Because the regulatory-legal environment does not provide explicit guidelines for the use of ACs in SA, self-regulation is essential. However, if one accepts that no ethical guidelines of a non-statutory nature can ever fully direct behaviour in every instance, a conceptual understanding of the ethical challenges and the possible solutions to these may aid practitioners in the ethical use of ACs. The problem may be compounded in the SA context where the population is very diverse in terms of race, religion, culture and socio-economic status (National Planning Commission, 2013), which implies that ethics and ethical challenges may be experienced and perceived differently by individuals from different groupings.

Comprehensive practice-informed guidelines, supported by a deep understanding of ethical challenges in the use of ACs in SA, may be even more important because of a history that did not always promote equity and the equal treatment of citizens within a context of social discrimination and exclusion. It may even have allowed the use of psychometric and similar assessments to the detriment of certain groups of the population, giving rise to questions regarding the procedural, interactional and distributive fairness of the resultant decisions (Coetzee & Schreuder, 2016; Donald, Thatcher & Milner, 2014; Foxcroft & Roodt, 2013).

It is against this background that this study was undertaken: If the ethical use of ACs in SA is not specifically regulated and if practice-informed guidelines are not compulsory and encompassing, would a better conceptual understanding of the ethical challenges pertaining to ACs not aid the creation of a framework within which the notion of ethics could be operationalised? Given also that ethics is a grey area (Pope & Vasquez, 1998) and there is often no clarity about what is right or wrong (Levin & Buckett, 2011), would new insights not bring about a greater awareness and unified understanding of the ethical challenges faced by AC practitioners in their day-to-day involvement with the AC method?

In light of the above, the search was for a deeper, evidence-based understanding of the ethical challenges that may exist in the use of ACs in SA. Believing that reality is created by the actors (social constructionism), it was decided to ask AC practitioners to share their insights based on their actual lived experiences. They were asked to delineate the notion of ‘ethics in the use of assessment centres’ and share their actual experiences of an ethical dilemma in this respect. In addition, they were required to evaluate and enrich recurring and outstanding themes derived from their input in the first phase of the study and recommend possible solutions to address the challenges in practice. This approach was chosen as certain scholars, for example, Cascio (1978), suggested that:

From this point on, the following key terms will be used: (1) Assessor – the person who observes, records, classifies and evaluates the behaviours of the AC participants across competencies. In this paper, the term may – by implication – include AC administrators; (2) AC developer or designer – the person who conducts the job analysis and designs the AC accordingly; (3) Role-player – the person who plays the part of a specific character during an interactive simulation. In order to elicit competency-related behaviour from the participant, a role-player needs to provide stimuli to which the participant must react. The role-player is, therefore, part of the simulation design; (4) Participant – the individual taking part in the AC with the purpose of being assessed by the assessors; (5) Client – the person who requested the services of an AC provider; (6) AC provider – the person who offers ACs to clients; and (6) AC practitioner, which refers to all the roles above, with the exception of the participant and the client.

The objectives that were set for the study were, therefore: (1) to gain an overview of the ethical challenges that practitioners experience in their use of ACs; (2) to use practitioners’ input to develop a framework of understanding to guide practitioners in their endeavour to use ACs ethically, even in the absence of sufficient regulatory-legal or practice-informed guidelines and (3) to ask practitioners to forward suggestions to address the ethical challenges that were identified in the earlier stages of the study. It was believed that evidence-based insights could inform both the scientific and the practice communities in their search for ethical AC use.

Ethical considerations were given due attention. The voluntary nature of participation in the research was made clear and participants were informed that they could withdraw at any time without any negative consequences to themselves. Confidentiality, anonymity and freedom from possible harm were unconditionally guaranteed and to this point, original data are being kept safe under the control of the researchers. Participants were treated with respect and discussions were positioned at a professional level throughout. Research protocol was followed to the best of our ability and well-respected research procedures were employed throughout.

