Self-other rating discrepancy and personality antecedents
This study explored individual difference factors to help explain the discrepancy that has been found to exist between self and other ratings in prior research. Particularly, personality characteristics of the self-rater were researched in the current study as a potential antecedent for self-other rating agreement. Self, peer, and supervisor ratings were provided for global performance as well as five competencies specific to the organization being examined. Four rating tendency categories, over-raters, under-raters, in-agreement (good), and in-agreement (poor), established in research by Atwater and Yammarino were used as the basis of the current research. The sample for rating comparisons within the current study consisted of 283 self and supervisor dyads and 275 for self and peer dyads from a large financial organization. Measures included a custom multi-rater performance instrument and the personality survey instrument, ASSESS, which measures 20 specific personality characteristics. MANCOVAs were then performed on this data to examine if specific personality characteristics significantly distinguished the four rating tendency groups. Examination of all personality dimensions and overall performance uncovered significant findings among rating groups for self-supervisor rating comparisons but not for self-peer rating comparisons. Examination of specific personality dimensions for self-supervisory ratings group comparisons and overall performance showed Detail Interest to be an important characteristic among the hypothesized variables. For self-supervisor rating comparisons and specific competencies, support was found for the hypothesized personality dimension of Fact-based Thinking which distinguished the four rating groups for the competency, Builds Relationships. For both self-supervisor and self-peer rating comparisons, the competencies, Builds Relationships and Leads in a Learning Environment, were found to have significant relationship with several personality characteristics, however, these relationships were not consistent with the hypotheses in the current study. Several unhypothesized personality dimensions were also found to distinguish rating groups for both self-supervisor and self-peer comparisons on overall performance and various competencies. Results of the current study hold implications for the training and development session that occur after a 360-degree evaluation process. Particularly, it is suggested that feedback sessions may be designed according to particular rating tendencies to maximize the interpretation, acceptance and use of evaluation information.
Ratings & rankings;
0451: Social psychology