THE EFFECTS OF PERCEIVED SYSTEM KNOWLEDGE ON THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN SELF-RATINGS AND SUPERVISOR RATINGS
The viability of self‐assessment in the performance appraisal process has been the focus of recent work. Although some contend that self‐appraisals can be beneficial, the consistent finding of lenient and inaccurate self‐ratings has led others to discount and doubt their usefulness. Recent research...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Personnel psychology 1992-12, Vol.45 (4), p.835-847 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 847 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 4 |
| container_start_page | 835 |
| container_title | Personnel psychology |
| container_volume | 45 |
| creator | WILLIAMS, JANE R. LEVY, PAUL E. |
| description | The viability of self‐assessment in the performance appraisal process has been the focus of recent work. Although some contend that self‐appraisals can be beneficial, the consistent finding of lenient and inaccurate self‐ratings has led others to discount and doubt their usefulness. Recent research (Farh & Dobbins, 1989a,b) has investigated the influence of a variety of factors in improving the accuracy of self‐ratings. The present study was conducted to examine the effect of perceived system knowledge (PSK) on the discrepancy between self‐ and supervisor ratings. Seventy‐three employees of two banking institutions participated by completing a questionnaire on their perceived knowledge of the performance appraisal system. The results of moderated regression analyses suggest that the level of knowledge did in fact influence the agreement among subordinates and supervisors. Self‐ratings were more congruent with supervisors’ratings when the subordinates reported high levels of perceived system knowledge. Implications of these findings for organizations and areas for future research are discussed. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1992.tb00970.x |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_220140636</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>742773</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4125-92ab1961eb6cff27d4fe45c64d7e81cbc95fd3e6e7c9526030c132d0755ef6ea3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqVkE1PwkAQhjdGE_HjP2zwXNzvUi8GYVqIpSW0SvSyKWWbgCjaQoR_71YINw_OZWdnnved5EWoSUmL2rpdtKgrhKOkaweex1rrKSGe_WxPUOO4OkUNQjh1ZJupc3RRVQtii4l2AxVpHzD4PnTTBMc-HsG4C4Nn6OHkJUlhiB-jeBJCLwAcR7iGO8EYYAhRih8gnQBEOIHQd8addBAFCe5EVvpkbZ4HSTzGh_EVOiuyZWWuD-8levIh7fadMA4G3U7o5IIy6Xgsm1JPUTNVeVEwdyYKI2SuxMw1bZpPc08WM26UcW3HFOEkp5zNiCulKZTJ-CVq7n0_y9XXxlRrvVhtyg97UjNGqCCKKwvd_AVRToSUinFpqbs9lZerqipNoT_L-XtW7jQlug5fL3SdsK4T1nX4-hC-3lrx_V78PV-a3T-UegSjpP173tk7zKu12R4dsvJNK5e7Uk-iQA-5CMXwVWnFfwBa6ZG1</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>220140636</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>THE EFFECTS OF PERCEIVED SYSTEM KNOWLEDGE ON THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN SELF-RATINGS AND SUPERVISOR RATINGS</title><source>Wiley Journals</source><source>Periodicals Index Online</source><source>EBSCOhost Business Source Complete</source><source>Education Source</source><creator>WILLIAMS, JANE R. ; LEVY, PAUL E.</creator><creatorcontrib>WILLIAMS, JANE R. ; LEVY, PAUL E.</creatorcontrib><description>The viability of self‐assessment in the performance appraisal process has been the focus of recent work. Although some contend that self‐appraisals can be beneficial, the consistent finding of lenient and inaccurate self‐ratings has led others to discount and doubt their usefulness. Recent research (Farh & Dobbins, 1989a,b) has investigated the influence of a variety of factors in improving the accuracy of self‐ratings. The present study was conducted to examine the effect of perceived system knowledge (PSK) on the discrepancy between self‐ and supervisor ratings. Seventy‐three employees of two banking institutions participated by completing a questionnaire on their perceived knowledge of the performance appraisal system. The results of moderated regression analyses suggest that the level of knowledge did in fact influence the agreement among subordinates and supervisors. Self‐ratings were more congruent with supervisors’ratings when the subordinates reported high levels of perceived system knowledge. Implications of these findings for organizations and areas for future research are discussed.