Differences in self- and managerial-ratings on generic performance dimensions

Orientation: The 360-degree performance assessments are frequently deployed. However, scores by different reviewers might erroneously be aggregated, without a clear understanding of the biases that inherent to rating sources. Research purpose: purpose this study was determine whether there conceptual and mean score differences between self- managerial-ratings on dimensions. Motivation for study: Combining may lead incorrect decisions about development, promotion, and/or remuneration employees. Understanding effects sources aid thoughtful applications versus in low- high-stakes decisions. approach/design method: A cross-sectional design implemented asking 448 managers evaluate their subordinates’ performance, 435 employees own performance. quantitative data were analysed means multi-group factor analyses robust t -tests. Main findings: There satisfactory degree structural equivalence managerial-ratings. Practically meaningful emerged when compared. Practical/managerial implications: It uncouple managerial-ratings, providing feedback. Managerial ratings more conservative estimate, which could used decisions, such as or promotion. Contribution/value-add: This is first investigate effect generic model South Africa. provides valuable evidence regarding should predictive studies, feedback, talent