Several data collection strategies can be followed within a qualitative research approach. They include, but are not limited to, phenomenology, case studies, grounded theory, action research and ethnography (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005, 2008; Myers, 2013). This study was positioned within the realm of phenomenology, ‘which is interested in the world as it is experienced by human beings within particular contexts and at particular times’ (Willig, 2001, p. 51).

The study included two distinct phases of data collection: a qualitative self-report survey that allowed for access to data from a relatively wide sample of AC practitioners and a focus group discussion by a small group of subject-matter specialists to (1) supplement data, (2) assist in making sense of the data and (3) generate possible solutions to the challenges.

The overall research setting was the AC field of practice in SA and the primary focus was on the academic and business contexts within which ACs are regularly studied and used. A purposive sampling strategy was followed. Purposive sampling requires critical and deliberate thought and action aimed at ensuring the selection of participants who are best suited for answering a specific research question in a given study (Neuman, 2000). This technique was used because it allowed the researcher to identify and include participants who could clarify and deepen our understanding of the topic being researched (Denzin & Lincoln, 2008). Because exposure to ACs was a critical criterion for inclusion in the study, participants who were regarded as experts, regular users or informed stakeholders in the AC field were selected.

Data were analysed in two phases – first the survey data and thereafter the focus group data. In line with the principles of qualitative research, every effort was made to analyse the data in a manner that preserved the intended meaning (Flick, 2014). Two processes were involved in the analysis of the survey data: firstly, content analysis, because it is ‘the systematic, objective, quantitative analysis of message characteristics’ (Neuendorf, 2002, p. 1), and secondly, thematic analysis, which refers to ‘identifying, analysing and reporting patterns (themes) within data, implying the interpretation of various aspects of the research topic’ (Braun & Clarke, 2006, p. 79).

Units of analysis were either words or key-phrases-in-text. These were systematically and objectively coded and condensed to facilitate the identification of themes that reflect the essence of the data and represent supportive codes. In analysing the qualitative survey results, each participant’s responses were electronically captured – word for word. Each time a word or key phrase was repeated, a tick was made next to it in order to ascertain how many times that particular word or phrase had been mentioned. Similar words or phrases were then grouped together. Wherever necessary, certain words or phrases were consolidated to form a single word or phrase, and each time these were mentioned, a tick was made next to it to indicate frequency. These words or phrases were then further analysed to consider their inherent meanings. Similarities, or relatedness between words or phrases, were deliberately sought and units were then created on the basis of similarity and relatedness. This process required intense immersion into the data. This created an opportunity to engage with the content at a deeper level, making sense of the data from a participant’s perspective. This process allowed for the identification of first-level generic themes which, through a deeper second-level analysis, were clustered and consolidated into broader and more encompassing themes. These could be labelled, described and demonstrated by means of actual quotes from the data. The comprehensive and meaningful themes that emerged from this process were presented to the focus groups for deliberation.

Once the focus group sessions had been completed, the data from both sessions were consolidated into one, and subsequently integrated with the themes that arose from the first phase of data analysis – the survey data. In analysing the data captured during the focus group sessions, subjective judgements were made by the authors, who aimed to retain the research participants’ intended meaning while at the same time allowing a level of interpretation and integration. This process generated two outcomes – richly described final themes and recommendations for addressing ethical challenges attached to each of the specific themes.

Four criteria that may be applied to ensure quality qualitative research were acknowledged: replicability, credibility, transferability and dependability (Golafshani, 2003; Shenton, 2004). The following actions were taken to meet these criteria: (1) a theoretical context for the study was created; (2) parameters for the setting, the prevailing social world and the population were provided; (3) an attempt was made to ensure a fair degree of representativeness in the sampling process; (4) each step of the research process was recorded in detail and scientific rigour was applied in all the steps; (5) data were captured, transcribed and safely stored for scrutiny at any time; (6) data were analysed and interpreted according to established processes and all efforts were made to limit researcher subjectivity; (7) findings were presented clearly in table format; and (8) the findings were presented to a focus group with a dual purpose – to contribute data in its own right and to act as a peer review mechanism to enhance confirmability. An attempt was made to triangulate the findings by discussing these within a context of multiple theoretical perspectives from various researchers in the field (see Mays & Pope, 2000; Shenton, 2004).

