Understanding the latent structure of job performance ratings.
Generate an AI Snapshot to get a quick, structured summary of this paper.
A concise AI-generated summary of the paper will appear here once you click Generate AI Snapshot.
TL;DR
This study quantified the effects of 5 factors postulated to influence performance ratings: the ratee's general level of performance, theRatee's performance on a specific dimension, the rater's idiosyncratic rating tendencies, theRater's organizational perspective, and random measurement error.
Abstract
This study quantified the effects of 5 factors postulated to influence performance ratings: the ratee's general level of performance, the ratee's performance on a specific dimension, the rater's idiosyncratic rating tendencies, the rater's organizational perspective, and random measurement error. Two large data sets, consisting of managers (n = 2,350 and n = 2,142) who received developmental ratings on 3 performance dimensions from 7 raters (2 bosses, 2 peers, 2 subordinates, and self) were used. Results indicated that idiosyncratic rater effects (62% and 53%) accounted for over half of the rating variance in both data sets. The combined effects of general and dimensional ratee performance (21% and 25%) were less than half the size of the idiosyncratic rater effects. Small perspective-related effects were found in boss and subordinate ratings but not in peer ratings. Average random error effects in the 2 data sets were 11% and 18%.
