Buddy Ratings: Popularity Contest or Leadership Criteria?

Wherry, Robert J.; Fryer, Douglas

doi:10.2307/2785385

Cited by 40 publications

(41 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We know of four prior studies supporting the latter view, studies that have evaluated peer ratings of leadership and indicators of popularity or friendship in the context of actual leadership performance in the military. All four showed that soldiers' perceptions of leader emergence substantially predicted leader performance, even when the effect of popularity was taken into account(Amir, Kovarsky, & Sharan, 1970;Hollander, 1965;Wherry & Fryer, 1949;Williams & Leavitt, 1947).…”

mentioning

confidence: 94%

Narcissism and emergent leadership in military cadets

Paunonen

Lönnqvist

Verkasalo

et al. 2006

The Leadership Quarterly

169

131

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

mentioning

confidence: 94%

Narcissism and emergent leadership in military cadets

Paunonen

Lönnqvist

Verkasalo

et al. 2006

The Leadership Quarterly

169

131

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…As further evidence to support this hypothesis, the present study concerned itself with the ability of leaderless group-discussion observers to identify, on the basis of a 30-minute group discussion, the leaders of a college fraternity who were previously and independently nominated by means of buddy ratings. Wherry and Fryer (6) have shown the validity of such ratings as leadership criteria.…”

mentioning

confidence: 98%

Situational Tests: III. Observers' Ratings of Leaderless Group Discussion Participants as Indicators of External Leadership Status

Bass

White

1951

Educational and Psychological Measurement

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

THE leaderless group discussion is a technique for the assessment of candidates for leadership positions in which the assessors observe but do not participate in a discussion carried on by a group of candidates. No discussion leader is appointed.In a series of previous publications, the senior author presented a survey of reports on the leaderless group discussion completed prior to 1949 (2). He demonstrated: (a) that there was test-retest consistency in the behavior of candidates placed in leaderless group discussions (i); (b) that reliable ratings could be made of leaderless group-discussion participants by observers (I, 4); (c) that trained company representatives rated candidates for sales or supervisory positions just as reliably on the basis of leaderless group discussions as on the basis of individual interviews (4) ; and (d) that a low positive correlation (.45) existed between ratings obtained by both procedures (5). The series of studies cited above all suggested that the leaderless group discussion might provide a method for identifying potential leaders of situations involving verbal interaction. As further evidence to support this hypothesis, the present study concerned itself with the ability of leaderless group-discussion observers to identify, on the basis of a 30-minute group discussion, the leaders of a college fraternity who were previously and independently nominated by means of buddy ratings. Wherry and Fryer (6) have shown the validity of such ratings as leadership criteria.

show abstract

“…How the others are doing is a significant determinant of one's own standing in the group. Numerous studies offer impressive evidence that peer evaluations are reliable indicators of a student's immediate and future performance success (Hollander, 1956a(Hollander, , 1956b(Hollander, , 1957(Hollander, , 1965Hollander and Webb, 1949;Wherry and Fryer, 1949;Suci et al, 1954;Medland and 01an, 1964).…”

Section: Evaluation Of and By Fellow Studentsmentioning

confidence: 96%