personality antecedents of self-other rating discrepancy ... · la personalidad como antecedente de...

Revista de Psicología del Trabajo y de las OrganizacionesVol. 28, n.° 1, 2012 - Págs. 3-14

Copyright 2012 by the Colegio Oficial de Psicólogos de MadridISSN: 1576-5962 - http://dx.doi.org/10.5093/tr2012a1

Personality Antecedents of Self-Other Rating Discrepancy

La Personalidad como Antecedente de la Discrepancia Autovaloraciones-Valoraciones de Otros

Nila Sinha Jessica Mesmer-Magnus Chockalingam ViswesvaranAssess Systems-A Bigby HavisCompany University of North Carolina Wilmington Florida International University

Abstract. Multi-rater feedback systems are increasingly being used in organizations for assessment anddevelopment. Research suggests self-ratings are often uncorrelated with other-ratings, which has implica-tions for ratee receptivity to feedback. Prior research suggests ratee personality may offer insight into self-other rating discrepancy. We explored the extent to which five work-related personality dimensions offerexplanatory variance in self-other rating discrepancy using archival data of 527 employees from a largefinancial organization. Analyses of 487 self-peer dyads and 501 self-supervisor dyads revealed low agree-ment among self-, supervisor-, and peer-ratings of performance. Self-raters high on extraversion, domi-nance, cultural conformity, cynicism, and detail orientation were somewhat likely to over-rate their per-formance as compared to peer ratings. Cynical and detail-oriented raters were likely to over-rate their per-formance as compared with supervisor ratings. Detail orientation and cultural conformity interacted to pre-dict self-other rating discrepancies for both supervisors and peers. Implications for research and practiceare discussed.Keywords: self-other rating discrepancy, rater personality, supervisor/peer ratings, 360-feedback.

Resumen. En los últimos tiempos, se está incrementando el uso de sistemas de feedback multi-evaluadorpor parte de las organizaciones para la evaluación y el desarrollo de su personal. La investigación sugiereque las autoevaluaciones del desempeño a menudo no correlacionan con las evaluaciones de los demás, loque tiene implicaciones para la receptividad del evaluado al feedback. La investigación previa sugiere quela personalidad del evaluado puede ser un punto importante en la discrepancia entre las autoevaluacionesy las evaluaciones de los otros. En el presente estudio se exploró el grado en que cinco dimensiones depersonalidad relacionadas con el trabajo explican la varianza en la discrepancia entre las autoevaluacionesy las evaluaciones de los otros, usando los datos de archivo de 527 empleados de una gran organizaciónfinanciera. El análisis de 487 parejas de autoevaluaciones y evaluaciones de los compañeros y 501 pare-jas de autoevaluaciones y evaluaciones de los supervisores reveló un bajo acuerdo entre las autoevaluacio-nes, las evaluaciones de los supervisores y las evaluaciones de los compañeros. Los evaluados altos enextraversión, dominancia, conformidad cultural, cinismo y orientación al detalle fueron algo más proba-bles a sobre-estimar su desempeño en las autoevaluaciones comparadas con las evaluaciones que recibíande sus compañeros. Los evaluados cínicos y orientados al detalle tendieron a sobre-estimar su desempeñoen comparación con las evaluaciones de sus supervisores. La orientación al detalle y la conformidad cul-tural interactuaron para predecir las discrepancias entre las autoevaluaciones y las evaluaciones de lossupervisores y los compañeros. Finalmente, se discuten las implicaciones para la investigación y la prác-tica profesional de estos hallazgos.Palabras clave: discrepancia autoevaluaciones-evaluaciones de los otros, personalidad del evaluador, eva-luaciones de los supervisores y compañeros, feedback 360.

Multi-rater performance evaluations (like 360-degree feedback) are increasing in popularity as organ-izations are realizing the benefits of triangulating per-formance data by gathering different perspectives(Conway, Lombardo, & Sanders, 2001; Van Hooft,Van Der Flier, & Minne, 2006). Interestingly, researchresults obtained from such instruments has substantiat-ed Thornton’s (1980) observation that “individualshave a significantly different view of their own job

performance than that held by other people” (Harris &Schaubroeck, 1988, p. 43). In fact, although rating dis-crepancies may occur between any two raters in the360 process, the most striking of these discrepanciestends to exist between self-ratings and ratings provid-ed by other sources (e.g., supervisor, peer; Thornton,1980; Wohlers & London, 1989). In fact, prior researchhas estimated self-other ratings correlations to belower than .20 (Atwater & Yammarino, 1992; Carless,Mann, & Wearing, 1998; Conway & Huffcutt, 1997;Schmitt, Ford, & Stults, 1986). Rating discrepancy canhave negative consequences to employee satisfactionand performance (Bono & Colbert, 2005), and nega-tive implications for the validity of performance

Please address correspondence regarding this manuscript to JessicaMesmer-Magnus at the University of North Carolina Wilmington,601 South College Road, Wilmington, NC 28403 USA;[email protected].

appraisal instruments (Facteau & Craig, 2001; Murphy& DeShon, 2000).What factors relate to self-other rating discrepancy?

Prior research has explored a variety of factors whichmay predict rating discrepancy, including biographicalcharacteristics, cognitive processes, contextual factorsand job-related experiences (Yammarino & Atwater,1997). Self-rater personality is an underexplored factorwith the potential to offer unique insight into ratingdiscrepancies (Goffin & Anderson, 2006; Yammarino& Atwater, 1997). Further, researchers have arguedthat an understanding of the personality characteristicsthat contribute to and/or correlate with inflated self-rat-ings would potentially enable greater value to bederived from developmental feedback sessions, partic-ularly when these sessions are held with raters prone toinflated self-ratings (Brett & Atwater, 2001; Goffin &Anderson, 2006; Sosik & Godshalk, 2004).In this study, we explore the role of five specific work-

related personality characteristics of the self-rater (extra-version, dominance, cultural conformity, cynicism, anddetail orientation) in predicting self-peer and self-super-visor rating discrepancy. We focus on the personality ofthe self-rater rather than that of other-raters for severalreasons. First, in multi-rater performance instruments,personality idiosyncrasies of other raters are likely to beaveraged out. Second, prior research suggests the dis-crepancy between self and peer/supervisor performanceratings is greater than that between peers and supervi-sors, suggesting the self-rater’s personality may explainunique variance (Conway & Huffcutt, 1997; Facteau &Craig, 2001; Harris & Schaubroeck, 1988). Third, attri-bution theory and the actor-observer bias (Jones &Harris, 1967; Jones & Nisbett, 1971) suggest self-ratersare more likely than other-raters to attribute poor per-formance to situational/external factors rather than inter-nal factors. Due to the underlying mechanisms associat-ed with these attributions, the self-rater personality is themost relevant focus.

