MULTIPLE ASSESSMENT OF MANAGERIAL EFFECTIVENESS: INTERRATER AGREEMENT AND CONSENSUS IN EFFECTIVENESS MODELS

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
Research has consistently identified poor interrater agreement among multiple assessments of managerial performance. Three alternative sources of dissensus in the effectiveness ratings were examined: rating errors, selective perceptions, and variations in criteria type or weight. As the available empirical evidence and theoretical analysis show, all three causes provide plausible reasons—though in varying degrees—for the low agreement coefficient. However, an empirical study designed to test three specific hypotheses on criterion type and criterion weights found consensus in the effectiveness models of superiors, subordinates, and peers. Consensus among different raters was high on both the role behaviors and on the personal traits of the managers as criteria for effectiveness. While these findings supported Biddle's role theory (1979), disagreement on the relative weights of these criteria was evident. These observations underscore the need for further conceptualization on the preference functions of raters as a primary source of the low convergent validity coefficients among multiple raters. Further research is also desirable on contextual and cognitive factors that may lead to shifts in criterion type and criterion weight, as well as on actual rating error tendencies among different raters.

This publication has 31 references indexed in Scilit: