Self‐other Agreement: Does It Really Matter?

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 ...

360‐degree feedback with systematic coaching: Empirical analysis suggests a winning combination

“…Most research to date has found a lack of agreement between self-ratings and those provided by others (Atwater, Ostroff, Yammarino, & Fleenor, 1998;Johnston & Ferstl, 1999). In addition, discrepancies are usually biased in the direction of self-ratings, i.e., self-evaluations are higher than those by other raters (e.g., Campbell & Lee, 1988;Yammarino & Atwater, 1997).…”

An examination of crossover and spillover effects of spousal and expatriate cross-cultural adjustment on expatriate outcomes.

“…The principal investigator conducted telephone interviews and asked the superior to rate the expatriate on the three work adjustment items derived from Black and Stephens (1989). Superior ratings are generally considered a valid alternative to self-ratings in the performance appraisal literature when the supervisor has the opportunity to observe the employee (Atwater, Ostroff, Yammarino, & Fleenor, 1998). A sample item was "Please provide your assessment of the degree of adjustment of an expatriate regarding specific job responsibilities."…”

Self–other agreement in empowering leadership: Relationships with leader effectiveness and subordinates' job satisfaction and turnover intention

“…Although previous studies have concluded that over-estimators are generally poor performers and less effective (e.g., Atwater et al, 2005;Ostroff et al, 2004;Tekleab et al, 2008;, there are nevertheless some indications that this picture is more nuanced. For example, Atwater et al (1998) found that leaders who received high ratings from others (i.e., peers and subordinates) but provided still higher self-ratings were rated as more effective by their direct supervisor. Likewise, Sosik and Megerian (1999) found that over-estimators received the highest mean performance scores from their superiors as compared with both under-estimators and those in the agreement category.…”

“…This may prevent them from developing as leaders (Bass & Yammarino, 1991) and lead them to pursue unrealistic tasks that represent risks and uncertainties (Atwater et al, 1998).…”

“…For example, SOA is proposed as an indicator of leader self-awareness (Atwater & Yammarino, 1992;Wohlers & London, 1989), has been noted as being an important aspect of emotional intelligence (Goleman, 1995), and has demonstrated a relationship to outcomes such as leader effectiveness (Atwater, Ostroff, Yammarino, & Fleenor, 1998) and leader influence tactics (Berson & Sosik, 2007), and to subordinates' selfleadership (Tekleab et al, 2008), job satisfaction, and performance (Moshavi, Brown, & Dodd, 2003). Despite a growing body of relevant literature, we still need to better understand whether the effects of SOA can be generalized across leadership models, criteria, and cultures.…”