Importance of Investigating Determinants of Self-Other Rating Discrepancy

Research suggests self-other rating discrepancy maypresage certain work outcomes for the rater; the natureof these outcomes differs depending on whether therater tended to over-estimate, under-estimate, or accu-rately estimate their performance in relation to others’ratings (Sosik & Godshalk, 2004; Yammarino &Atwater, 1997). The most negative outcomes are asso-ciated with over-estimators. Over-estimators arethought to provide inaccurate ratings because they areignorant to what others think of them (which is rein-forced by the well-known tendency for managers toavoid the discomfort associated with givingaccurate/clear negative feedback) and because theytend to discount negative feedback while accepting

positive feedback as both accurate and informational(Yammarino & Atwater, 1997). According toYammarino & Atwater (1997), these individuals tendto (1) have an unclear perception of their own strengthsand weaknesses, (2) have negative attitudes (e.g., hos-tility and resentment), (3) not see the need for trainingand development thus suffering from career derail-ment, and (4) have high absenteeism, low organiza-tional commitment, high turnover, and frequent con-flict with coworkers. Although they are unlikely to seebehavior change as necessary, they have the most togain from developmental feedback offered by multi-rater performance systems, and when feedback is care-fully provided (e.g., via one-on-one performancereview sessions, with a clear developmental plan inplace, and tailored to their needs), they may be willingto take steps to improve their performance (Yammari-no & Atwater, 1997).Negative consequences may also occur when indi-

viduals underrate themselves in comparison with rat-ings provided by others. Specifically, these individualstend to have an unclear idea of their ownstrengths/weaknesses, set low aspiration levels, under-achieve, and make ineffective job-relevant decisions(Yammarino & Atwater, 1997). Johnson and Ferstl(1999) found that under-estimators’ performance actu-ally tended to decline following performance feed-back, suggesting it is particularly important to effec-tively manage the feedback/development process withthese individuals. Self-consistency theory would sug-gest this occurs because the individual works to changetheir behavior to be more consistent with internal eval-uations (Johnson & Ferstl, 1999; Korman, 1970,1976). Importantly, if given the opportunity, they tendto engage in effective behaviors as mentors and leadersin mentor-protégé and supervisor/subordinate relation-ships (Sosik & Godshalk, 2004).

Self-Other Ratings in Multi-Rater Feedback

Compared with other evaluative techniques, 360-degree evaluation provides a comprehensive picture ofindividual job effectiveness by gathering informationfrom all vital stakeholders in the workplace. Unlikeother performance evaluation methods, 360-degreefeedback makes individuals accountable to coworkers,customers, and subordinates as well as supervisorsbecause they know that these individuals will be provid-ing input on performance evaluations. Further, althoughsupervisor evaluations are commonly used performanceindicators, these tools raise validity concerns when thesupervisor is unable to routinely observe employee jobperformance, does not adequately understand theemployee’s job, or is prone to rating bias/error (Harris &Schraubroeck, 1988; Landy & Farr, 1980; Mount, 1998;Sosik & Godshalk, 2004). Such concerns are under-scored by meta-analytic research which has found the

4 SELF-OTHER RATING DISCREPANCY



average correlation between two managers’ perform-ance evaluations of a ratee to be only .50-.52, betweentwo peers to be only .37-.46, and between two directreports to be only .30 (Conway & Huffcutt, 1997;Viswesvaran, Ones, & Schmidt, 1996).A number of factors may account for disagreement

among raters. For example, Harris and Schaubroeck(1988) suggested egocentric biases of the self-rater anddifferences in organizational level and observationalopportunities of other-raters may explain some dis-agreement. Others argue rating discrepancy is due toeither an inherent difference in psychological process-ing between actors (self-raters) and observers (other-raters; Farh & Dobbins, 1989; Jones & Nisbett, 1971)or raters focusing on different aspects of work per-formance associated with their unique perspectives(Farh & Dobbins, 1989; Klimoski & London, 1974;Murphy & DeShon, 2000).Yammarino and Atwater (1997) found self-raters

provided more consistent ratings with other-raterswhen they were higher in cognitive ability, had agreater ability to process information, better memorycapacity, and were more mentally stable. Research alsosuggests females tend to be more accurate in their self-ratings of performance and more open to feedback thanmales (Atwater & Yammarino, 1997; Roberts, 1991;Wohlers & London, 1989); individuals with greatertenure at an organization tend to be less accurate intheir ratings and less likely to seek feedback than indi-viduals who more recently joined the organization(Ashford, 1989; Levine, Flory & Ash, 1977); and indi-viduals in supervisory or leadership positions tend torate themselves more similarly to others’ ratings thannon-leaders/supervisors (Gallo & McClintock, 1962).In line with social attribution theory, research byAshford (1989), Harris and Schaubroeack (1988) andJones and Nisbett (1971) suggests self-raters whobelieve failure was due to circumstances beyond theircontrol will likely adjust their self-evaluation accord-ingly whereas other-raters are less likely to make thissame adjustment. Others have found that individualsmay be more likely to provide accurate self-ratingswhen they know their ratings will be confirmed usingobjective data (Schlenker, Weingold, & Hallam, 1990),the rating scales provide clear anchors for ratings(Ashford, 1989; Wohlers & London, 1989), and theyhave experience providing self-ratings (Levine, Flory,& Ash, 1977). Previous experience with success/fail-ure and positive/negative feedback from the job alsotends to affect the accuracy of self-ratings (Atwater &Yammarino, 1997; Fry, 1976; Swann, 1983).

Personality Characteristics Potentially Associatedwith Self-Other Rating Discrepancy

Research suggests rater personality characteristicsare also a likely underlying factor associated with rat-

ing (Campbell, 1993; Goffin & Anderson, 2006:Yammarino & Atwater, 1997). Like personality, ratingtendencies tend to be stable across time (Campbell,1993), suggesting some stable, underlying factor con-tributes to self-rating. Bernardin, Cooke and Villanova(2000) found that raters who were both agreeable andless conscientious made the most lenient ratings.Atwater and Yammarino (1997) cite several personali-ty factors which may be related to rating consensus,including locus of control, self-esteem, and depression.Seaman (1963) found individuals with an internallocus of control were more likely to have self-assess-ments aligned with viewpoints of others and weremore likely to retain performance information.Similarly, high self-esteem individuals are more likelyto provide accurate ratings and seek feedback than lowself-esteem individuals (Kernis, 1991). Goffin andAnderson (2006) found need for achievement and self-esteem were associated with self-other rating discrep-ancies resulting from self-rating inflation, and anxietywas associated with self-supervisor rating discrepancyresulting from self-rating deflation. We explore therole of five work-related personality dimensions oftenassessed as a part of 360 evaluation in self-other ratingdiscrepancy: extraversion, dominance, cultural con-formity, cynicism, and detail orientation.Extraversion. Extraverted individuals tend to seek

