Team Work Assessment

Whilst interviewing for a job, I recently had to undergo a "Teamwork assessment". The kind of assessment I'm thinking of involves this setup:

You and six other people who are total strangers (who are also under consideration for the job) are put in a "team".
You are given a time-bounded assignment to complete together. (e.g. 20 mins to work out what five books you would rescue if civilization came to an end)
You are observed and assessed on your progress.

Why I think this is unrealistic and unfair:

Am I ever going to work in a totally democratic team? I've never heard of a completely democratic team at work. (Don't you have a team leader/manager/chairman/...?)
Nobody is really going to "elect" someone else as leader in one of these are they?
Without some form of leadership, there's going to be chaos.
If I take the initiative, am I considered to be "leadership material" or just a "bully"? (Nobody gave me a mandate to "lead" other people in the group.)
If I accept other people's points, does that make me too passive? ... Or does it just mean that I'm not to egocentric to refuse good ideas from other people?
There is a tendency to compete with other people to contribute because time is limited and people will want to ensure they get to speak.
It's highly unlikely that you're going to participate in a lot of meetings with total strangers. The way I communicate with people in meetings does depend on how well I know them, and how well they know me.

Has anybody experienced any of these "games"? I doubt whether there is any proper scientific basis for this kind of assessment - anyone know?

Am I ever going to work in a totally democratic team? I've never heard of a completely democratic team at work. (Don't you have a team leader/manager/chairman/...?)

Not always official lead can have a hold of everything. Never one person can make all decisions. This is extreme model where You have to take some responsibility.

Nobody is really going to "elect" someone else as leader in one of these, are they?

You have to try ... In my experience, people are eager to surrender responsibility to somebody else. If there are 6 people and they all are not submissive kind, you'll notice the leader appearing.

Without some form of leadership, there's going to be chaos.

What solution do You suggest?

If I take the initiative am I considered to be "leadership material" or just a "bully"? (Nobody gave me a mandate to "lead" other people in the group.)

If You'll act in the unnatural way, will You be ready to continue this ... how long?

If I accept other people's points, does that make me too passive? ... Or does it just mean that I'm not to egocentric to refuse good ideas from other people?

If You don't accept, why do You need others?

There is a tendency to compete with other people to contribute because time is limited and people will want to ensure they get to speak.

Can You organize so that everyone can speak?

It's highly unlikely that you're going to participate in a lot of meetings with total strangers. The way I communicate with people in meetings does depend on how well I know them, and how well they know me.

That's true. I hope these games are not the only thing to choose appropriate candidate. And remember that all of you have the same uneasy feelings.

Has anybody experienced any of these "games"?

I have ... not in job interviews, but university interviews (psychology) and psychological trainings.

I doubt whether there is any proper scientific basis for this kind of assessment - anyone know?

If you call all kinds of psychology science, there are basis.

There's something to be said for the idea that you put candidates in a stressful situation and see what happens. If someone resorts to violence, yells, or gives up and walks out, you have to ask yourself if this is the kind of person you want to hire to run your projects.

Also, be careful of thinking that getting your ideas into the final answer is "winning". If I saw a person direct the conversation, elicit contributions from all members, and help the group enjoy themselves and all agree to a "solution" they were all happy with, then I'd think I'm looking at a good project manager. And it doesn't matter if they didn't speak very much or if they never even suggested a book that made it into the final cut.

I'd probably also talk with each candidate individually after the exercise, and ask them what went well, what did not, and try to get a better idea of what they were trying to accomplish with their actions. I'd have a lot of respect for people who chose to remain quiet, when speaking up would only make the situation worse. -- JeffGrigg

So I guess what you are saying is that there is no scientific basis for these tests doing better than the null hypothesis which is that choosing from a hat will do no worse. :)

The process appears to be similar to a scene in a recent sci-fi movie (Men In Black) - Any parallels - Perhaps only one of the candidates is really being considered?

IMHO, the real problem with doing this is that you are being "graded" on your ability to work cooperatively in a team environment precisely when you know that you are in direct competition with the rest of your team. Someone who comes into this as a team player, willing to sublimate their own needs for the team's goals and willing to let others take the credit, will have more value to an employer than an equivalent person who doesn't do these things. Unfortunately, a person who does this in a TeamWorkAssessment appears to have less value to the employer.

This might be a valid test for showing political savvy when hiring executives, but is counterproductive when hiring individual contributors. The only way it might work is if you read the results in reverse, figuring that whoever "leads" the team is doing so to show off and not for the sake of teamwork and the "followers" are the actual team players that you want. If I were put in such a situation, I would leave the team and explain to the interviewer why the test is counterproductive. Either the interviewer knows this and is looking for this sort of thought process, or he doesn't, won't hire me, and I don't want to work for him either.

A strange game. The only winning move is not to play.

It's not necessarily true that the person who is "a team player, willing to sublimate their own needs for the team's goals and willing to let others take the credit" is the more valuable because of that than someone who doesn't. Many organizations get a lot of value from Belbin's idea of team roles. What's described here is someone who is well fitted to Belbin's teamworker role. A team without anyone filling the teamworker role is unlikely to function well, and neither is one composed entirely of teamworkers. One might hope that the organizations that use these kinds of assessment exercises know that teams require several different styles of interaction within them to work well, and assess the candidates accordingly.