This study’s core contribution is the identification of five informal assessor roles (Procedural Gatekeeper, Developmental Talent Scout, Strategic Diplomat, Assertive Challenger, and Analytical Moderator) and the development of a contextual grounded model explaining how these roles emerge and shape decision-making in internal assessment centers. While assessment center research has predominantly emphasized psychometric validity and procedural standardization, the informal social dynamics among assessors during consensus discussions remain underexplored. Drawing on role theory and group dynamics, this study conceptualizes assessor panels as micro-social systems in which informal roles influence interaction patterns, participation, and outcome legitimacy. Empirically, the study is based on a two-stage qualitative research design conducted within a single large German utilities company. Study 1 analyzes 85 observation protocols from internal assessment centers over a 36-month period using Gioia methodology to inductively derive the role typology. Study 2 triangulates and refines these findings through two focus group workshops with 20 assessors, identifying key contextual conditions, such as weak rule enforcement, hierarchical asymmetries, and limited HR moderation, that facilitate or constrain informal role emergence. The findings further show that balanced role constellations foster inclusive deliberation and perceived fairness, whereas dominant constellations lead to participation imbalances and reduced legitimacy. Theoretically, the study extends assessment center research by integrating social role theory and demonstrating that assessor panels operate as dynamic systems of social influence rather than neutral aggregation mechanisms. Practically, it offers implications for assessor training, panel composition, and facilitation. As the study is based on internal assessment centers within a single organization, the transferability of the role typology and model to other organizational contexts and assessment center designs is theoretically informed but empirically limited, warranting further comparative research.
Stephan Weinert (Fri,) studied this question.