out and feel comfortable in social situations whereasindividuals high on introversion tend to relish solitudeand be less interested in spending time with others.Yammarino and Atwater (1993) found extraversioninfluenced an individual’s self-perception; similarly,Farmer, Jarvis, Berent, and Corbett (2001) found extra-version predicted an individual’s self-esteem.Checcino’s (1997) study of 194 middle school studentsfound extraverted students provided higher self-evalu-ations of school performance than introverted students,though there was no difference in actual performancelevels across the two groups. Visser, Ashton, andVernon (2008) found most individuals tended to over-estimate their own intelligence, but this was particular-ly true of extraverted individuals. Wymer and Penner’s(1985) experiments on undergraduate psychology stu-dents were relevant to rating congruence in that theyfound introverts knew themselves better thanextraverts because they spent more time in self-reflec-tion; as such, they provided more accurate self-ratings.In their study of student leaders at the US NavalAcademy, Roush and Atwater (1992) also found indi-viduals high on introversion provided performance rat-ings better aligned with those provided by their subor-dinates. Meleddu and Guicciardi (1998) foundextraverted individuals tend to provide more sociallydesirable ratings. In the context of 360 performanceevaluation, an extraverted individual may be inclinedto provide high self-ratings of performance as thesemay be seen as more socially desirable than lower rat-ings. Given these findings, we expect:



NILA SINHA, JESSICA MESMER-MAGNUS, AND CHOCKALINGAM VISWESVARAN 5

Hypothesis 1: Individuals high on extraversion willbe more likely to over-estimate their own performanceas compared with supervisor- and peer-ratings thanindividuals low on extraversion.

Dominance. Individuals high in dominance arecharacterized as enjoying the act of exerting control.An exploratory study using the California PersonalityInventory found that the scale of dominance predicteddifferences in supervisor self-ratings and ratings pro-vided by others on a multi-rater performance instru-ment (Brutus, Fleenor, & McCauley, 1999). Brutus etal. (1999) suggest that dominance influences howindividuals evaluate their own behavior and leader-ship, and this evaluation biases self-ratings. Researchfollowing the Social Relations Model (Kenney, 1994)suggests individuals high in dominance may have astronger sense of self and be less likely to incorporateothers’ views into their self-concept (Swann &Pelham, 1990). As such, their self-ratings are less like-ly to agree with those of others. Research in cognitive,personality, and clinical psychology also supports theidea that individuals high in dominance tend to inflateself-ratings of various performance and personalitycharacteristics compared to ratings provided by others(Barbaree & Davis, 1984; Djikic, Chan, & Peterson,2007; Leising, Rehbein, & Sporberg, 2006). As such,we expect:

Hypothesis 2: Individuals high on dominance willbe more likely to over-estimate their own performanceas compared with supervisor- and peer-ratings thanindividuals low on dominance.

Cultural conformity. Cultural conformity refers tothe extent to which an individual believes in and isconcerned with adhering to the values and practicesof one’s work group/organization; low scores on thisdimension reflect individualism whereas high scoresreflect collectivism. Paquet (2005) found collec-tivists were more prone to rating inaccuracy thanindividualists. Similarly, Fadil (1997) found collec-tivists were less concerned with establishing per-formance differentiation among peers, tending torate similarly and reward equally across members oftheir team. As collectivists tend to have higherexpectations for and evaluations of performance thanindividualists (Sosik & Jung, 2002), they may inflateperformance evaluations of others; since they tend tofail to differentiate among performance of teammembers, this over-estimation of performance maytranslate to inflated self-ratings as well. Finally,researchers have found that individualists tend toobjectively outperform collectivists (Sosik & Jung,2002; Waldman, Atwater, & Davidson, 2004),though collectivists tended to provide higher self-evaluations than individualists (Sosik & Jung, 2002).As such, we expect:

Hypothesis 3: Individuals high on cultural conform-ity (collectivists) will be more likely to over-estimatetheir own performance as compared with supervisor-and peer-ratings than individuals low on cultural con-formity (individualists).

Cynicism. Little research has been conducted on therole of cynicism in rating accuracy; however, findingsfrom prior research may offer insight to this relation-ship. For example, in their study of 110 police officers,Regoli, Crank, and Rivera (1990) found cynical offi-cers had poorer performance across all indicators thantheir peers. As many individuals tend to over-rate theirperformance (e.g., Visser et al., 2008), this suggestscynical individuals may be more prone to self-otherrating discrepancy than non-cynical individuals.Treynor (2004) found cynical individuals tended tobelieve others engaged in unethical acts and used thisbelief as justification for doing so themselves.In a performance evaluation context, cynical indi-

viduals may be inclined to provide inflated ratingsbecause they believe others are doing so and they wantto be compared favorably to others. In their study offull-time employees in the government and private sec-tors, Bryne and Hochwarter (2008) found cynicalemployees tended to react more negatively to manage-rial support than less cynical employees because theytended to misinterpret the managers’ motivations. In a360-feedback context, a cynical employee may per-ceive the manager’s/organization’s intent in conduct-ing the evaluation in a negative light (e.g., believing itis a means to provide non-constructive negative feed-back or build a case for an unwanted personnel action),which may affect self-ratings. McGivern and Ferlie(2007) found cynical professionals were more likely toperceive performance appraisals to be a waste of time.In a 360-feedback appraisal, cynical employees maybe disinterested in the process/feedback and thus givelittle thought to their self-ratings. Given these findings,we would expect:

Hypothesis 4: Individuals high on cynicism will bemore likely to over-estimate their own performance ascompared with supervisor- and peer-ratings than lesscynical individuals.

Detail orientation. Research in rating ability hasalso investigated the role of analytic ability and detailinterest. For example, in their study of university stu-dents and hospital employees, Gruenfeld andArbuthnot (1969) found participants who were dis-tracted by irrelevant stimuli were less likely to be ableto distinguish characteristics and performance amongothers. Findings suggest that an individual’s ability tofocus on only selected, relevant details is related toself-other rating agreement. Likewise, Borman (1979)found high detail orientation resulted in rater accuracyin evaluations of others’ performance.




Hypothesis 5: Individuals low on detail orientationwill be more likely to over-estimate their own perform-ance as compared with supervisor- and peer-ratingsthan individuals higher in detail orientation.

