A Social Relations Analysis of Team Performance Ratings

The current study used a Social Relations Model to analyze self and peer ratings to explore the dynamics of team member perceptions and performance ratings. The results from 29 organizational teams who completed performance ratings of themselves and team members indicated that the most rating variance was attributed to the relationship component, followed by the ratee component, followed by the rater component. Among other findings, the results indicated that self-ratings were related to how one rates, and is rated by, others; that there were high levels of reciprocity between peers for dimensions that were interpersonal in nature; and that raters tended to evaluate others within, but not necessarily across, dimensions similarly.

[1]  D. K. Marcus.  Studying group dynamics with the social relations model. , 1998 .

[2]  Frank J. Landy,et al.  The measurement of work performance : methods, theory and applications / Frank J. Landy, James L. Farr , 1983 .

[3]  D. K. Marcus,et al.  Interpersonal perception in group therapy: a social relations analysis. , 1994, Journal of consulting and clinical psychology.

[4]  L. Ross,et al.  The “false consensus effect”: An egocentric bias in social perception and attribution processes , 1977 .

[5]  Dennis J. Devine,et al.  Teams in Organizations , 1999 .

[6]  Richard E. Doll,et al.  IMPROVING THE PREDICTIVE EFFECTIVENESS OF PEER RATINGS , 1962 .

[7]  Bernadette Park,et al.  A social relations analysis of agreement in liking judgments. , 1989 .

[8]  W. Borman,et al.  Format and training effects on rating accuracy and rater errors , 1979 .

[9]  E. R. Smith,et al.  Beyond the actor's traits: forming impressions of actors, targets, and relationships from social behaviors. , 1993, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[10]  K. Murphy,et al.  PROGRESS IN PSYCHOMETRICS: CAN INDUSTRIAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY CATCH UP? , 2000 .

[11]  D. A. Kenny,et al.  A social relations variance partitioning of dyadic behavior. , 2001, Psychological bulletin.

[12]  Francis J. Yammarino,et al.  DOES SELF‐OTHER AGREEMENT ON LEADERSHIP PERCEPTIONS MODERATE THE VALIDITY OF LEADERSHIP AND PERFORMANCE PREDICTIONS? , 1992 .

[13]  Chet Robie,et al.  Applying the social relations model to self and peer evaluations , 2001 .

[14]  Stephen J. Zaccaro,et al.  An estimate of variance due to traits in leadership. , 1983 .

[15]  D. A. Kenny,et al.  Do we know how much people like one another? , 1996, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[16]  D. A. Kenny,et al.  Interpersonal Perception: A Social Relations Analysis , 1988 .

[17]  K. Kraiger,et al.  Generalizability Theory as Construct-Related Evidence of the Validity of Job Performance Ratings , 1990 .

[18]  R. Bales,et al.  Personality and Interpersonal Behavior. , 1971 .

[19]  D. A. Kenny,et al.  The Social Relations Model , 1984 .

[20]  A. Hare,et al.  Implicit Personality Theory, Social Desirability, and Reflected Appraisal of Self in the Context of New Field Theory (SYMLOG) , 1996 .

[21]  Francis J. Yammarino,et al.  SELF‐OTHER AGREEMENT: DOES IT REALLY MATTER? , 1998 .

[22]  D. Paulhus,et al.  Enhancing target variance in personality impressions: highlighting the person in person perception. , 1995, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[23]  D. A. Kenny,et al.  A New Round Robin Analysis of Variance for Social Interaction Data , 1979 .

[24]  A. H. Church,et al.  Advancing the State of the Art of 360-Degree Feedback , 1997 .

[25]  R. Bales,et al.  Symlog, A System for the Multiple Level Observation of Groups , 1979 .

[26]  James W. Smither,et al.  CAN MULTI-SOURCE FEEDBACK CHANGE PERCEPTIONS OF GOAL ACCOMPLISHMENT, SELF-EVALUATIONS, AND PERFORMANCE-RELATED OUTCOMES? THEORY-BASED APPLICATIONS AND DIRECTIONS FOR RESEARCH , 1995 .

