Self‐ratings, supervisor ratings, positions and performance

Abstract

Self-ratings and supervisor ratings were obtained for 40 unit managers. Self-ratings were predicted by length of service, whereas supervisor ratings were also predicted by previous appraisal ratings, performance, and career progression. Both self-ratings and supervisor ratings predicted subsequent performance in the form of unit admissions and gross profit. The predictive power of self-ratings was explained in terms of the interactive theory of self-efficacy .While the use of supervisor ratings continues to be widespread for purposes of appraisal, placement and promotion, the full potential of self-assessment has yet to be realized. One of the reasons for this imbalance may be that self-assessment has its theoretical roots in a paradigm which is currently unfashionable in applied psychology: interactionism. A second is that the pendulum of fashion in management practice has swung towards the 'manager's right to manage' school of thought and away from employee participation. Reviews of the properties of self-assessment as a psychometric device give some encouragement. Mabe &West (1982) reviewed 55 studies, and Thornton (1980) reviewed 22.In their meta-analytic study, Mabe & West obtained a mean validity of only .29 (SD .25). However, they discovered several moderating variables which predicted the variability in the 55 validity coefficients very successfully (R = .64). These moderators were both personal and situational. The person variables were intelligence, achievement and locus of control. The situational variables were whether the self-raters know that their rating will be compared with their performance; whether they have previous experience of rating themselves; whether the instructions guarantee anonymity; and whether the instructions emphasize comparison with others. Thornton (1980) concentrated upon comparing self-ratings with other forms of rating. He found that they tended to show more leniency error, less variability and less discriminant validity, but had the advantage of being less susceptible to the halo effect. Meyer ( 1980) clearly demonstrated the leniency error by asking employees to compare themselves with others at the same grade in the organization. Forty per cent placed themselves in the top 10 per cent, although this effect was attenuated when the Dr. John Lane is a Director of

Criterion validation of two approaches to performance appraisal: The behavioral observation scale and the relative percentile method

“…We correlated our relative and absolute performance measures with criteria that various researchers (e.g., Cascio, 1991;Lane & Herriot, 1990;McEvoy & Cascio, 1987;Schmidt & Hunter, 1981;Strong, 1934;Tett, Jackson, & Rothstein, 1991) have linked to performance. These criteria included personality and vocational interests, cognitive ability, organizational commitment, organizational tenure, level of position, turnover, and age.…”

A study of individual differences and self‐awareness in the context of multi‐source feedback

“…A great deal of research in the eld has focused upon how and why ratings from diVerent sources (self, boss, peer, subordinate) vary. Factors producing bias in ratings from diVerent groups have been investigated, such as the in uence of friendship (McEvoy, 1990;McEvoy & Buller, 1987), amount of contact between self and external raters (Pollack & Pollack, 1996), diVerent performance evaluation schemes held by diVerent rating groups (Rubin, 1995) as well as idiosyncrasies of ratings from certain groups (Lane & Herriot, 1990). The notion behind much of this research is that controlling for these factors (seen as extraneous forms of bias) would result in increased congruence between self-and others ratings-hence greater SAw-for all target managers.…”

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

“…Perhaps most important, however, self-ratings of competences are likely to influence a person's work performance. The literature on self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977(Bandura, ,1986 indicates that the more aperson believes that they can successfully carry out the behaviour required to achieve effective performance on a particular task, the better they are likely to perform (for a review see Robertson & Sadri, 1990; and for specific examples see Barling & Beattie, 1983;Fox & Dinur, 1988;and Lane & Herriot, 1990). To the extent that self-rated competences reflect self-efficacy, we can therefore expect them to have an impact on work performance.…”