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0031-5826</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1744-6570</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1992.tb00970.x</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>Agreements ; Civil Rights ; Due process of law ; Employees ; Figurative Language ; Hypotheses ; Knowledge ; Opportunities ; Perceptions ; Performance appraisal ; Performance Based Assessment ; Personnel Evaluation ; Process Approach (Writing) ; Questionnaires ; Ratings & rankings ; Researchers ; Response rates ; Self evaluation ; Self Evaluation (Individuals) ; Statistical analysis ; Studies ; Supervisors ; Validity</subject><ispartof>Personnel psychology, 1992-12, Vol.45 (4), p.835-847</ispartof><rights>Copyright Personnel Psychology, Inc. Winter 1992</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4125-92ab1961eb6cff27d4fe45c64d7e81cbc95fd3e6e7c9526030c132d0755ef6ea3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4125-92ab1961eb6cff27d4fe45c64d7e81cbc95fd3e6e7c9526030c132d0755ef6ea3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Fj.1744-6570.1992.tb00970.x$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Fj.1744-6570.1992.tb00970.x$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,1417,27869,27924,27925,45574,45575</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>WILLIAMS, JANE R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>LEVY, PAUL E.</creatorcontrib><title>THE EFFECTS OF PERCEIVED SYSTEM KNOWLEDGE ON THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN SELF-RATINGS AND SUPERVISOR RATINGS</title><title>Personnel psychology</title><description>The viability of self‐assessment in the performance appraisal process has been the focus of recent work. Although some contend that self‐appraisals can be beneficial, the consistent finding of lenient and inaccurate self‐ratings has led others to discount and doubt their usefulness. Recent research (Farh & Dobbins, 1989a,b) has investigated the influence of a variety of factors in improving the accuracy of self‐ratings. The present study was conducted to examine the effect of perceived system knowledge (PSK) on the discrepancy between self‐ and supervisor ratings. Seventy‐three employees of two banking institutions participated by completing a questionnaire on their perceived knowledge of the performance appraisal system. The results of moderated regression analyses suggest that the level of knowledge did in fact influence the agreement among subordinates and supervisors. Self‐ratings were more congruent with supervisors’ratings when the subordinates reported high levels of perceived system knowledge. Implications of these findings for organizations and areas for future research are discussed.</description><subject>Agreements</subject><subject>Civil Rights</subject><subject>Due process of law</subject><subject>Employees</subject><subject>Figurative Language</subject><subject>Hypotheses</subject><subject>Knowledge</subject><subject>Opportunities</subject><subject>Perceptions</subject><subject>Performance appraisal</subject><subject>Performance Based Assessment</subject><subject>Personnel Evaluation</subject><subject>Process Approach (Writing)</subject><subject>Questionnaires</subject><subject>Ratings & rankings</subject><subject>Researchers</subject><subject>Response rates</subject><subject>Self evaluation</subject><subject>Self Evaluation (Individuals)</subject><subject>Statistical analysis</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Supervisors</subject><subject>Validity</subject><issn>0031-5826</issn><issn>1744-6570</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1992</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>K30</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNqVkE1PwkAQhjdGE_HjP2zwXNzvUi8GYVqIpSW0SvSyKWWbgCjaQoR_71YINw_OZWdnnved5EWoSUmL2rpdtKgrhKOkaweex1rrKSGe_WxPUOO4OkUNQjh1ZJupc3RRVQtii4l2AxVpHzD4PnTTBMc-HsG4C4Nn6OHkJUlhiB-jeBJCLwAcR7iGO8EYYAhRih8gnQBEOIHQd8addBAFCe5EVvpkbZ4HSTzGh_EVOiuyZWWuD-8levIh7fadMA4G3U7o5IIy6Xgsm1JPUTNVeVEwdyYKI2SuxMw1bZpPc08WM26UcW3HFOEkp5zNiCulKZTJ-CVq7n0_y9XXxlRrvVhtyg97UjNGqCCKKwvd_AVRToSUinFpqbs9lZerqipNoT_L-XtW7jQlug5fL3SdsK4T1nX4-hC-3lrx_V78PV-a3T-UegSjpP173tk7zKu12R4dsvJNK5e7Uk-iQA-5CMXwVWnFfwBa6ZG1</recordid><startdate>199212</startdate><enddate>199212</enddate><creator>WILLIAMS, JANE R.</creator><creator>LEVY, PAUL E.