I was invited to the Assessment Day in Ho Chi Minh City after successfully passing the first online interview and the second TOEIC test.
Assessment Day Format:
1. Arm reach check
2. Group interview
3. Individual interview
Schedule:
• Check-in: 11:00 a.m.
• Arm reach test: ~11:30 a.m.
• Group discussion: ~12:30 p.m.
Group discussion format:
The group discussion involved assembling Tangram wooden puzzles for adults.
- Categories: Athletes, visual-motor tasks, etc.
- Shapes: Large/small/medium triangles, large/small squares, parallelograms, etc.
- Colors: Various
- Test conditions: A large room with two tables, seating approximately 15 people per table.
Process:
Three participants were called to the administrator’s table at a time. Each group of three was given around 10 seconds to memorise shapes from an instruction sheet. They then returned to the table to collaboratively assemble the Tangram shapes. Each instruction sheet contained three shapes to replicate.
Outcome:
This round had the highest screening-out rate of the day. From approximately 30 participants across two tables, fewer than eight advanced to the next round. None of the groups managed to produce the correct outputs as outlined in the instructions. Interestingly, some participants who progressed admitted to being confused by the instructions or incorrectly remembering the shapes. Some experienced cabin crews were regretfully screened out at this stage.
Constructive feedback:
1. Clarity of instructions: Despite strong teamwork skills, candidates can still be screened out due to unclear guidance from the game master. This reduces the test’s effectiveness (to 30% only) in evaluating teamwork, as instructions may be misunderstood or misinterpreted.
2. Limited team discussion time: Although the format is intended to assess teamwork, very little time is allocated for group discussion. At the beginning, the entire table of 15 participants had only a few minutes to ask questions. Subsequently, each group of three was rushed through the task, leading to an uneven playing field:
• The first group had an advantage as they could select any shapes.
• Later groups faced increasing difficulty, as they had to account for previously attempted shapes, further complicating the task. Ex. 10 secs for filtering out, set mutual agreement and memorising.
3. Potential biases in evaluation: The test’s format may inadvertently introduce biases. For example:
• Participants who memorise faster may have an advantage, even if this skill is unrelated to teamwork or the role’s requirements.
• Groups called later in the sequence are at a disadvantage due to fewer shape options and reduced clarity caused by earlier teams’ errors.
These factors may unfairly impact the results, prioritising memory and assertiveness over teamwork and collaboration, which are presumably the core competencies being assessed. To improve this, it is better to set number for each shape or separate each shape in one paper and team can choose one like playing card.
Key Takeaways:
• Use the discussion time at the administrator’s table to establish a clear strategy, including mutual agreement on which shape to replicate and who will remember which components.
• Focus on smaller-team collaboration rather than relying on input from the larger group before the 1st prototype is produced.
• Prioritise shapes over colours and adapt quickly if specific pieces are unavailable.
• Team dynamics and organization: A candidate asked if the larger group could assist the smaller team of three during assembly, and the interviewer confirmed this was allowed. However, this created confusion, as other participants made suggestions that disrupted the smaller team’s focus. To mitigate this, the smaller team should independently divide responsibilities (e.g., assigning parts of the puzzle to each member). This approach allows for better memorisation and execution.
• Shape identification strategy: There were no numeric labels on the shapes, so focusing on the general shape rather than specifics (e.g., “shape 1, 2, 3”) was more effective. Candidates should filter out already-attempted shapes and focus on identifying new ones.
6. Shape vs Colour priority: Interviewers emphasised the importance of shape over colour. When earlier groups made mistakes, it became challenging to locate the correct shape fractions among the mixed pieces on the table. In such cases, it is advisable to proceed with alternative sizes if the exact match is unavailable.
While the assessment day offered a unique and engaging format, improving the clarity of instructions, reducing biases, and allocating more time for discussion would enhance the overall fairness and effectiveness of the process.