An interesting interaction between detail orientationand cultural conformity is also probable such that thegreatest discrepancies in self-other ratings may befound between raters when the self-rater is (1) high oncultural conformity (collectivist) and low on detail ori-entation or (2) low on cultural conformity (individual-ist) and high on detail orientation; importantly, the rea-sons behind these discrepancies would differ. As men-tioned above, collectivists are more prone to self-infla-tion of ratings than are individualists (Sosik & Jung,2002; Waldman et al., 2004). Combine that tendencywith low detail orientation (which may make the indi-vidual less able to objectively and accurately evaluatetheir own performance; e.g., Gruenfeld & Arbuthnot,1969) and the result is likely self-ratings that are great-ly inflated compared to other-ratings. In this case, theself-other rating discrepancy is due at least in part tothe inaccuracy of the self-rater. On the other hand,individualists tend to objectively outperform collec-tivists (Sosik & Jung, 2002); an individualist high ondetail orientation may describe an individual who notonly outperforms others, but is also able to better trackdetails associated with performance episodes andhence provide more accurate performance ratings. Inthis case, self-other rating discrepancy would result atleast in part from less accurate ratings on the part of theother rater. As such, we expect that:

Hypothesis 6: Detail orientation and cultural con-formity will interact to predict self-other rating dis-crepancy such that discrepancies will be greatest whenindividuals are high on cultural conformity and low ondetail orientation and low on cultural conformity andhigh on detail orientation.

Method

Participants

This study made use of an archival database of 527employees of a large international financial organiza-tion specializing in credit cards, auto/home/medicalloans, insurance, and investments. The databaseincluded employee personality assessment data andperformance ratings collected as part of a firm-wideorganizational leadership development program.Participants in this program were representatives frommanagement within the sales, finance, humanresources, information technology, legal, marketing,and operations departments. All participants held pro-fessional/managerial-level positions requiring a mini-mum of 2 years of college education. Seventy percent

of the sample was Caucasian, 54% was male, and 67%were between the ages of 21 and 39, with the majorityfalling in the upper half of that range. Data collectionyielded self-to-peer data of 487 dyads and self-to-supervisor data of 501 dyads. Performance ratings pro-vided for participants were composed of an average oftwo to four peer raters and one to two supervisors perparticipant.

Measures

The database includes (1) employee self-ratings ofpersonality and demographic characteristics, and (2)employee self-ratings as well as peer- and supervisor-ratings of each employee’s performance.Personality assessment. The focal dimensions of

personality (extraversion, dominance, cultural con-formity, cynicism, and detail orientation) were meas-ured using the ASSESS instrument which was devel-oped by organizational psychologists for use in con-sulting within a business arena. This instrument assess-es narrow work-related personality dimensions whichhave been found most useful for training and develop-ment in applied settings. The ASSESS instrument wasadapted in 1970 from two personality tools widelyused in the occupational setting: the Dynamic FactorsOpinion Survey (DFOS) and the Guilford-ZimmermanTemperament Scale (GZTS). Despite alterations, itcorrelates .85-.90 with the DFOS and the GZTS. Basedon a normative sample of 30,000, the average reliabil-ity estimate for the ASSESS instrument is .77, which iscomparable with the reliabilities of other personalitytests (cf. Viswesvaran & Ones, 1999). Although theASSESS instrument measures 20 dimensions of per-sonality relevant to the thinking, working and relatingaspects of the work context, we analyzed only the fivedimensions relevant to our hypotheses and the avail-able extant literature.Extraversion was assessed using the sociability sub-

scale of the ASSESS instrument. This scale assesses theextent to which the individual seeks out and feels com-fortable in social situations. Dominance was assessedusing the assertiveness subscale. This scale assesses theextent to which an individual enjoys the act of exertingcontrol, tends to impose their sense of self on others,and the likelihood they will be influenced by others.The cultural conformity subscale assesses the extent towhich one believes in and is concerned with adheringto the values and practices of one’s peers and organiza-tion. Low scores indicate individualism whereas highscores indicate a more collectivist orientation. Cynicismwas assessed using of the ‘positive about people’ sub-scale. This scale assesses the individual’s tendency tobe trusting and optimistic in his/her outlook towardother people. Scale items were reverse-scored such thathigher scores indicated cynicism whereas lower scoresindicated a likelihood of focusing on positive facets in




others. Detail orientation indicates a preference forwork which requires attention to fine detail. Low scoresindicate a dislike for activities that requireexactness/precision whereas high scores indicate pref-erence for highly detailed work.Performance. Performance was assessed using a

customized multi-rater instrument which permits rat-ings of performance by self, peers, and supervisors.Performance ratings were made along various dimen-sions found to be relevant to the focal organization,including evaluating to what extent the individual wasable to work/communicate/collaborate effectively withothers, seek out business opportunities, stay focusedand organized, and take leadership roles involved withrecruiting and motivating talent. Raters scoredemployee performance on a scale from 1 (minimal/infrequent demonstration of behaviors) to 5 (regular/effective demonstration of behaviors). Factor analysesdid not support the existence of multiple performancefactors, so we collapsed across items to compute anoverall indicator of performance.

Procedure

All data were collected via an online format over athree-month period. Participants were selected by thehuman resources department at the focal organizationbased on efforts for succession planning as well asindividual requests for professional development.Supervisors and co-workers of these participants wereidentified and invited to complete the performanceinstrument. Participants completed the personality andperformance instruments concurrently. Thus, the datawas collected with the purpose of linking personalitytraits to the performance indicators/competencies tohelp employees identify their developmental needs. Allparticipants and raters were informed both of the pur-pose of the rating process and how the feedback wouldbe utilized. To enhance the construct validity of theperformance instrument, all raters were trained on therating process. Raters were instructed to be as forth-right and candid as possible, and, except in the caseswhere supervisors provided the ratings, raters wereassured no organizational member would be privy totheir direct responses (ratings were only provided toparticipants if three or more responses were received tomaintain confidentiality). Security of all informationwas maintained through the use of personalized accesscodes allocated through email; further, the data washeld off-site with a consulting firm external to theorganization.

Data Analysis

Rating agreement/discrepancy was accomplishedthrough the computation of difference scores.

Specifically, the difference between self-peer and self-supervisor performance ratings was computed suchthat a positive difference indicated the employee ratedthemselves higher than his/her supervisor/peer and anegative difference indicated the employee rated them-selves lower than his/her supervisor/peer. This differ-ence was correlated with the focal self-rated personal-ity dimensions. Significant correlations indicate thispersonality dimension is predictive of over- and/orunder-rating tendency.Hierarchical multiple regression analyses were per-

formed to test the interaction hypothesis. Here, super-visor/peer performance ratings were regressed on con-trol variables, self-rated performance, cultural con-formity, detail orientation, and the interaction term. Instep one, employee sex, age, and race were entered ascontrol variables. In the second step, self-rated per-formance, cultural conformity, and detail orientationwere entered. In the third step, the interaction term rep-resenting the product of cultural conformity and detailorientation was entered. Significant interactions wereplotted to permit interpretation of the nature of theinteraction relative to the hypothesis.