Adherence to universal ethical values was deemed essential for ensuring the ethical success of an AC. Universal ethical values refer to various constructs, which include morality, justice, equality, honesty, trust, respect, ‘doing no harm’, ‘doing good’, universal human rights and the notion of fairness. To achieve these objectives, the International Test Commission Guidelines on Test Use (International Test Commission, 2013) recommend adherence to, among others, the following principles: measures and results should be applied and used in a fair, professional and ethical manner; the needs and rights of people should be regarded with the utmost concern; the predictor should closely match the purpose for which the assessment results will be used; moderating factors that result from the social, political and cultural context of assessment should be taken into account, especially considering the impact these factors may have on the assessment results. The test guidelines make it clear that these universal testing principles should be honoured, irrespective of whether a measurement or assessment can strictly be classified as ‘test’ or not.

Adherence to universal ethical values has implications within a context of globalisation and multiculturalism, and this theme incorporates the following supporting codes: multicultural and global differences, need for cultural sensitivity, differences in terms of morality and a need for sensitivity regarding religion. Awareness is required when dealing with possible cultural differences (including language) and culturally sensitive areas (such as religion). While religious values and ethics as different concepts are sometimes used interchangeably, the focus group provided a working distinction between the two, as this may apply to the AC context. Religion refers to a person’s religious beliefs and value systems, whereas ethics, refers to a set of ethical guidelines that apply to a specific context within a framework of universal ethical or moral values. To avoid the possible alienation of individuals from the AC process, AC practitioners were advised to avoid religious content in ACs and to refer to ethical guidelines rather than religious values, belief systems and customs in their deliberations.

Foxcroft and Roodt (2013) maintained that it would probably be futile to try and understand ethical challenges in ACs in SA without considering specific socio-political-historical and cultural factors that influence almost every facet of SA society. These authors explained that testing and assessment are essentially Western-world activities that were brought to Africa during the colonial era and therefore not naturally part of the African culture. Any efforts that might have been made to change or adapt assessments to suit local social conditions were not made until much later (Foxcroft, 1997; Foxcroft & Roodt, 2013). The development of assessments and testing almost inevitably reflected the racially segregated society it had evolved from (Foxcroft & Roodt, 2013). This may imply that assessments in the past were probably not always applied fairly and appropriately for all members of the SA society. It is against this background that it was agreed that all AC stakeholders have a responsibility to ensure that present-day ACs are fair and free from bias. This approach is aligned to international and national best practice guidelines that call for contextual adaptation in terms of social, political, institutional, linguistic and cultural differences (Assessment Centre Study Group Taskforce on Assessment Centres in South Africa, 2015; International Taskforce on Assessment Center Guidelines, 2015; International Test Commission, 2013).

In support of this search for fairness, the Society for Industrial and Organisational Psychology of South Africa has identified four criteria for fairness in the context of selection: equal outcomes, equitable treatment, equal opportunities to experience and learn from situations and absence of predictive bias (Society for Industrial and Organisational Psychology of South Africa, 2005). It is evident that all ACs should at the very least meet these criteria. It is also important to note that fairness is a social and not a scientific judgement and cannot be measured against scientific parameters, unlike reliability and validity that, in the context of assessment/measurement, can to a high degree be measured thus. What is important in this sense is that perceptions of fairness in the SA context – specifically in the light of our history – may imply perceived fairness as a major component or dimension of fairness in general (Donald et al., 2014).

ACs are acknowledged as a means to increase fairness because they create opportunities for people to be observed in simulated (work-related) environments (Moerdyk, 2009). Relatively small subgroup differences and minimal adverse impact in selection have been found when compared with the results of traditional selection measures (Kriek, 1991; Thornton et al., 2015), and Kriek, Hurst and Charoux (1994) reported that ACs also appear to be relatively culture-fair. In any event, it is important to remember that assessment is intended to fairly discriminate between people, not against people (Moerdyk, 2009), and that fairness is especially important where equal validity of measurement for a variety of different groups of people should exist – as is the case in SA.

