Self-appraised job performance was studied in relation to supervisory ratings under those conditions in which self-evaluation is most likely to predict performance outcomes (Mabe & West, 1982). In contrast to previous research, there was no evidence of leniency error or restriction of range in self-appraised job performance. Convergence between self- and supervisory ratings was also evident, and was interpreted in light of the presence of halo error.
BAIRD, L.Self and superior ratings of performance: As related to self-esteem and satisfaction with supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 1977, 20, 291-300.
2.
CAMPBELL, D., & LEE, C.Self-appraisal in performance evaluation: Development vs. evaluation. Academy of Management Review, 1988, 13302-314.
FELDMAN, J.A note on the statistical correction of halo. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1986, 71, 173-176.
5.
HARLAND, L. K., SCHNEIDER, M. K., & ECK, S. A.Head nurses' perceptions of performance appraisal consequences. Paper presented at the 47th Annual Meeting of the National Academy of Management, New Orleans, 1987.
6.
HARRIS, M., & SCHAUBROECK, J.A meta-analysis of self-supervisor, self-peer, and per-supervisor ratings. Personnel Psychology, 1988, 41, 43-61.
7.
HENEMAN, H.Comparisons of self- and superior ratings of managerial performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1974, 59, 638-642.
8.
HOLZBACH, R.Rater bias in performance rating: Supervisory, self, and peer ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1978, 63579-588.
9.
KAVANAGH, M., MACKINNEY, A., & WOLLINS, L.Issues in managerial performance: Multitrait-multimethod analysis of ratings. Psychological Bulletin, 1971, 75, 34-49.
10.
KENNY, D., & BERMAN, J.Statistical approaches to the correction of correlational bias. Psychological Bulletin, 1980, 88, 288-295.
11.
KLIMONSKI, R., & LONDON, M.Role of the rater in performance appraisal. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1974, 59445-451.
