Acceptance of personality questionnaire feedback: The role of individual difference variables and source of interpretation

Fletcher, Christopher W.; Taylor, Peggy; Glanfield, Kate

doi:10.1016/0191-8869(95)00169-7

Cited by 10 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There are a number of studies that suggest the kinds of characteristics that may contribute to congruent/accurate self perceptions and which also demonstrate the role of gender differences ± though it should be noted that it is not being suggested here that the only characteristics related to congruence are those showing gender differences. Fletcher et al (1996) asked staff in a ® nance company to complete the 16PF questionnaire and then asked them to identify which of four computer-generated assessment reports was theirs. They found that 44 per cent of females correctly identi® ed their report compared to just 23 per cent of males ± only females chose their reports at a level better than chance.…”

Section: Possible Reasons For Gender Differencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The implications of research on gender differences in self‐assessment and 360 degree appraisal

Fletcher

1999

Human Res Mgmt Journal

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Possible Reasons For Gender Differencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The implications of research on gender differences in self‐assessment and 360 degree appraisal

Fletcher

1999

Human Res Mgmt Journal

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…There are a number of studies relevant to this, a few of which will be mentioned here. The first was carried out by Fletcher, Taylor and Glanfield (1996) with staff in a finance company. As part of the investigation, 83 subjects were asked to complete the 16PF questionnaire and then provided with four reports based on 16PF profiles, their task being to identify which one was theirs.…”

Section: Personality and Feedback-seekingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, intuitively, it seems likely that there is a curvilinear relationship here, with people who are extremely high or rather low on factor`O' showing responses that will have an adverse effect on acquisition and use of feedback. This was not investigated as part of the Fletcher et al (1996) study.…”

Section: Personality and Feedback-seekingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Self Awareness – A Neglected Attribute in Selection and Assessment?

Fletcher

1997

Int J Selection Assessment

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

S elf assessment (SA) has been the subject of quite a lot of research in organisational psychology for the last 10±15 years. Much of this work has been focused on the basic question of how accurate SA is, and under what circumstances. Although social psychologists have also been interested in this field (John and Robins 1993;Funder 1995), their perspective is perhaps conceptually more complex and can lead to discussions of whose descriptions of an individual are more valid. In the organisational field, the problem of defining`accuracy' has usually been dealt with fairly pragmatically by describing it in terms of the agreement between the individual's self perceptions and some external criterion measure, usually ± in work settings ± ratings by colleagues. The underlying question of research on SA accuracy is: to what extent can we use SA as a routine element in selection or, possibly, appraisal?A meta-analysis done by Mabe and West (1982) showed that self assessment could be made more accurate by ensuring that certain conditions were met. They indicated that such factors as having a high degree of similarity between the SA and the criterion, measuring skills rather than general abilities and so on were important in whether SA could achieve reasonable accuracy levels. However, the results of research on SA have continued to be somewhat inconsistent and it is not uncommon to find that SAs show unimpressive levels of agreement with other criterion measures of performance. The general message from the research is that SA should be used with great caution.In nearly all the studies that have been done in this area the implicit emphasis is on why individuals are NOT accurate in their SA ± if only because they often constitute the majority of the subjects studied. Thus, there is much discussion of leniency effects and so on and how to reduce them. The present paper, though, will look at those people who are accurate in their SAs, why they are accurate and how we can use this quality. In other words, instead of trying to find ways of making SA a viable tool in assessment situations for ALL subjects by eliminating inaccuracy, it will consider the possibility of making use of this variability in SA accuracy as an assessment dimension in itself. Why Use Self Assessment Accuracy as a Dimension?A number of studies in differing assessment situations appear to show that SA accuracy correlates with measures of performance effectiveness. Some of these findings are summarised below. In a study of ACs done by Fletcher and Kerslake (1992), 70 candidates were asked to assess themselves on the seven dimensions used in the AC. They were asked to do this immediately before the AC, immediately after it and six months later. Their SAs were correlated with the actual ratings made by the assessors. The results were analysed separately for successful and unsuccessful candidates. The findings showed that there were no significant correlations at all between candidates pre-AC Self Assessments and the ratings they were subsequently given in the A...

show abstract

“…On the one hand, studies revealed that individual differences are important, indicating that, among others, factors such as emotional stability (e.g., Fletcher, Taylor, & Glanfield, 1996), self-efficacy (e.g., Atwater & Brett, 2005), core self-evaluations (e.g., Bono & Colbert, 2005) and goal orientations (e.g., Crown, Slocum, VandeWalle, & Fu, 2005) seem to have an impact on feedback reactions. On the other hand, many situational factors have been found to influence reactions following feedback.…”

Section: Previous Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Closer Look at the Relationship between Justice Perceptions and Feedback Reactions: The role of the quality of the relationship with the supervisor

Feys¹,

Libbrecht²,

Anseel³

et al. 2008

PSYCHOL BELG

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two field studies were undertaken to investigate the nature of the relationship between justice perceptions and feedback reactions. Previous work suggests that the relationship between procedural justice and feedback reactions is mediated by the quality of the relationship with the supervisor. However, there are also good theoretical reasons to hypothesise that the relationship between justice perceptions and feedback reactions is moderated by relationship quality. Across two field studies, we found support for both mediated and moderated relationships. Results of the moderator analyses showed that the positive relationship between justice perceptions and feedback reactions was more pronounced for subordinates in a low-quality relationship with their supervisor. The present results provide useful suggestions for enhancing feedback reactions in organisations.Providing feedback to employees (i.e., giving people information about the outcomes of their achievements with the purpose of stimulating development and learning) is believed to be essential for maintaining and increasing employee motivation and satisfaction (Jawahar, 2006). Although meta-analytic results have shown that feedback interventions do not always increase performance, they suggest that these interventions improve performance on average (Kluger & DeNisi, 1996). In organisations, the assumption also prevails that giving employees feedback is essential to improve individual and organisational performance. Traditionally, organisations rely on performance appraisal and performance reviews as vehicles for giving employees feedback, thereby improving their performance (Gregory & Levy, 2008).Although almost every large organisation uses some type of performance appraisal method, there seems to be quite some dissatisfaction about performance appraisal. Lawler (1994, p. 106) aptly summarised this discontent- 128 JUSTICE PERCEPTIONS AND FEEDBACK REACTIONS ment: "The problem -and it is well documented -is that most performance appraisal systems do not motivate individuals nor guide their development effectively". In recent years, there have been calls to conduct more research about the efforts organisations can undertake to turn performance appraisal into a more effective feedback intervention (e.g., Levy & Williams, 2004). In this regard, it seems especially important to improve our understanding of why and when employees are inclined to accept and use feedback given to them. Only when employees are prepared to use and accept the feedback they receive during performance appraisal, it can be expected that performance appraisal leads to employee development (Anseel, Lievens, & Levy, 2007).The present paper aims to gain a better insight into the factors that can enhance feedback reactions in performance appraisal. Recent research suggests that two principles are of key importance. On the one hand it seems important for employees to establish a good relationship with their supervisor (the provider of feedback). On the other hand it is crucial for employees to ...

show abstract

Acceptance of personality questionnaire feedback: The role of individual difference variables and source of interpretation

Cited by 10 publications

References 25 publications

The implications of research on gender differences in self‐assessment and 360 degree appraisal

The implications of research on gender differences in self‐assessment and 360 degree appraisal

Self Awareness – A Neglected Attribute in Selection and Assessment?

A Closer Look at the Relationship between Justice Perceptions and Feedback Reactions: The role of the quality of the relationship with the supervisor

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About