Participants referred to many examples of legislation and controversies around these that need to be clarified among all stakeholders. A first concern dealt with whether ‘ACs should (in future) be classified as a psychological act as defined by the HPCSA or not’. While it was generally agreed that it would probably be ideal to place ACs within the domain of psychological acts, practical realities would make this impossible. The most important limitation would be that SA does not have sufficient numbers of psychologists to accept responsibility for all aspects of all ACs from start to end. For this reason, a compromise may need to be negotiated. While non-psychologists could possibly be trained to take responsibility for some aspects of an AC, depending on their complexity, it was recommended by some research participants that only qualified psychologists should be allowed to take overall responsibility for the facilitation of an AC, including aspects related to the interpretation of behaviour. This recommendation was not supported by all the participants and a proper debate that involves a wider group of AC stakeholders may be warranted in the future. Meanwhile, it was agreed that comprehensive practical guidelines need to be maintained and that ethical awareness should be fostered to serve as a moral compass whenever practitioners do not have a regulatory-legal or practice-informed framework to guide them.

A further concern dealt with the question of whether an AC (in future) should ever be classified as a psychometric test. In this respect, the Guidelines for Best Practice Use of the Assessment Centre Method in South Africa (5th edition) (Assessment Centre Study Group Taskforce on Assessment Centres in South Africa, 2015) state that ACs are not single tests, but rather a sequence of stimuli eliciting participant behaviour that can be linked to competencies, skills and work-related constructs. Such ACs are not psychological tests. When an AC is used as part of a selection process, it has to comply with the EEA’s requirements of validity, reliability, fairness and lack of bias. It furthermore should measure aspects inherently required for job performance based on information obtained from a thorough job analysis. To add to the scientific rigour of the process, an AC design model is recommended by Schlebusch and Roodt (2008) that incorporates four distinct design phases: analysis, design, implementation and evaluation, and validation. By paying adequate attention to each phase, the psychometric properties and overall fairness of the process may be enhanced. If a psychological construct is measured during an AC by means of an appropriate psychological test, the measurement should adhere to any legal requirements that may pertain to psychological tests in that context.

A final concern related to contemporary notions of the construct validity in the context of assessment. While contemporary scientific evidence implies a continuum of evidentiary support to confirm validity (as a multidimensional construct), the EEA – in both its original and amended versions – places upon practitioners an unrealistic demand with which they have to comply, namely that of absolute validity: a dichotomy of a test or measure being either valid or invalid. Research participants highlighted their vulnerability in this respect: Would it actually be possible to provide what is legally required of them? Participants agreed that this controversy needs to be addressed in the appropriate forums in future, to address the professional risk that practitioners face in not being able to comply with that legal requirement in its current form.

The focus group concluded that overall ethical awareness to guide behaviour when neither rules and regulations nor practice-informed guidelines exist would be crucial. It was suggested that international cooperation be sought to help develop globally applicable guidelines and that an international registration body for ACs be established to monitor ACs and ensure adherence to minimum standards.

The very important role of the assessor in ensuring the success of an AC was strongly emphasised by all the research participants. The following were deemed to be of crucial importance: (1) the moral character or integrity of assessors; (2) their professional competence; (3) their personal characteristics, such as humility, agreeableness and tolerance; and (4) their ethical intent, including ethical competence and leadership. Assessor competence is important because, unlike other forms of assessment (for instance, psychological testing where the primary tool of assessment is a test or instrument), the primary tool of assessment in ACs is the assessor (Foxcroft & Roodt, 2013: Howard, 2008). AC practitioners’ knowledge and their personal and scientific frames of reference will influence the selection and interpretation of assessment measures and outcomes (Bergh & Theron, 2009). An assessor may also unconsciously impact the test results through, for example, body language, facial expressions, failure to establish rapport, failure to set participants at ease and style of presentation (Coetzee & Schreuder, 2010; Moerdyk, 2009). Furthermore, an assessor’s ethical intent and awareness of possible bias and prejudice in measuring and scoring participants are essential in ensuring valid, reliable and fair AC outcomes. Within fast-paced, ambiguous and changing organisational contexts, the impact of a person’s values may be especially powerful (Illies & Reiter-Palmon, 2007).