Results

Tables 1-3 report the results of correlational analy-ses used to test the study hypotheses 1-5 and to explorethe role of personality in self and other performanceratings. Table 1 provides a summary of the correlationsamong self-ratings of the focal personality dimensions.Extraversion was positively related to dominance (r =.44, p < .05) and negatively related to cynicism (r = -.19, p < .05). Cultural conformity was positively relat-ed to both cynicism (r = .26, p < .05) and detail orien-tation (r = .26, p < .05). Cynicism was also negativelyrelated to dominance (r = -.09, p < .05).

Table 2 reports the correlations among self, supervi-sor, and peer performance ratings. Our results are con-sistent with prior research suggesting low agreementamong these three rating sources. The correlationbetween self and supervisor performance ratings wasonly .14 (p < .05). The correlation between self- andpeer-ratings was even lower at .05 (p > .05).Supervisors and peers had greater agreement, but the




Table 1. Correlations among Self-Ratings of Personality Dimensions

1 2 3 4 5

Extraversion (.85)Dominance .44* (.64)Cultural Conformity .01 -.01 (.58)Cynicism -.19* -.09* .26* (.61)Detail Orientation .04 -.03 .26* -.03 (.64)

Note. n = 497; Scale reliabilities for the current sample are reported on the diagonal; * indi-cates correlation is significant at the p < .05 level.

correlation between their ratings was still only .30 (p < .05).Table 3 reports correlations between participant per-

sonality and self-, supervisor-, and peer-performanceratings, as well as the correlations relevant to hypothe-ses 1-5 wherein personality is correlated with self-other rating discrepancies. (Positive correlations indi-cate the individual rated themselves higher than theirsupervisor/peer; negative correlations indicate theindividual rated themselves lower than their supervi-sor/peer.) All five self-rated personality dimensions arepositively correlated with self-ratings of performance.The strongest correlations are seen with cultural con-formity (collectivism; r = .17, p < .05), detail orienta-tion (r = .19, p < .05), and dominance (r = .13, p < .05).Interestingly, participant/self personality had little todo with supervisor and peer ratings of performance.The exception was with dominance, where dominantindividuals were likely to get lower performance rat-ings from their peers.Hypothesis 1 predicted extraverted individuals

would be more likely to over-estimate their perform-ance when compared with supervisor/peer ratings thanless extraverted individuals. Results partially supportthis hypothesis. Specifically, although extraversionwas positively correlated with self-rated performance(as seen in Table 3), extraversion was not correlatedwith self-supervisor difference scores. Extraversionwas, however, positively correlated with self-peer dif-ference scores, indicating extraverted individuals tendto over-estimate their performance when comparedwith their peers’ evaluations (r = .10, p < .05).Hypothesis 2 predicted dominant individuals would

be more likely to over-estimate their performancewhen compared with supervisor/peer ratings than less

dominant individuals. Results partially support thishypothesis. Although dominance was associated withhigher self-ratings of performance, it was not signifi-cantly associated with self-supervisor differencescores. However, like extraversion, dominance waspositively correlated with self-peer rating discrepan-cies (r =.18, p < .05), suggesting dominant individualstend to over-estimate their performance in the eyes oftheir peers.Hypothesis 3 predicted individuals high on cultural

conformity (collectivists) would be more likely toover-estimate their performance when compared withsupervisor/peer ratings than individuals scoring low oncultural conformity. Results partially support thishypothesis. Cultural conformity was associated withhigher self-ratings of performance, and was positivelycorrelated with self-peer rating discrepancies (r = .14,p < .05). Cultural conformity was not correlated withself-supervisor rating discrepancies.Hypothesis 4 predicted cynical individuals would be

more likely to over-estimate their performance whencompared with supervisor/peer ratings than less cyni-cal individuals. Results support this hypothesis.Cynicism was associated with both higher self-ratingsof performance and self-other rating discrepancies (r =.12 for both self/supervisor and self/peer; p < .05).Hypothesis 5 predicted individuals low on detail

orientation would be more likely to over-estimate theirperformance than individuals high on detail orienta-tion. Results suggest the relationship is actually oppo-site that predicted. Specifically, detail orientation wasassociated with higher self-reports of performance andover-estimates of performance ratings when comparedwith both self-supervisor and self-peer rating discrep-ancies (r = .10 and .10, respectively; p < .05).Table 4 and Figure 1 report results relevant to

Hypothesis 6, which predicted an interaction betweencultural conformity and detail orientation in predictingself-other rating discrepancies. Hierarchical multipleregressions provide support for Hypothesis 6.Specifically, the interaction between cultural conform-ity and detail orientation explained significant variancein the difference between self-supervisor (β = -.71, p <.01) and self-peer performance ratings (β = -.63, p <.01). Plots of the interactions support the nature of the




Table 2. Correlations among Self, Supervisor, and Peer Overall Perfor-mance Ratings

1 2

Self-Rated Performance —Supervisor-Rated Performance .14* —Peer-Rated Performance .05 .30*

Note. * indicates correlation is significant at the p < .05 level.

Table 3. Correlations between personality dimensions and performance ratings and rating discrepancies

Self-Rated Supervisor-Rated Self-Supervisor Peer-Rated Self-Peer RatingPerformance Performance Rating Discrepancy Performance Discrepancy

Extraversion .09* .05 .00 -.04 .10*Dominance .13* .00 .08 -.13* .18*Cultural Conformity .17* .07 .07 .00 .14*Cynicism .09* -.05 .12* -.07 .12*Detail Orientation .19* .05 .09* .08 .10*

Note. n = 452-516; * indicates correlation is significant at the p < .05 level.

predicted interaction: self-other rating discrepancieswere greatest when the self-rater was (1) high on cul-tural conformity and low on detail orientation or (2)low on cultural conformity and high on detail orienta-tion.

