Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
James Smither, M. London, Nicholas Vasilopoulos, R. Reilly, R. Millsap, Nat Salvemini (1995)
AN EXAMINATION OF THE EFFECTS OF AN UPWARD FEEDBACK PROGRAM OVER TIMEPersonnel Psychology, 48
L. Atwater, F. Yammarino (1992)
DOES SELF‐OTHER AGREEMENT ON LEADERSHIP PERCEPTIONS MODERATE THE VALIDITY OF LEADERSHIP AND PERFORMANCE PREDICTIONS?Personnel Psychology, 45
E. Velsor, Sylvester Taylor, J. Leslie (1993)
An examination of the relationships among self‐perception accuracy, self‐awareness, gender, and leader effectivenessHuman Resource Management, 32
A. Tsui, B. Barry (1986)
Interpersonal affect and rating errors.Academy of Management Journal
Robertson Robertson, Gratton Gratton, Sharpley Sharpley (1987)
The psychometric properties and design of assessment centres: Dimensions into exercises won't goJournal of Occupational Psychology, 60
N. Schmitt, R. Gooding, R. Noe, Michael Kirsch (1984)
METAANALYSES OF VALIDITY STUDIES PUBLISHED BETWEEN 1964 AND 1982 AND THE INVESTIGATION OF STUDY CHARACTERISTICSPersonnel Psychology, 37
Herriott Herriott (1986)
Assessment centres revisitedGuidance and Assessment Review, 2
J. Edwards (1993)
Problems with the use of profile similarity indices in the study of congruence in organizational research.Personnel Psychology, 46
D. Nilsen, D. Campbell (1993)
Self–observer rating discrepancies: Once an overrater, always an overrater?Human Resource Management, 32
James Smither, Arthur Wohlers, M. London (1995)
A Field Study of Reactions to Normative versus Individualized Upward FeedbackGroup & Organization Management, 20
A. Furnham, Paul Stringfield (1994)
Congruence of self and subordinate ratings of managerial practices as a correlate of supervisor evaluationJournal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 67
M. Mount (1984)
Psychometric properties of subordinate ratings of managerial performance.Personnel Psychology, 37
London London, Wohlers Wohlers (1991)
Agreement between subordinate and self‐ratings in upward feedbackPERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, 44
G. Greguras, C. Robie (1998)
A new look at within-source interrater reliability of 360-degree feedback ratings.Journal of Applied Psychology, 83
J. Edwards (1994)
The Study of Congruence in Organizational Behavior Research: Critique and a Proposed AlternativeOrganizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 58
S. Carless, V. Allwood (1997)
Managerial assessment centres: What is being rated?Australian Psychologist, 32
A. Church (1997)
Managerial self-awareness in high-performing individuals in organizations.The Journal of applied psychology, 82 2
B. Bass, F. Yammarino (1991)
Congruence of Self and Others' Leadership Ratings of Naval Officers for Understanding Successful PerformanceApplied Psychology, 40
Art Wohlers, M. London (1989)
RATINGS OF MANAGERIAL CHARACTERISTICS: EVALUATION DIFFICULTY, CO‐WORKER AGREEMENT, AND SELF‐AWARENESSPersonnel Psychology, 42
L. Atwater, Cheri Ostroff, F. Yammarino, John Fleenor (1998)
SELF‐OTHER AGREEMENT: DOES IT REALLY MATTER?Personnel Psychology, 51
R. Reilly, James Smither, Nicholas Vasilopoulos (1996)
A LONGITUDINAL STUDY OF UPWARD FEEDBACKPersonnel Psychology, 49
A. Bandura (1977)
Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.Psychological review, 84 2
London London, Smither Smither (1995)
Can multi‐source feedback change perceptions of goal accomplishment, self‐evaluations, and performance related outcomesPERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, 48
M. London, James Smither (1995)
CAN MULTI-SOURCE FEEDBACK CHANGE PERCEPTIONS OF GOAL ACCOMPLISHMENT, SELF-EVALUATIONS, AND PERFORMANCE-RELATED OUTCOMES? THEORY-BASED APPLICATIONS AND DIRECTIONS FOR RESEARCHPersonnel Psychology, 48
Jeffrey Schneider, N. Schmitt (1992)
An exercise design approach to understanding assessment center dimension and exercise constructs.Journal of Applied Psychology, 77
Murray Barrick, M. Mount (1991)
THE BIG FIVE PERSONALITY DIMENSIONS AND JOB PERFORMANCE: A META-ANALYSISPersonnel Psychology, 44
Murray Barrick, M. Mount, J. Strauss (1993)
Conscientiousness and performance of sales representatives: Test of the mediating effects of goal setting.Journal of Applied Psychology, 78
W. Tornow (1993)
Perceptions or reality: Is multi-perspective measurement a means or an end?Human Resource Management, 32
I. Robertson, L. Gratton, D. Sharpley (1987)
The psychometric properties and design of managerial assessment centres: Dimensions into exercises won't goJournal of occupational psychology, 60
P. Mabe, S. West (1982)
Validity of self-evaluation of ability: A review and meta-analysisJournal of Applied Psychology, 67
Alan Walker, James Smither (1999)
A FIVE‐YEAR STUDY OF UPWARD FEEDBACK: WHAT MANAGERS DO WITH THEIR RESULTS MATTERSPersonnel Psychology, 52
J. Edwards, M. Parry (1993)
On the Use of Polynomial Regression Equations As An Alternative to Difference Scores in Organizational ResearchAcademy of Management Journal, 36
L. Atwater, P. Roush, Allison Fischthal (1995)
THE INFLUENCE OF UPWARD FEEDBACK ON SELF‐ AND FOLLOWER RATINGS OF LEADERSHIPPersonnel Psychology, 48
S. Carless, L. Mann, A. Wearing (1998)
Leadership, Managerial Performance and 360-Degree FeedbackApplied Psychology, 47
John Fleenor, C. Mccauley, S. Brutus (1996)
Self-other rating agreement and leader effectivenessLeadership Quarterly, 7
Michael Harris, J. Schaubroeck (1988)
A meta-analysis of self-supervisor, self-peer, and peer-supervisor ratings.Personnel Psychology, 41
J. Hazucha, Sarah Hezlett, R. Schneider (1993)
The impact of 360‐degree feedback on management skills developmentHuman Resource Management, 32
P. Sackett, G. Dreher (1982)
Constructs and assessment center dimensions: Some troubling empirical findingsJournal of Applied Psychology, 67
B. Gaugler, Douglas Rosenthal, G. Thornton, Cynthia Bentson (1987)
Meta-analysis of assessment center validity.Journal of Applied Psychology, 72
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.
Personnel Psychology – Wiley
Published: Dec 1, 2002
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.