A disconcerting finding based on the outcome of this study was the notion that AC practitioners sometimes allow managers to influence AC processes and outcomes because, as one focus group participant put it:

Although it is important to have healthy relationships with clients, AC practitioners were advised not to:

In other words, customisation should not compromise quality.

Sound psychometric properties of ACs refer to criteria such as reliability and consistency; face, construct and content validity; fit-for-purpose, clear and measureable focal constructs and measurement criteria; good quality exercises and tools; proper scoring mechanisms; appropriate norms; and adequate data management processes. The study confirmed the view that ethical challenges in ACs in SA are often linked to the quality of tools and the relevance of the instruments being used (Müller & Roodt, 2013). Krause et al. (2011) indicate, for example, that approximately one third of AC content used in SA is developed overseas and then imported for local use. This presents a major ethical challenge, especially because cultural and linguistic factors may influence AC results. It confirms the need for continuous research to validate a specific AC for the use within the context it is intended for, answering the question: ‘valid for what?’ (Roodt, de Kock & Schlebusch, 2013).

Measurement errors (differences between the results obtained and the real results) may also occur (Bergh & Theron, 2009). These errors may occur as a result of the research process, the measurement instrument itself, instrument administration, scoring, participants, the nature of the concepts being measured, weaknesses in the measurement techniques, rating or observation errors, and subjective errors made by the researchers (Bergh & Theron, 2009; Moerdyk, 2009). Van Vuuren and Schlebusch (2013) highlight the fact that many ethical challenges are caused by inadequate training, which results in AC data not being captured accurately and on time; statistical validity and reliability assumed to exist, or being misinterpreted; incorrect interpretation of statistical calculations; and incorrect generalisability (Roodt et al., 2013).

In this regard, the focus group was particularly concerned about the quality of AC training:

It has to be noted that research in this respect indicates a preference for frame-of-reference training for assessors working at an AC for selection purposes and that a data-driven approach is better suited for ACs with a developmental purpose (Lievens, 2001). A combination of the two assessor training approaches might be more desirable (Thornton et al., 2015).

It was widely accepted that participants bring their own set of values into the AC context, which may influence the ethical properties of the AC either positively or negatively. The underlying assumption was that ethical AC outcomes could be achieved only if assessors and participants collectively embraced universal ethical values. It was suggested that participant characteristics could influence the success and ethical character of an AC. It is believed that the validity and reliability of AC outcomes can be influenced by a wide range of participant characteristics, including mood fluctuations, ability to concentrate, physical health, family problems, emotional distress, levels of fatigue, unfamiliarity with the context, lack of test-wiseness or test sophistication, competitiveness and motivation (Coetzee & Schreuder, 2010; Moerdyk, 2009).

Specific types of participant behaviour that could potentially jeopardise the ethical character of an AC were also highlighted. These included a person’s responses in terms of image management, second-guessing, social desirability, deliberate distortion or faking, and resistance. While the focus group confirmed that manipulative and faking behaviour is a common challenge in ACs in SA, literature suggests that this phenomenon is not exclusive to SA, but is in fact a global challenge (Schollaert & Lievens, 2011; Thornton & Gibbons, 2009; Thornton et al., 2015).