Discussion

To echo Thornton’s (1980) statement regarding self-other rating discrepancy, we don’t often see ourselvesthe way others see us. In fact, we often see ourselves ina better light than others see us, in part because we maysee the bigger picture associated with why/how wehave succeeded/failed (actor/observer bias) and in partdue to other factors. In many ways this egoistic bias isbeneficial as it helps us maintain our self-esteem andconfidence. However, when it prevents us from ade-

quately diagnosing our strengths and weaknesses, itmay curb our capacity to perform and our ability todevelop to reach our potential. The main goal of mostmulti-rater performance evaluation systems is to pro-vide constructive developmental feedback to individu-als by offering various perspectives on the individuals’effectiveness in a number of work-related competen-cies. Self-ratings are often used as a baseline in 360-degree feedback - a place to begin discussions ofstrengths and weaknesses during the developmentalfeedback system. When self- and other-ratings are inagreement, the discussion and development plan aremore easily navigated (Facteau, Facteau, Russell, &Poteet, 1998). However, when the individuals’ ratingsare different than those provided by others, they maybe caught off guard by the less favorable impressionsheld by those around them or they may discount eval-uations they don’t feel they deserve (Facteau et al.,




Table 4. Hierarchical multiple regression analyses predicting self-other rating discrepancies from detail orientation and cultural conformity

Supervisor-Rated Performance Peer-Rated Performance

Predictor Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 1 Step 2 Step 3

Age -.09 -.08 -.08 -.20** -.20** -.21**Sex .07 .08 .07 .06 .06 .05Race -.04 -.03 -.04 -.06 -.07 -.07Self-Rated Performance .12* .12* .07 .07Cultural Conformity .06 .46** -.04 .31*Detail Orientation -.01 .47** .04 .46**Cultural Conformity x -.71** -.63**Detail Orientation

rR2 .01 .02* .02** .05** .01 .02**Total R2 .01 .03* .05** .05** .05** .07**n 414 420

Note. Standardized Betas are listed. *p < .05. **p < .01.

Figure 1. Nature of interaction between cultural conformity and detail orientation in predicting self-other rating discrepancies

DV = Peer-Rated Performance DV = Supervisor-Rated Performance

1998; Goffin & Anderson, 2006). Understanding fac-tors which are associated with and/or lead to self-otherrating discrepancy may improve the potential multi-rater developmental feedback can be effective.In this study, we explored the extent to which five

work-related personality dimensions were associatedwith self-other rating discrepancy in multi-rater per-formance assessments. Results suggest a personalitybasis to self and other performance ratings as well asself-other rating discrepancy. Specifically, a rater’sextraversion, dominance, cultural conformity, cyni-cism, and detail orientation were positively related toself-ratings of performance. As expected, these person-ality dimensions also explained some variance in self-other rating differences, such that individuals high onthese personality factors were likely to overrate theirperformance in comparison with evaluations providedby peers, and cynical and detail-oriented raters werelikely to overrate their own performance in comparisonwith supervisor ratings.As predicted, cultural conformity and detail orienta-

tion interacted to predict self-peer and self-supervisorrating discrepancies. Past research suggested thatdetail-oriented individuals would be better able to pro-vide accurate ratings than less detail-oriented individ-uals because they would be able to attend to only rele-vant aspects of performance (Borman, 1979;Gruenfeld & Arbthnot, 1969). Although results ofbivariate correlations between detail-orientation andself-other rating discrepancies suggested the oppositeis true (individuals high on detail orientation weremore likely to provide high self-ratings of performancecompared to ratings by supervisors/peers), results ofhierarchical multiple regressions suggest the interac-tion between cultural conformity and detail-orientationoffers a bigger picture. Specifically, detail-orientedindividuals who were low in cultural conformity andindividuals low on detail-orientation but high on cul-tural conformity were likely to provide higher self-rat-ings than those provided by others. Given past researchwhich points to an objective difference in individual-ists’ and collectivists’ performance wherein individual-ists tend to outperform collectivists (e.g., Waldman etal., 2004) and collectivists’ tendency to inflate ratings(e.g., Sosik & Jung, 2002), it is likely that detail orien-tation offers additional insight into rating discrepanciesfor individualists/collectivists. Individuals high ondetail orientation, for example, may keep a moredetailed mental record of their previous performanceepisodes (as well as aspects of those episodes whichmay have led to success/failure) giving them more todraw from when making self-evaluations of perform-ance. When a detail-oriented individual is high in indi-vidualism, they may objectively outperform others andbe better prepared to accurately rate their own per-formance than would other raters, resulting in self-other rating discrepancies driven, at least in part, byother-rater inaccuracy. However, when a collectivist is

low on detail orientation, they are likely more prone toinflated ratings based on only a general egoistic pictureof their performance, resulting in self-other rating dis-crepancies driven, at least in part, by self-rater inaccu-racy.It was interesting to note that although an individ-

ual’s personality affects their own self-evaluations, itdoes not necessarily influence supervisor performanceratings and largely is irrelevant to peer-ratings. Theexception for peer-ratings was with dominance; specif-ically, all things being equal, peers tended to rate theperformance of their dominant coworkers lower thanless dominant coworkers. This may be a function of thepeer’s previous experience with the individual they arerating. Kenney (1994) found dominant individualswere less likely than less dominant individuals toincorporate others’ feedback into their self-concept andsubsequent behavior. If the peer had provided feedbackto the individual in the past and felt they did not giveadequate weight to their suggestions, they may feel theneed to be harsher in providing feedback in the futureas a means of getting the individual to pay attention totheir advice. Alternatively, it may be that the dominantindividual’s behavior pattern is counterproductive tointerpersonal interactions with peers in the workplace,negatively affecting peer evaluations of performance. Another noteworthy finding was the low intercorrela-tions among self, supervisor, and peer performance rat-ings. The correlation between self and supervisor per-formance ratings was only .14; the correlation betweenself and peer performance ratings was non-significantand near zero. In fact, supervisors and peers hadgreater agreement than either of these pairings. Theseresults suggest that regardless of personality predic-tors, self-ratings of performance will likely be off themark, placing the onus on the facilitator of the 360-degree feedback to orient the individual around others’perceptions of strengths and weaknesses and to buildthe developmental plan accordingly. Although ourresults suggest these personality dimensions may shedsome light on self-other rating discrepancies and pro-vide some insight in how to proceed with developmen-tal feedback sessions, the potential for individuals tobe surprised (pleasantly or not) by the content of theirmulti-rater performance review is widespread.

Limitations and Directions for Future Research

One potential limitation of our study is that our sam-ple consisted of individuals engaged in a leadershipdevelopment program, which implies a certain amountof pre-selection (and thus potential range restriction onperformance) which may skew the results. Importantly,if performance was subject to range restriction, thenour results may actually under-estimate the role of per-sonality factors in performance ratings. Further, thedata was collected for developmental rather than




administrative purposes, which may have influencedthe ratings provided by each constituent group. That is,rating tendencies, biases, and errors are likely to differdepending on the circumstances in which the ratingsare gathered.Second, the sample was drawn from the private sec-

tor (financial industry) which raises a generalizabilityconcern. Specifically, Brutus, Fleenor, and London(1998) found differences in rating agreement acrossprivate versus public sectors. Specifically, they foundemployees in public sector organizations tended tounder-rate themselves whereas employees in privatesector organizations tended to over-rate their own per-formance. As such, caution should be used when gen-eralizing the results of our study to public sectoremployees.Future research might also explore the role of per-

sonality in self-other rating discrepancies for otherconstituent groups (e.g., direct reports and customers).The importance of rating consistency across self-otherdyads differs depending on the individual’s job, orga-nizational needs, constituent power/importance rele-vant to the individual’s job performance, etc. As such,understanding the role of personality in both pieces ofthe rating dyad can help in customizing feedback andtraining for such considerations. Similarly, futureresearch might also examine personality of ‘other’raters in addition to the ‘self’ rater. Perhaps under-standing personality similarities and differencesamong sources as they relate to rating tendencies willoffer a more complete understanding of self-otheragreement.

