A Note on Supervisor Ratings¹

Abstract

WHEN supervisor ratings of performance are obtained in industrial or military training programs to serve as predictors of later performance ratings in the field, attention should perhaps be given to the organizational rank of the supervisors involved.Different ranks or status levels of supervisors in formal organizations are generally accompanied by corresponding differences in roles and in responsibilities relative to subordinate personnel. Such role differences could conceivably affect the way in which subordinates are perceived by supervisors (see Jones & Thibaut, 1958, pp. 151-178), and thereby could affect the extent to which performance ratings are in agreement with earlier predictions or ratings.The present study, conducted in a military setting, reveals the amount of agreement between performance ratings given a t different times by supervisors of similar and dissimilar rank levels. MethodOn a sample of 1,762 male enlisted Marines, platoon supervisors rated their men as being among the upper 25%, middle 50%, or lower 25% of their peers on overall performance after the first two weeks of basic training. After two years of duty, 893 of those subjects were again rated on overall performance on the same scale by their field supervisors. ,4nd finally, toward the end of four years of duty, still another group of field supervisors rated 1,242 of the subjects on a seven-point scale ranging from "outstanding" to "inferior performance." Both two-year

Performance rating.

“…Although some minimum rater knowledge of the ratee's job performance and of the job in question is certainly necessary before valid ratings can be obtained, the extent of knowledge that is necessary has been a focus of much research. Several studies have found only low to moderate agreement among the ratings made by supervisors at differing organizational levels, relative to the ratee (Berry, Nelson, & McNally, 1966;Borman & Dunnette, 1975;J. P. Campbell, Dunnette, Arvey, & Hellervik, 1973).…”

Conflict between theory and practice: TQM and performance appraisal

“…In this regard, it was about supervisor ratings that McGregor (1957) first voiced an uncertain feeling regarding the accuracy of individual performance appraisal. Since then, organisational scholars have confirmed the inaccuracy of individual‐based performance appraisal for a variety of reasons such as: systematic errors in subjective appraisal related to the sex of the ratees (Nieva and Gutek, 1980); the evaluator's position in the organisation (Berry et al , 1966); the general errors of leniency and halo (Drenth, 1984); the individual is only one part of a process; individual goals not linked to long‐term organisational goals; negative personal consequences of individual performance (Deming, 1986).…”

Fifteen years of research on the attitudes and performance of Marines.

“…Because all of these measures were significantly interrelated , the results suggested tha t as early as two weeks after enlistment also conducted a study on the similarities and differences in supervisor ratings among various levels of rank and status. Their results showed that agreement among supervisors in evaluating subordinates ' performance was to some extent a function of the supervisors ' status or rank (Berry , Nelson , & McNally , 1966).…”