This study investigated employees' views about how their supervisors would rate their job performance (i.e., employees' metaperceptions). Two hundred forty employees from a high-tech firm provided self-and metaperception job performance ratings, and their supervisors also provided ratings of the employees' performance. The study produced several notable findings, including that metaperceptions were more strongly related to supervisory ratings than were self-ratings, that meta-accuracy was stronger for task versus contextual performance, and that employees who engaged in more impression management behavior exhibited higher meta-accuracy. Discussion focuses on the theoretical and practical implications of these findings.