The concepts of prejudice, bias and fairness are closely related (Donald et al., 2014; Foxcroft & Roodt, 2013; Muchinsky et al., 2005). While bias within the context of psychological measurement is defined as a ‘systematic error in measurement or research that affects one group (e.g. race, age and gender) more than another’ (Moerdyk, 2009, p. 261), prejudice refers to the same phenomenon but in the broader context of human assessment (Muchinsky et al., 2005). Bias and fairness may, among others, be based on considerations of sex, race, religion or national origin (Health Profession Act, No. 56 of 1974) and both bias and prejudice may lead to favouritism, unfairness and injustice (Donald et al., 2014). Both intentional and unintentional bias and prejudice towards an individual or group, especially in a manner considered to be unfair, is a major contributor to the occurrence of disparate treatment, adverse impact and discrimination in the use of assessment generally (Donald et al., 2014; Foxcroft & Roodt, 2013; Moerdyk, 2009; Muchinsky et al., 2005).

Bias, prejudice and unfairness in the use of ACs could result from many variables such as the attitudes, values and judgements of the assessor (Kuncel & Highhouse, 2011; Muchinsky et al., 2005), properties of the measures (Buckett, Becker & Roodt, 2017; Foxcroft & Roodt, 2013; Moerdyk, 2009), contextual realities embodied in the socio-political world at the time (Donald et al., 2014; Foxcroft & Roodt, 2013), cultural preferences for certain personality characteristics such as bias towards extroverts (Collins et al., 2003; Crawley, Pinder & Herriot, 1990; De Beer, 2012; Furnham, Jensen & Crump, 2008; Jackson et al., 2010) and a tendency towards cloning (Bagues & Perez-Villadoniga, 2013; Fiske, 1999). In ACs specifically, preconceived ideas, different points of view, different interpretations and differences in scoring and scoring methods, especially where judgement is concerned, may lead to disparate outcomes (Kuncel, Klieger, Connelly & Ones, 2013). This may increase error and decrease reliability (Roch, 2006; Simonenko, Thornton, Gibbons & Kravtcova, 2013), highlighting a need for rigour and proper standardisation (Kuncel, Klieger & Ones, 2014).

It is against the SA historical background specifically that the focus group also argued for heterogeneous assessor teams in terms of race, age, gender and ethnicity. This is to ensure that AC participants (who themselves are likely to be heterogeneous) ‘perceive’ the AC process as fair and representative. This would also strengthen an inherent feature of the AC process, which is to use multiple assessors in order to view the same behaviour(s) from multiple perspectives and thus gain a better understanding of participant behaviour (Assessment Centre Study Group Taskforce on Assessment Centres in South Africa, 2015; Falk & Fox, 2014; International Taskforce on Assessment Center Guidelines, 2015).

An overall robust and ethical process was envisaged by all the survey participants. Ethical considerations are perceived to arise in all the phases of the AC process – from the contracting or analysis phase to the implementation phase and to the termination phase. This thinking is aligned with that of Van Vuuren and Schlebusch (2013), who suggest that the contracting or analysis phase should be used to clarify the roles and responsibilities of all the stakeholders, set the required parameters and agree on expectations and the decision-making process (including the relative weight of the AC outcome in the final decision). The assumption was made that by paying sufficient attention to the contracting phase, many ethical challenges, for example, manager interference, could be minimised. It was furthermore suggested that the contracting phase be documented and signed off by all parties to avoid future misunderstanding.

Many ethical challenges also arise during the AC implementation phase. Firstly, not all activities constitute an AC. The International Taskforce on Assessment Center Guidelines (2015) highlighted this issue and stated that, while many activities (e.g. computerised in-baskets requiring multiple-choice responses only) may have AC characteristics, they are not necessarily simulations used as part of ACs. AC practitioners should, therefore, guard against the use of non-AC methods under the guise of an AC. Secondly, process-related challenges arise. These may refer to aspects including the administration of measurement, the observation and interpretation of behaviour, and the overseeing of the entire AC. Details such as suitable venues, contingency plans, standardised procedures, adequate manuals and sufficiently competent assessors were deemed important. Further basic requirements, which are inherently informed by participant rights, were raised, that is the right to transparency and openness among all AC stakeholders, informed consent from participants prior to assessment, agreed-upon levels of confidentiality and valid and constructive feedback. With regard to the organisation, return-on-investment considerations were emphasised throughout.

