use of the most valid methodologies for assessing these global leadership competencies. Extensive research on AC methodology suggests that this methodology may provide an ideal means for the assessment of global leadership competencies. Based on an integrative review of the literature, we provide a suggested framework for using AC methodology to assess global leadership competencies. More research is needed to explore how HRD practitioners and scholars may best use this methodology to advance the many objectives relating to the ever-increasing needs for global leadership competency assessment. Downloaded by [University of Liverpool] at 13:52 22 March 2016 Disclosure statement No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors. References Adler, N., and S. Bartholomew. 1992. \"Managing Globally Competent People.\" The Executive 6 (3): 52-65. doi:10.5465/AME.1992.4274189. Alon, I., and J. Higgins. 2005. \"Global Leadership Success through Emotional and Cultural Intelligences.\" Business Horizons 48 (6): 501-512. doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2005.04.003. Argyris, C., and D. Schon. 1978. Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective. Reading: Addison-Wesley. Arthur, W., E. Day, T. McNelly, and P. Edens. 2003. \"A Meta-Analysis of the Criterion- Related Validity of Assessment Center Dimensions.\" Personnel Psychology 56 (1): 125-153. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2003.tb00146.x. Arthur, W., D. Woehr, and R. Maldegen. 2000. \"Convergent and Discriminant Validity of Assessment Center Dimensions: A Conceptual and Empirical Re-Examination of the Assessment Center Construct-Related Validity Paradox.\" Journal of Management 26 (4): 813-835. doi:10.1177/014920630002600410. Bartram, D. 2004. \"Assessment in Organisations.\" Applied Psychology: An International Review 53 (2): 237-259. doi:10.1111/apps.2004.53.issue-2. Baruch, Y. 2002. \"No Such Thing as a Global Manager.\" Business Horizons 45 (1): 36-42. doi:10.1016/S0007-6813(02)80008-8. Bernardin, J., and J. Russell. 2013. Human Resource Management: An Experiential Approach. New York: McGraw-Hill. Bhagat, R., and K. Prien. 1996. \"Cross-Cultural Training in Organizational Contexts.\" In Handbook of Intercultural Training, edited by D. Landis, J. Bennett, and M. Bennett, 216-230. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Bird, A. 2013. \"Mapping the Content Domain of Global Leadership Competencies.\" In Global Leadership: Research, Practice, and Development, edited by M. Mendenhall and J. Osland, 80- 96. New York: Routledge. Bird, A., and M. Stevens. 2013. \"Assessing Global Leadership Competencies.\" In Global Leadership: Research, Practice, and Development, edited by M. Mendenhall and J. Osland, 113-140. New York: Routledge. Black, S., and M. Mendenhall. 1990. \"Cross-Cultural Training Effectiveness: A Review and A Theoretical Framework for Future Research.\" Academy of Management Review 15 (1): 113- 136. doi:10.5465/AMR.1990.11591834. Brake, T. 1997. The Global Leader: Critical Factors for Creating the World Class Organization. Chicago, IL: Irwin Publishing. Brownell, J. 2005. \"Predicting Leadership: The Assessment Center's Extended Role.\" International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 17 (1): 7-21. doi:10.1108/ 09596110510577644. Brownell, J. 2006. \"Meeting the Competency Needs of Global Leaders: A Partnership Approach.\" Human Resource Management 45 (3): 309-336. doi:10.1002/hrm.20115. Downloaded by [University of Liverpool] at 13:52 22 March 2016 Human Resource Development International 41 Chaudhuri, S., and M. Alagaraja. 2014. \"An Expatriate's Perspective on Leadership and Leading (A Global Organization) in India: Interview with Matt Barney.\" Human Resource Development International 17 (3): 358-365. doi:10.1080/13678868.2014.896125. Chin, C. O., J. Gu, and S. L. Tubbs. 2001. \"Developing Global Leadership Competencies.\" Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 7 (4): 20-31. doi:10.1177/107179190100700402. Church, A. 2014. \"What Do We Know about Developing Leadership Potential? The Role of OD in Strategic Talent Management.\" OD Practitioner 46 (3): 52-61. Cohen, S. 2010. \"Effective Global Leadership Requires a Global Mindset.\" Industrial and Commercial Training 42 (1): 3-10. doi:10.1108/00197851011013652. Conger, J., and C. O'Neill. 2012. \"Building the Bench for Global Leadership.\" People and Strategy 35 (2): 52-57. Cumberland, D. 2015. \"Global Entrepreneurial Leadership Competencies.\" In GlobalEntrepreneurship, edited by S. Carraher and D. B. Welsh, 85-96. Dubuque, IA: Kendall-Hunt. Deshpande, S., and C. Viswesvaran. 1992. \"Is Cross-Cultural Training of Expatriate Managers Effective: A Meta Analysis.