Practical Implications

The aim of this research was to explore the linkbetween personality and rating tendencies and self-other agreement. Cronbach and Snow (1977) arguedthe necessity of considering the “characteristics thatpeople bring to the training environment as essentialingredients of the instructional design system” (p.184). An understanding of the role of personality inself-rating tendencies and self-other agreement can beused to enhance the benefits of the developmentalfeedback process as well as the success of coachingefforts. The current study suggests certain personalitydimensions are associated with self-perceptions of per-formance and with the extent to which individuals’ rat-ings agree with those provided by supervisors andpeers. A practical implication for coaching/feedbacksessions is that performance feedback and associatedtraining can be tailored specifically to the needs of theindividual so as to maximize the potential feedbackwill be digested, accepted and utilized. Ward (1995)argues, “Some people receive uncomfortable surpriseswhen they get their feedback and, as there are manyways to avoid or rationalize unacceptable data, the par-

ticipant might need help to learn from the information”(p. 20). In other words, exploring the relationshipbetween personality and rating tendencies providesvaluable insights towards maximizing receptivity inprofessional development sessions which can helpimprove performance and enhance communicationbetween employees and team members, supervisors,and organizational stakeholders (DeNisi & Kluger,2000; Harris & Schaubroeck, 1988). For example,dominant self-raters might be clued into the potentialtheir behavior pattern has an unwanted negative effecton peer perceptions of their performance. Coachesmight help the individual explore how their personali-ty trait manifests itself in interactions with peers toensure the positive aspects of this trait are not over-shadowed by perceived negative aspects.In conclusion, the results of the current study serve

as a beginning for understanding the personalityantecedents of self-other agreement. Rater personalityoffers explanatory variance in self-ratings of perform-ance. Further, the work-related dimensions examinedhere offer some insight into the self-other rating dis-crepancies, particularly within the self-peer dyad. Withthe increasing use of team-based work in organiza-tions, bridging the gap between self and peer expecta-tions and evaluations is becoming increasingly impor-tant. Research and practice in the areas of training anddevelopment associated with human resource applica-tions of multi-rater feedback systems will benefit fromthe continued investigation of the role of personality inrating tendencies and agreement.

References

Ashford, S. J. (1989). Self-assessments in organizations: Aliterature review and integrative model. In L. L. Cum-mings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in OrganizationalBehavior (vol. 11, pp. 133-174.). Greenwich, CT: JAIPress.

Atwater, L. E. & Yammarino, F. (1992). Does self-otheragreement on leadership perceptions moderate the validi-ty of leadership and performance predictions? PersonnelPsychology, 45, 141-164.

Atwater, L. E. & Yammarino, F. (1997). Self-other ratingagreement: A review and model. In G. Ferris (ed.),Research in Personnel and Human Resource Manage-ment, (vol. 15, pp. 121-174). Greenwich CT: JAI Press.

Barbaree, H. E. & Davis, R. B. (1984). Assertive behavior,self-expectations, and self-evaluations in mildly de-pressed university women. Cognitive Therapy and Re-search, 8, 153-171.

Bernardin, H. J., Cooke, D. K., & Villanova, P. (2000).Conscientiousness and agreeableness as predictors of rat-ing leniency. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 232-236.

Bono, J. E. & Colbert, A. E. (2005). Understanding respons-es to multi-source feedback: the role of core self-evalua-tions. Personnel Psychology, 58, 171-203.




Borman, W. C. (1979). Individual difference correlates ofaccuracy in evaluating others’ performance effectiveness.Applied Psychological Measurement, 3, 103-115.

Brett, J. F. & Atwater, L. E. (2001). 360 feedback: Accuracy,reactions, and perceptions of usefulness. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 86, 930-942.

Brutus, S., Fleenor, J. W., & London, M. (1998). Does 360-degree feedback work in different industries? A betweenindustry comparison of the reliability and validity ofmulti-source performance ratings. Journal of Manage-ment Development, 17, 177-190.

Brutus, S., Fleenor, J. W., & McCauley, C. D. (1999).Demographic and personality predictors of congruence inmulti-source ratings. Journal of Management Develop-ment, 18, 417-435.

Carless, S. A., Mann, L., & Wearing, A. J. (1998).Leadership, managerial performance, and 360-degreefeedback. Applied Psychology: An International Review,47, 481-496.

Checcino, D. J. (1997). Relationships among personalitytype, self-concept, grade point average and gender of sev-enth graders. An unpublished doctoral dissertation.

Conway, J. M. & Huffcut, A. I. (1997). Psychometric prop-erties of multisource performance ratings: A meta-analy-sis of subordinate, supervisor, peer and self-ratings.Human Performance, 10, 331-360.

Conway, J. M., Lombardo, K., & Sanders, K. C. (2001). Ameta-analysis of incremental validity and nomologicalnetworks for subordinate and peer ratings. HumanPerformance, 14, 267-303.

Cronbach, L. J. & Snow, R. E. (1977). Aptitude and instruc-tional methods. New York: Wiley.

DeNisi, A. S. & Kluger, A. N. (2000). Feedback effective-ness: Can 360-degree appraisals be improved? Academyof Management Executive, 14, 129-139.

Djikic, M., Chan, I., & Peterson, J. B. (2007). Reducingmemory distortions in egoistic self-enhancers: Effects ofindirect social facilitation. Personality and IndividualDifferences, 42, 723-731.

Facteau, J. D. & Craig, S. B. (2001). Are performanceappraisal ratings from different rating sources compara-ble? Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 215-227.

Facteau, C. L., Facteau, J. D., Russell, J. E., & Poteet, M. L.(1998). Reactions of leaders to 360-degree feedback fromsubordinates and peers. The Leadership Quarterly, 9,427-448.

Fadil, P. A. (1997). An empirical investigation of the influ-ences of individualism/collectivism, recipient group mem-bership, and recipient performance differentiation onreward behavior in third person allocation situations.Anunpublished doctoral dissertation.

Farh, J. H. & Dobbins, G. H. (1989). Effects of self-esteemon leniency bias in self-reports of performance: A struc-tural equation model analysis. Personnel Psychology, 42,835-850.

Farmer, R. F., Jarvis, L. L., Berent, M. K., & Corbett, A.(2001). Contributions to global self-esteem: The role ofimportance attached to self-concepts associated with the

five factor model. Journal of Research in Personality, 35,483-499.

