Employee self-ratings are often a required and important part of performancemanagement programs. We asked self-raters to provide in-depth descriptions of their thought processes when rating their own work performance using either a relative (i.e., comparative, percentile-based) or a conventional absolute rating process. Thematic analysis indicated that relative self-ratings typically engendered a two-step evaluation process: initial consideration of one's performance, then comparison to a reference group. Conventional absolute self-ratings tended to rely on a single-step, less comprehensive process. Relative self-rating mean scores were significantly lower than were absolute self-ratings. Our results provide further insights into the mechanism that may underlie relative ratings' psychometric advantages as previously found in a variety of domains.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.