\" International Journal of Intercultural Relations 16 (3): 295-310. doi:10.1016/0147-1767(92)90054-X. Espedal, B., P. Gooderham, and I. Stensaker. 2013. \"Developing Organizational Social Capital or Prima Donnas in MNEs? The Role of Global Leadership Development Programs.\" Human Resource Management 52 (4): 607-625. doi:10.1002/hrm.v52.4. Eurich, T., D. Krause, K. Cigularov, and G. Thornton III. 2009. \"Assessment Centers: Current Practices in the United States.\" Journal of Business Psychology 24 (4): 387-407. doi:10.1007/ s10869-009-9123-3.2009 Felcio, A., V. Caldeirinha, and R. Rodrigues. 2012. \"Global Mindset and the Internationalization of Small Firms: The Importance of the Characteristics of Entrepreneurs.\" International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal 8 (4): 467-485. doi:10.1007/s11365-012-0232-5. Fleenor, J. W. 2002. \"Developing Global Business Leaders: Policies, Processes, and Innovations.\" Personnel Psychology 55 (3): 727-730. Gatewood, R., H. Field, and M. Barrick. 2011. Human Resource Selection. Mason, OH: Southwestern. Gillis Jr., J. 2012. \"Global Leadership Development: An Analysis of Talent Management, Company Types and Job Functions, Personality Traits and Competencies, and Learning and Development Methods.\" Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences 72 (7-A): 1-2473. Gowing, M., D. Morris, S. Adler, and M. Gold. 2008. \"The Next Generation of Leadership Assessments: Some Case Studies.\" Public Personnel Management 37 (4): 435-455. doi:10.1177/009102600803700405. International Task Force on Assessment Center Guidelines. 2009. \"Guidelines and Ethical Considerations for Assessment Center Operations.\" International Journal of Selection and Assessment 17: 243-253. doi:10.1111/ijsa.2009.17.issue-3. Jackson, D., C. Lance, and B. Hoffman. 2012. The Psychology of Assessment Centers. New York: Routledge. Javidan, M., P. Dorfman, M. De Luque, and R. House. 2006. \"In the Eye of the Beholder: Cross Cultural Lessons in Leadership from Project GLOBE.\" Academy of Management Perspectives 20 (1): 67-90. doi:10.5465/AMP.2006.19873410. Javidan, M., and J. Walker. 2012. \"A Whole New Mindset for Leadership.\" People and Strategy 35 (2): 36-41. Jeannet, J. 2000. Managing with a Global Mindset. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. Jenkins, D. 2012. \"Global Leadership Competencies: A Review and Discussion.\" Journal of European Industrial Training 29 (3): 199-216. Jerusalim, R. S., and P. A. Hausdorf. 2007. \"Managers' Justice Perceptions of High Potential Identification Practices.\" Journal of Management Development 26 (10): 933-950. doi:10.1108/02621710710833397. Joiner, D. 2002. \"Assessment Centers: What's New?\" Public Personnel Management 31 (2): 179- 185. doi:10.1177/009102600203100204. Jokinen, T. 2005. \"Global Leadership Competencies: A Review and Discussion.\" Journal of European Industrial Training 29 (3): 199-216. doi:10.1108/03090590510591085. Kanter, R. 1995. World Class: Thinking Logically in a Global Economy. New York: Simon and Schuster. Downloaded by [University of Liverpool] at 13:52 22 March 2016 42 A. M. Herd et al. Kealey, D., and D. Protheroe. 1996. \"The Effectiveness of Cross-Cultural Training for Expatriates: An Assessment of the Literature on the Issue.\" International Journal of Intercultural Relations 20 (2): 141-165. doi:10.1016/0147-1767(96)00001-6. Kefalas, A. G. 1998. \"Think Globally, Act Locally.\" Thunderbird International Business Review 40 (6): 547-562. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1520-6874. Kudisch, J. D., R. T. Ladd, and G. H. Dobbins. 1997. \"New Evidence on the Construct Validity of Diagnostic Assessment Centers: The Findings May Not Be So Troubling After All.\" Journal of Social Behavior and Personality 12 (5): 129-144. Leskiw, S.-L., and P. Singh. 2007. \"Leadership Development: Learning from Best Practices.\" Leadership & Organization Development Journal 28 (5): 444-464. doi:10.1108/ 01437730710761742. Levy, O., S. Beechler, S. Taylor, and N. A. Boyacigiller. 2007. \"What We Talk about When We Talk about 'Global Mindset': Managerial Cognition in Multinational Corporations.\" Journal of International Business Studies 38 (2): 231-258. doi:10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400265. Lievens, F., and G. Thornton III. 2005. \"Assessment Centers: Recent Developments in Practice and Research.\" In The Blackwell Handbook of Personnel Selection, edited by A. Evers, N. Anderson, and O. Smit-Voskuijl, 243-264. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Livings, N., and W. Mitchell. 2011. \"\"In Pursuit of a Diversification Strategy: Using an Assessment Centre to Identify Global Talent.\" In Assessment Centres and Global Talent Management, edited by N. Povah and G. C. Thornton III. Farnham: Gower. Lobel, S. 1990. \"Global Leadership Competencies: Managing to a Different Drumbeat.