Fry, P. (1976). Success, failure, and self-assessment ratings.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 44, 413-419.

Gallo, P. & McClintock, C. (1962). Behavioral, attitudinal,and perceptual difference between leaders and non-lead-ers in situations of group support and non-support.Journal of Social Psychology, 56, 121-133.

Goffin, R. D. & Anderson, D. W. (2006). The self-rater’spersonality and self-other disagreement in multi-sourceratings: Is disagreement healthy? Journal of ManagerialPsychology, 22, 271-289.

Gruenfeld, L. & Arbuthnot, J. (1969). Field independence asa conceptual framework for prediction of variability inratings of others. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 28, 31-44.

Harris, M. & Schaubroeck, J. (1988). A meta-analysis ofself-supervisor, self-peer, and peer-supervisor ratings.Personnel Psychology, 41, 43-62.

Johnson, J. W. & Ferstl, K. L. (1999). The effects of inter-rater and self-other agreement on performance improve-ment following upward feedback. Personnel Psychology,52, 271-303.

Jones, E. E. & Harris, V. (1967). The attribution of attitudes.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 3, 1-24.

Jones, E. E. & Nisbett, R. E. (1971). The actor and theobserver: Divergent perceptions of the cause of behavior.Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.

Kenney, D. A. (1994). Interpersonal perception: A socialrelations analysis. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Kernis, M. (1991). The roles of stability and level of self-esteem in psychological functioning. Institute ofBehavioral Research, University of Georgia.

Klimoski, R. J. & London, M. (1974). Role of the rater inperformance appraisal. Journal of Applied Psychology,59, 445-451.

Korman, A. K. (1970). Toward an hypothesis of work behav-ior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 54, 31-41.

Korman, A. K. (1976). Hypothesis of work behavior revisit-ed and an extension. Academy of Management Review, 1,50-63.

Landy, F. J. & Farr, J. L. (1980). Performance ratings.Psychological Bulletin, 87, 72-107.

Leising, D., Rehbein, D., & Sporberg, D. (2006). Does a fishsee the water in which it swims? A study of the ability tocorrectly judge one’s own interpersonal behavior. Journalof Social and Clinical Psychology, 25, 963-974.

Levine, E., Flory, A., & Ash, R. (1977). Self-assessment inpersonnel selection. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62,428-435.

McGivern, G. & Ferlie, E. (2007). Playing tick-box games:Interrelating differences in professional appraisal. HumanRelations, 60, 1361-1385.

Meleddu, M. & Guicciardi, M. (1998). Self-knowledge andsocial desirability of personality traits. Journal ofPersonality, 12, 151-168.

Mount, M. K. (1998). Trait, rater, and level effects in 360-degree performance ratings. Personnel Psychology, 51,557-577.




Murphy, K. R. & DeShon, R. (2000). Interrater correlationsdo not estimate the reliability of job performance ratings.Personnel Psychology, 53, 873-900.

Paquet, S. L. (2005). A cultural look at performanceappraisals: The role of individualism and collectivism inrating accuracy. An unpublished doctoral dissertation.

Roberts, T. (1991). Gender and influence of evaluations onself-assessments in achievement settings. PsychologicalBulletin, 109, 297-308.

Regoli, B., Crank, J. P., & Rivera, G. F. (1990). The con-struction and implementation of an alternative measure ofpolice cynicism. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 17, 395-409.

Roush, P. & Atwater, L. (1992). Using the MBTI to under-stand transformational leadership and self-perceptionaccuracy. Military Psychology, 4, 17-34.

Schlenker, B., Weingold, M., & Hallam, J. (1990). Self-serv-ing attributions in social context: Effects of self-esteemand social pressures. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 58, 855-863.

Schmitt, N., Ford, J. K., & Stults, D. M. (1986). Changes inself-perceived ability as a function of performance in anassessment center. Journal of Occupational Psychology,59, 327-335.

Sosik, J. J. & Godshalk, V. M. (2004). Self-other ratingagreement in mentoring: Meeting protégé expectationsfor development and career advancement. Group andOrganization Management, 29, 442-469.

Sosik, J. J. & Jung, D. I. (2002). Work-group characteristicsand performance in collectivistic and individualistic cul-tures. Journal of Social Psychology, 142, 5-23.

Swann, W. (1983). Self-verification: Bringing social realityinto harmony with the self. In J. Suls & A. Greenwalt(Eds.), Psychological perspectives on the self (Vol. 2, pp.33-66). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Swann, W. & Pelham, B. (1990). Embracing the bitter truth:Positivity and authenticity in social relationship.Unpublished manuscript, University of Texas, Austin.

Thornton, G. (1980). Psychometric properties of self-appraisal of job performance. Personnel Psychology, 33,262-271.

Treynor, W. F. (2004). Are the most mistrustful the leasttrustworthy? Studies of unethical behavior. An unpub-lished doctoral dissertation.

Van Hooft, E. A. J., Van der Flier, H., & Minne, M. R.(2006). Construct validity of multi-source performanceratings: An examination of the relationship of self-, super-visor-, and peer-ratings with cognitive and personalitymeasures. International Journal of Selection andAssessment, 14, 67-81.

Visser, B. A., Ashton, M. C., & Vernon, P. A. (2008). Whatmakes you think you’re so smart? Measured abilities, per-sonality and sex differences in relation to self-estimatesof multiple intelligences. Journal of IndividualDifferences, 29, 35-44.

Viswesvaran, C. & Ones, D. (1999). Meta-analyses of faka-bility estimates: Implications for personality measure-ment. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 59,197-210.

Viswesvaran, C., Ones, D., & Schmidt, F. (1996).Comparative analyses of the reliability of job perform-ance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 557-574.

Waldman, D. A., Atwater, L. E., & Davidson, R. A. (2004).The role of individualism and the Five-Factor Model inthe prediction of performance in leaderless group discus-sion. Journal of Personality, 72, 1-28.

Wohlers, A. J. & London, M. (1989). Rating of managerialcharacteristics: Evaluation difficulty, co-worker agree-ment, and self-awareness. Personnel Psychology, 42,235-261.

Wymer, W. & Penner, L. (1985). Moderator variables anddifferent types of predictability: Do you have a match?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 1002-1015.

Yammarino, F. J. & Atwater, L. E. (1993). Understandingself-perception accuracy: Implications for humanresource management. Human Resource Management,32, 231-247.

Yammarino, F. J. & Atwater, L. E. (1997). Do managers seethemselves as others see them? Implications of self-otherrating agreement for human resource management.Organizational Dynamics, 25, 35-44.




Manuscript Received: 08/09/2011Revision Received: 21/01/2012

Accepted: 21/01/2012

personality antecedents of self-other rating discrepancy ... · la personalidad como antecedente de...

Documents