An investigation of alpha, beta, and gamma change in developmental assessment center participants

Abstract

Despite widespread application of developmental assessment centers (DACs), little is known about the impact of the process on participants' understanding of the assessed performance dimensions. This study explores this issue by applying Golembiewski, Billingsley, and Yeager's (1976) tripartite model of change to assess the presence of alpha, beta, and gamma change in DAC participants. Using the method outlined by Terborg, Howard, and Maxwell (1980), we investigate the nature and type of change occurring in a sample of mid‐level managers following a DAC. Evidence for all three types of change was found across the six dimensions targeted by the DAC. Results suggest DACs may not only be an effective means to facilitate perceived performance improvement (alpha change), they may also succeed in facilitating new insight in participants regarding the dimensions on which they are assessed (beta and gamma change).

What changes with coaching? Investigating within‐person changes in reflection, the predicting role of implicit person theory and the effects on perceived utility of coaching

“…We followed the procedure proposed by Terborg and colleagues (1980) and previously applied by Brodersen and Thornton (2011) to assess participants’ alpha, beta and gamma changes in reflection. As the authors recommend, the different types of change should be tested in order so that if gamma change is established for an individual, the other two types of change would be ruled out.…”

“…Alpha, beta and gamma changes comprise the most well‐known taxonomy of change (Golembiewski et al, 1976) and were first applied to organizational development initiatives. Since then, the model has been used in different contexts, all related to developmental processes (Brodersen, & Thornton, 2011; Jellema et al, 2006; Porras & Silvers, 1991). Alpha change could be defined as the traditional representation of change, meaning the difference between pre‐ (T1) and post‐ (T2) measurements in a certain variable.…”

“…Finally, gamma change refers to a complete redefinition of a certain construct, which happens between the two assessments. In this case, again, the difference between a pre and post‐intervention measure would not reflect the real variance because the two measurements would capture almost different concepts (Brodersen & Thornton, 2011; Golembiewski et al, 1976; Thompson & Hunt, 1996). Continuing our example, a coachee experiencing this type of change would conceptualize effective leadership skills differently after the coaching programme than before it.…”

“…This approach, originating in the organizational development field, has been applied to Human Resource Development (HRD) research (i.e. on Assessment Centers; Brodersen & Thornton, 2011). However, to our knowledge, no study has empirically applied this taxonomy in the field of coaching.…”

“…alpha change; Spurk et al, 2011). In fact, by ‘considering multiple types of change, it becomes possible to better identify the specific effects of the process on participants, thus facilitating a more accurate conception of how the process operates’ (Brodersen & Thornton, 2011, p. 26). We propose this would greatly contribute to the study of coaching which, by definition, is a process of change (de Haan et al, 2011; Peterson, 1996).…”