The project closure is believed to present its own ethical challenges, which are primarily related to feedback and the data management processes. With regard to data management, the focus group raised and answered the following questions:

Upon completion of the AC, practitioners were advised to reflect on the overall AC, learn from mistakes and capitalise on strengths to improve their success in the future.

This theme raised awareness of the influence that the organisational culture could potentially have on ACs. ACs often take place at the premises of the client organisation and even if this is not the case, they are mostly conducted on behalf of a particular organisation. Organisations are therefore important stakeholders and an integral part of any AC (Krause et al., 2011; Schlebusch & Roodt, 2008; Thornton et al., 2015). A pertinent ethical challenge that emerged from the study was the interference of managers with AC processes, often with the intention of influencing outcomes. The following example of a profound incident illustrated this point:

According to the focus group, managers may sometimes attempt to implicitly influence processes and outcomes. In other words, because they are unlikely to explicitly ask for favours, they may attempt to influence matters indirectly. Practitioners were advised to note that some managers may believe that they have a right to influence AC outcomes and processes simply because they pay for the AC. However, the mere fact that managers pay for the AC does not mean that they own the process. Practitioners were therefore advised to ensure that they clarify their role and the role of managers and clients during the contracting phase to avoid unwarranted interferences at a later stage.

Organisations are important stakeholders and an integral part of any AC (Krause et al., 2011; Schlebusch & Roodt, 2008; Thornton & Rupp, 2006). The ethical character of an AC may often be negatively influenced by an organisation’s lack of an overarching ethical culture. To oppose a culture of deception, manipulation, dishonesty and ill intent, regard for ethical decision-making, as well as the strategic integration of ethics into the organisation’s culture and openness to the consideration of ethics by management in all AC processes and decisions were deemed imperative. In this respect, organisational politics – which is defined by Coetzee and Schreuder (2010) as ‘self-serving actions to affect behaviour of others to achieve personal goals’ (p. 520) – may potentially lead to tension between professional ethics and organisational expectations (Muleya, Fourie & Schlebusch, 2013).

Research participants mentioned the evasive nature of ethics as a concept and raised a number of questions:

The focus group acknowledged the challenges in this regard and suggested a number of strategies: Have a multifaceted view on ethics; seek to understand the notion of ethics and the challenges in defining, measuring and defining ethics within a specific context; decide on what is good and ethical within contextual realities; and acknowledge that what is right for you may not be right for another. The focus group discussion highlighted the need for research in this field and emphasised the imperative to seek for universal ethical guidelines on the use of ACs, at the same time allowing for contextual differences, globally and locally. The existing AC guidelines describe the ‘what’ of ACs and to some extent the ‘how’. A Code of Ethics for ACs in SA should arguably describe the ‘how’ in more detail as to serve as an aspirational and directional guide when the AC practitioner interacts with all AC stakeholders (Meiring et al., 2016).

This study investigated ethical challenges in ACs in SA. The findings based on the results of the study revealed a number of ethical challenges and dilemmas, largely in line with research in this field (Caldwell et al., 2013; Levin & Buckett, 2011; Roodt et al., 2013). The results from this study are presented in the form of a conceptual framework to provide a lens through which these challenges could be viewed and understood. The study also produced 93 practice-informed recommendations for minimising these challenges (see Appendix 3). In addition to providing practice-informed recommendations, the study should serve to enrich the existing body of knowledge, activate constructive debate and lay a foundation for future research. In this regard, the following suggestions are made: Firstly, the study focused exclusively on the views of AC practitioners. The lived experiences of AC participants should also be explored to obtain a more balanced view. Secondly, insights into the lived experiences of AC clients may well highlight further areas of ethical risk. Finally, AC assessors need to be questioned on the nature of their organisational-professional conflicts to enhance insights into the real ethical dilemmas that arise within these relationships. The following conclusions drawn from this study are presented to the AC community:

These conclusions may serve as guidelines for AC practitioners and further stimulate academic debate regarding ethical challenges in the use of ACs – both globally and in SA.