Self- versus others' ratings as predictors of assessment center ratings: Validation evidence for 360-degree feedback programs.

Although 360-degree feedback programs are rapidly increasing in popularity, few studies have examined how well ratings from these programs predict an independent criterion. This study had 2 main aims: First, to examine the validity of ratings from a 360-degree feedback program using assessment center ratings as an independent criterion and to determine which source (i.e., self, supervisor, peers, or subordinates) provided the most valid predictor of the criterion measure of competency. Second, to better understand the relationship between self-observer discrepancies and an independent criterion. The average of supervisor, peer, and subordinate ratings predicted performance on the assessment center, as did the supervisor ratings alone. The self-ratings were negatively and nonlinearly related to performance with some of those who gave themselves the highest ratings having the lowest performance on the assessment center. Supervisor ratings successfully discriminated between overestimators but were not as successful at discriminating underestimators, suggesting that more modest feedback recipients might be underrated by their supervisors. Peers overestimated performance for poor performers. Explanations of the results and the implications for the use of self-ratings in evaluations, the design of feedback reports, and the use of 360-degree feedback programs for involving and empowering staff are discussed.

[1]  Michael P. Kirsch,et al.  METAANALYSES OF VALIDITY STUDIES PUBLISHED BETWEEN 1964 AND 1982 AND THE INVESTIGATION OF STUDY CHARACTERISTICS , 1984 .

[2]  S. Carless,et al.  Managerial assessment centres: What is being rated? , 1997 .

[3]  Adrian Furnham,et al.  Congruence of self and subordinate ratings of managerial practices as a correlate of supervisor evaluation , 1994 .

[4]  Richard R. Reilly,et al.  AN EXAMINATION OF THE EFFECTS OF AN UPWARD FEEDBACK PROGRAM OVER TIME , 1995 .

[5]  L. Atwater,et al.  THE INFLUENCE OF UPWARD FEEDBACK ON SELF‐ AND FOLLOWER RATINGS OF LEADERSHIP , 1995 .

[6]  Dianne Nilsen,et al.  Self–observer rating discrepancies: Once an overrater, always an overrater? , 1993 .

[7]  Jeffrey R. Edwards,et al.  Problems with the use of profile similarity indices in the study of congruence in organizational research. , 1993 .

[8]  Paul R. Sackett,et al.  Constructs and assessment center dimensions: Some troubling empirical findings , 1982 .

[9]  Walter W. Tornow,et al.  Perceptions or reality: Is multi-perspective measurement a means or an end? , 1993 .

[10]  Manuel London,et al.  RATINGS OF MANAGERIAL CHARACTERISTICS: EVALUATION DIFFICULTY, CO‐WORKER AGREEMENT, AND SELF‐AWARENESS , 1989 .

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

[12]  Anne S. Tsui,et al.  Interpersonal affect and rating errors. , 1986 .

[13]  John W. Fleenor,et al.  Self-other rating agreement and leader effectiveness , 1996 .

[14]  A. H. Church,et al.  Managerial self-awareness in high-performing individuals in organizations. , 1997, The Journal of applied psychology.

[15]  F. Yammarino,et al.  Congruence of Self and Others' Leadership Ratings of Naval Officers for Understanding Successful Performance , 1991 .

[16]  Ivan T. Robertson,et al.  The psychometric properties and design of managerial assessment centres: Dimensions into exercises won't go , 1987 .

[17]  James W. Smither,et al.  A Field Study of Reactions to Normative versus Individualized Upward Feedback , 1995 .

[18]  George C. Thornton,et al.  Meta-analysis of assessment center validity. , 1987 .

[19]  Sarah A. Hezlett,et al.  The impact of 360‐degree feedback on management skills development , 1993 .

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

[21]  Richard R. Reilly,et al.  A LONGITUDINAL STUDY OF UPWARD FEEDBACK , 1996 .

[22]  N. Schmitt,et al.  An exercise design approach to understanding assessment center dimension and exercise constructs. , 1992 .

[23]  Murray R. Barrick,et al.  Conscientiousness and performance of sales representatives: Test of the mediating effects of goal setting. , 1993 .

[24]  L. Mann,et al.  Leadership, Managerial Performance and 360-Degree Feedback , 1998 .

[25]  J. Edwards.  The Study of Congruence in Organizational Behavior Research: Critique and a Proposed Alternative , 1994 .

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

[27]  Stephen G. West,et al.  Validity of self-evaluation of ability: A review and meta-analysis , 1982 .

[28]  Jeffrey R. Edwards,et al.  On the Use of Polynomial Regression Equations As An Alternative to Difference Scores in Organizational Research , 1993 .

[29]  A. Bandura.  Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. , 1977, Psychological review.

[30]  James W. Smither,et al.  A FIVE‐YEAR STUDY OF UPWARD FEEDBACK: WHAT MANAGERS DO WITH THEIR RESULTS MATTERS , 1999 .

[31]  M. Mount,et al.  Psychometric properties of subordinate ratings of managerial performance. , 1984 .

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

[33]  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 .

[34]  J. Leslie,et al.  An examination of the relationships among self‐perception accuracy, self‐awareness, gender, and leader effectiveness , 1993 .

[35]  Murray R. Barrick,et al.  THE BIG FIVE PERSONALITY DIMENSIONS AND JOB PERFORMANCE: A META-ANALYSIS , 1991 .