No abstract

No abstract

A current controversy in the self-other rating and 360-degree feedback literature is the extent to which self-other agreement (and lack of agreement) has an impact on individual and organizational outcomes. Using a large sample and a multi-source data set, the current study addressed some methodological limitations of prior research. Results from polynomial regression analyses demonstrated that both self-and other ratings are related to performance outcomes. This procedure revealed the underlying three-dimensional relationship between selfratings, other ratings, and effectiveness. Findings indicate that the relationship between self-ratings, other ratings and outcomes are somewhat more complex than previous conceptualizations in this area. Simultaneous consideration of both self-and other ratings in terms of the direction and magnitude of self-and other ratings is important for explaining effectiveness outcomes.Upward and 360-degree feedback are rapidly growing in popularity as leadership development and/or performance appraisal tools . Generally, these processes involve surveying subordinates (or subordinates, peers, supervisors, and customers in the case of 360-degree feedback) about a manager's performance and then providing averaged ratings as feedback to the manager about how others rated him or her. The rationale behind this type of intervention rests with the notion of self-perception. Because individuals are not very good at evaluating themselves similarly to others or objective criteria (Harris & Schaubroeck, 1988), anonymous feedback from subordinates should Correspondence and requests for reprints should be addressed to Leanne Atwater, School of Management, Arizona State University West, 4701 West Thunderbird Road, Phoenix, A 2 85069-7100. COPYRIGHT 8 1998 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, INC. Case for AgreementRecent work by Atwater and Yammarino (1992); Van Velsor, Taylor, and Leslie (1993); Atwater, Roush, and Fischthal (1995); and others has suggested that the degree and direction of self-other agreement are relevant to various outcome measures. For example, Van Velsor et al. (1993) found overraters (those with self-ratings above other ratings) received the lowest subordinate ratings of managerial practices and selfawareness when compared to underraters (those with self-ratings below other ratings) and those in-agreement (those with self-ratings similar to other ratings). Atwater and Yammarino (1992) assessed both predictors and outcomes of self-other agreement and discovered that self-other agreement was a moderator of predictor-leadership and leadershipperformance relationships. Specifically, in their study, leadership ratings of overestimators, underestimators, and in-agreement estimators were predicted by different variables. In addition, performance evaluations were positively related to leadership ratings for in-agreement estimators, but not for under-or overestimators. Recommendations for promotion were negatively related to leadership for overestimators, positively related for those in-agreement, and ...

Center for Creative LeadershipA central proposition of attraction-selection-attrition theory (B. Schneider, 1987) and of the literature on organizational socialization was tested. Support for the hypothesis that organizations are relatively homogeneous with respect to the personality attributes of their managers was found. A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) conducted on a sample of approximately 13,000 managers from 142 organizations representing a broad cross-sample of U.S. industries revealed a significant effect for organizational membership on the personality characteristics of managers. Results of a 2nd MANOVA, nesting organizations within industries, revealed a significant effect for both organization and industry on the personality characteristics of managers. Some implications of these findings are discussed.During the early part of this century, a group of American anthropologists, who were admittedly influenced by the psychodynamic psychology of Freud, hegan to concern themselves with the study of intercultural variation in personality (cf. DuBois, 1944;Kardiner, 1945). These anthropologists were not so much interested in the development of individual personality, as was true of their counterparts in psychology; rather, they were intrigued by the societal distribution of various personality characteristics. Fromm (1942) summarized their interest when he wrote, ' 'We are interested . . . not in the peculiarities by which . . . persons differ from each other, but in that part of their character structure [personality] that is common to most members of the group" (p. 277). These anthropologists believed that an understanding of shared personality

No abstract