\" Human Resource Management 29 ((1)): 39-47. doi:10.1002/hrm.3930290104. Lucia, A., and R. Lepsinger. 1999. The Art and Science of Competency Models: Pinpointing Critical Success Factors in Organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Mendenhall, M. E., T. Kuhlmann, and G. Stahl. 2001. Developing Global Business Leaders: Policies, Processes, and Innovations. Westport, CT: Greenwood. Mendenhall, M. E., J. Osland, A. Bird, G. R. Oddou, M. Maznevski, M. Stevens, and G. Stahl. 2013. Global Leadership: Research, Practice, and Development. New York: Routledge. Mendenhall, M. E., and G. Stahl. 2000. \"Expatriate Training and Development: Where Do We Go from Here?\" Human Resource Management 39 (2-3): 251-265. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1099050X. Meriac, J., B. Hoffman, D. Woehr, and M. Fleisher. 2008. \"Further Evidence for the Validity of Assessment Center Dimensions: A Meta-Analysis of the Incremental Criterion-Related Validity of Dimension Ratings.\" Journal of Applied Psychology 93 (5): 1042-1052. doi:10.1037/00219010.93.5.1042. Morrison, A. 2000. \"Developing a Global Leadership Model.\" Human Resource Management 39 (2-3): 117-131. doi:10.1002/1099050x(200022/23)39:2/3<117::aid-hrm3>3.0.co;2-1. Nummela, N., S. Saarenketo, and K. Puumalainen. 2004. \"A Global Mindset - A Prerequisite for Successful Internationalization?\" Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences/Revue Canadienne Des Sciences De L'administration 21 (1): 51-64. doi:10.1111/j.1936-4490.2004. tb00322.x. Oddou, M. E. Mendenhall, and B. Ritchie. 2000. \"Leveraging Travel as a Tool for Global Leadership Development.\" Human Resource Management 39 (2-3): 159-172. doi:10.1002/ 1099-050X(200022/23)39:2/3<159::aid-hrm6>3.0.CO;2-J. Osland, J. S., and A. Bird. 2013. \"Process Models of Global Leadership Development.\" In Global Leadership: Research, Practice, and Development, edited by M. E. Mendenhall, J. S. Osland, A. Bird, G. R. Oddou, M. L. Maznevski, M. M. Stevens, and G. K. Stahl, 97-112, New York: Routledge. Povah, N., and G. C. Thornton III, Eds. 2011. Assessment Centres and Global Talent Management. Farnham: Gower. Prewitt, J., R. Weil, and A. McClure. 2011. \"Developing Leadership in Global and Multi-Cultural Organizations.\" International Journal of Business and Social Science 2 (13): 13-20. Rao, K. S., and S. Pratibha. 2012. \"Competency Based Human Resource Development Mechanism: A Case Study of NTPC.\" International Journal of Organizational Behaviour & Management Perspectives 1 (2): 165-169. Reeves, B., T. Malone, and T. Driscoll. 2008. \"Leadership's Online Labs.\" Harvard Business Review 86 (5): 58. Downloaded by [University of Liverpool] at 13:52 22 March 2016 Human Resource Development International 43 Rhinesmith, S. 1992. \"Global Mindsets for Global Managers.\" Training and Development 46 (10): 63-68. Schmidt, F., and J. Hunter. 1998. \"The Validity and Utility of Selection Methods in Personnel Psychology: Practical and Theoretical Implications of 85 Years of Research Findings.\" Psychological Bulletin 124 (2): 262-274. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.124.2.262. Silzer, R., and A. Church. 2009. \"The pearls and Perils of Identifying Potential.\" Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice 2 (4): 377-412. doi:10.1111/ j.1754-9434.2009.01163.x. Simonenko, S., G. Thornton, A. Gibbons, and A. Kravtcova. 2013. \"Personality Correlates of Assessment Center Consensus Competency Ratings: Evidence from Russia.\" International Journal of Selection and Assessment 21 (4): 407-418. doi:10.1111/ijsa.12050. Skarzauskiene, A. 2010. \"Managing Complexity: Systems Thinking as a Catalyst of the Organization Performance.\" Measuring Business Excellence 14 (4): 49-64. doi:10.1108/ 13683041011093758. Smith, M., and J. Victorson. 2012. \"Developing a Global Mindset: Cross Cultural Challenges and Best Practices for Assessing and Grooming High Potentials for Global Leadership.\" People & Strategy 35 (2): 42-51. Spreitzer, G. M., M. W. McCall Jr., and J. D. Mahoney. 1997. \"Early Identification of International Executive Potential.\" Journal of Applied Psychology 82 (1): 6-29. doi:10.1037/00219010.82.1.6. Spychalski, A. C., M. A. Quiones, B. B. Gaugler, and K. Pohley. 1997. \"A Survey of Assessment Center Practices in Organizations in the United States.\" Personnel Psychology 50 (1): 71-90. doi:10.1111/peps.1997.50.issue-1. Stahl, G. K. 2001. \"Using Assessment Centers as Tools for Global Leadership Development: An Exploratory Study.\" In Developing Global Business Leaders, edited by M. E. Mendenhall, T. M. Khlmann, and G. K. Stahl, 197-210. Westport, CT: Quorum Books. Stone, T. H., B. D. Webster, and S. Schoonover. 2013. \"What Do We Know about Competency Modeling?\" Internati