[27]  Barry R. Nathan,et al.  Interpersonal Relations as a Context For the Effects of Appraisal Interviews on Performance and Satisfaction: A Longitudinal Study , 1991 .

[28]  Deborah A. Kashy,et al.  The Social Relations Model: A Tool for Group Psychotherapy Research. , 1995 .

[29]  R. Brennan.  Elements of generalizability theory , 1983 .

[30]  Kevin R. Murphy,et al.  Understanding Performance Appraisal: Social, Organizational, and Goal-Based Perspectives , 1995 .

[31]  D. K. Marcus,et al.  Studying Perceptions of Juror Influence In Vivo: A Social Relations Analysis , 2000, Law and human behavior.

[32]  Deidra J. Schleicher,et al.  A field study of the effects of rating purpose on the quality of multisource ratings. , 2003 .

[33]  C. Judd,et al.  Agreement on initial impressions: Differences due to perceivers, trait dimensions, and target behaviors. , 1989 .

[34]  Jeanette N Cleveland,et al.  Raters who pursue different goals give different ratings. , 2004, The Journal of applied psychology.

[35]  R. R. Reno,et al.  Perceiving groups accurately. , 1999 .

[36]  D. A. Kenny,et al.  Consequences of violating the independence assumption in analysis of variance. , 1986 .

[37]  Hannah R. Rothstein,et al.  Interrater reliability of job performance ratings: Growth to asymptote level with increasing opportunity to observe. , 1990 .

[38]  Chet Robie,et al.  A new look at within-source interrater reliability of 360-degree feedback ratings. , 1998 .

[39]  T. Malloy,et al.  Perceptions and Metaperceptions of Leadership: Components, Accuracy, and Dispositional Correlates , 1992 .

[40]  Robert J. Wherry,et al.  THE CONTROL OF BIAS IN RATINGS: A THEORY OF RATING , 1982 .

[41]  R. Vance,et al.  A LONGITUDINAL EXAMINATION OF RATER AND RATEE EFFECTS IN PERFORMANCE RATINGS , 1983 .

[42]  Chockalingam Viswesvaran,et al.  Role of social desirability in personality testing for personnel selection: The red herring. , 1996 .

[43]  James W. Smither.  Performance appraisal : state of the art in practice , 1998 .

[44]  D. A. Kenny,et al.  Reciprocity of self-disclosure at the individual and dyadic levels: A social relations analysis. , 1986 .

[45]  Kevin R. Murphy,et al.  INTERRATER CORRELATIONS DO NOT ESTIMATE THE RELIABILITY OF JOB PERFORMANCE RATINGS , 2000 .

[46]  Jennifer G. Boldry,et al.  Intergroup perception in naturally occurring groups of differential status : A social relations perspective , 1999 .

[47]  Patrick M. Wright,et al.  Measurement error in research on human resources and firm performance: How much error is there and how does it influence effect size estimates? , 2000 .

[48]  Noreen M. Webb,et al.  Reliability (generalizability) of job performance measurements: Navy machinist mates. , 1989 .

[49]  Stephen G. Clyman,et al.  Components of Rater Error in a Complex Performance Assessment , 1999 .

[50]  Chockalingam Viswesvaran,et al.  Comparative analysis of the reliability of job performance ratings , 1996 .

[51]  D. A. Kenny,et al.  The social relations model: an integrative method for personality research , 1986 .

[52]  R. Sabatelli.  The Social Psychology of Groups , 2000 .

[53]  John Schaubroeck,et al.  A meta-analysis of self-supervisor, self-peer, and peer-supervisor ratings. , 1988 .

[54]  A. Gouldner.  THE NORM OF RECIPROCITY: A PRELIMINARY STATEMENT * , 1960 .

[55]  Allen I. Huffcutt,et al.  Psychometric properties of multisource performance ratings: A meta-analysis of subordinate, supervisor, peer, and self-ratings. , 1997 .