This Article Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 1094428107307168v1 11/1/148    most recent References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Schoorman, F. D. Articles by Mayer, R. C. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

The Value of Common Perspectives in Self-Reported Appraisals

You Get What You Ask For

Purdue University, schoor{at}purdue.edu

Roger C. Mayer

The University of Akron

This article uses the work of Smircich and Chesser on direct and meta-perspectives (i.e., points of view) to test the correspondence between self-reported and supervisory ratings of performance. Results from two field studies indicate a higher level of self-supervisor rating correlation when using a common perspective. Similar results were obtained using an alternative measure of rating correspondence. The results provide evidence that researchers using self-reports of performance as surrogates for archival performance data should ask respondents for their supervisor's assessment of their performance rather than for their own assessment. The practical implications of these results for field research are discussed.

Key Words: appraisal • performance • self-report • perspectives • validity

This version was published on January 1, 2008

Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 11, No. 1, 148-159 (2008)
DOI: 10.1177/1094428107307168


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?