Self‐ratings and supervisor ratings of graduate employees' competences during early career

Abstract

Self‐ratings and supervisor perceptions of employee work competences are likely to have substantial effects on work performance, supervisor–subordinate relationships and perceptions of training needs. Yet little is known about how people in early career view their competences; whether their supervisors share their views; or whether ratings of competences vary between organizations and/or with tenure. This paper draws on the self‐assessment and other literatures to identify seven questions which are then addressed using ratings on five competence dimensions from 784 graduates and 531 managers of graduates in eight UK‐based organizations. As predicted, mean ratings differed between competence dimensions and organizations, and self‐ratings were higher than manager ratings. The magnitude of the discrepancy between graduates and managers varied between competence dimensions, but not between organizations. Self‐ratings did not generally increase with tenure. The implications of the results for graduate career development are discussed, with particular reference to organizational practices for fostering feelings of competence, and the role of the supervisor in such practices.

A competence‐based and multidimensional operationalization and measurement of employability

“…Paired samples t-tests confirm that, for each scale, the self-ratings are systematically higher than the corresponding supervisor ratings. In other words, the previously mentioned leniency effect (Arnold & MacKenzie Daveys, 1992;Campbell & Lee, 1988;Harris & Schaubroeck, 1988;Hoffman, Nathan, & Holden, 1991;Holzbach, 1978), the tendency of employees to provide a somewhat rosier image of themselves, was found in our data. The rating differences might also be explained by the fact that supervisors, in their roles as (stringent) judges of their employees' performance and behavior, tend to emphasize the negative side relatively more than the positive side of employee functioning.…”

“…Moreover, selfratings have been demonstrated to be more reliable when employees are aware that ratings are also being given by their supervisors (Mabe & West, 1982), because the leniency effect is suppressed (Arnold & MacKenzie Daveys, 1992;Campbell & Lee, 1988;Harris & Schaubroeck, 1988;Hoffman, Nathan, & Holden, 1991;Holzbach, 1978). We test for rater bias in supervisor and self-ratings in the validity analyses and report these in our results.…”

Employee perspectives on communication and consultation: findings from a cross-national survey

“…In general, self-ratings differ one half to one standard deviation from ratings by supervisors or by near colleagues (Arnold and MacKenzie Daveys, 1992;Harris and Schaubroeck, 1988;Hoffman, Nathan and Holden, 1991;Holzbach, 1978). People are inclined to present themselves in a positive light.…”

The measurement and enhancement of employability and career success: over different life and career stages

“…Paired samples t-tests confirm that, for each scale, the self-ratings are systematically higher than the corresponding supervisor ratings. In other words, the previously mentioned leniency effect (Arnold & MacKenzie Daveys, 1992;Campbell & Lee, 1988;Harris & Schaubroeck, 1988;Hoffman, Nathan, & Holden, 1991;Holzbach, 1978), the tendency of employees to provide a somewhat rosier image of themselves, was found in our data. The rating differences might also be explained by the fact that supervisors, in their roles as (stringent) judges of their employees' performance and behavior, tend to emphasize the negative side relatively more than the positive side of employee functioning.…”

“…Moreover, selfratings have been demonstrated to be more reliable when employees are aware that ratings are also being given by their supervisors (Mabe & West, 1982), because the leniency effect is suppressed (Arnold & MacKenzie Daveys, 1992;Campbell & Lee, 1988;Harris & Schaubroeck, 1988;Hoffman, Nathan, & Holden, 1991;Holzbach, 1978). We test for rater bias in supervisor and self-ratings in the validity analyses and report these in our results.…”