</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><general>Personnel Psychology, Inc</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>GHXMH</scope><scope>GPCCI</scope><scope>IOIBA</scope><scope>K30</scope><scope>PAAUG</scope><scope>PAWHS</scope><scope>PAWZZ</scope><scope>PAXOH</scope><scope>PBHAV</scope><scope>PBQSW</scope><scope>PBYQZ</scope><scope>PCIWU</scope><scope>PCMID</scope><scope>PCZJX</scope><scope>PDGRG</scope><scope>PDWWI</scope><scope>PETMR</scope><scope>PFVGT</scope><scope>PGXDX</scope><scope>PIHIL</scope><scope>PISVA</scope><scope>PJCTQ</scope><scope>PJTMS</scope><scope>PLCHJ</scope><scope>PMHAD</scope><scope>PNQDJ</scope><scope>POUND</scope><scope>PPLAD</scope><scope>PQAPC</scope><scope>PQCAN</scope><scope>PQCMW</scope><scope>PQEME</scope><scope>PQHKH</scope><scope>PQMID</scope><scope>PQNCT</scope><scope>PQNET</scope><scope>PQSCT</scope><scope>PQSET</scope><scope>PSVJG</scope><scope>PVMQY</scope><scope>PZGFC</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>0U~</scope><scope>1-H</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>4T-</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7WZ</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>87Z</scope><scope>88B</scope><scope>88C</scope><scope>88G</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8FL</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>CJNVE</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FRNLG</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>F~G</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>K60</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>L.-</scope><scope>L.0</scope><scope>M0C</scope><scope>M0P</scope><scope>M0T</scope><scope>M2M</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQBZA</scope><scope>PQEDU</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>S0X</scope></search><sort><creationdate>199212</creationdate><title>THE EFFECTS OF PERCEIVED SYSTEM KNOWLEDGE ON THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN SELF-RATINGS AND SUPERVISOR RATINGS</title><author>WILLIAMS, JANE R. ; LEVY, PAUL E.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4125-92ab1961eb6cff27d4fe45c64d7e81cbc95fd3e6e7c9526030c132d0755ef6ea3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1992</creationdate><topic>Agreements</topic><topic>Civil Rights</topic><topic>Due process of law</topic><topic>Employees</topic><topic>Figurative Language</topic><topic>Hypotheses</topic><topic>Knowledge</topic><topic>Opportunities</topic><topic>Perceptions</topic><topic>Performance appraisal</topic><topic>Performance Based Assessment</topic><topic>Personnel Evaluation</topic><topic>Process Approach (Writing)</topic><topic>Questionnaires</topic><topic>Ratings & rankings</topic><topic>Researchers</topic><topic>Response rates</topic><topic>Self evaluation</topic><topic>Self Evaluation (Individuals)</topic><topic>Statistical analysis</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Supervisors</topic><topic>Validity</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>WILLIAMS, JANE R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>LEVY, PAUL E.</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segment 09</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segment 10</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segment 29</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - West</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - MEA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - West</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segments 1-50</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - MEA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - West</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - MEA</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection</collection><collection>Global News & ABI/Inform Professional</collection><collection>Trade PRO</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Docstoc</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (PDF only)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Education Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Psychology Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Education Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Advanced</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Standard</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global</collection><collection>Education Database</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database</collection><collection>Psychology Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Education</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>SIRS Editorial</collection><jtitle>Personnel psychology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>WILLIAMS, JANE R.</au><au>LEVY, PAUL E.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>THE EFFECTS OF PERCEIVED SYSTEM KNOWLEDGE ON THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN SELF-RATINGS AND SUPERVISOR RATINGS</atitle><jtitle>Personnel psychology</jtitle><date>1992-12</date><risdate>1992</risdate><volume>45</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>835</spage><epage>847</epage><pages>835-847</pages><issn>0031-5826</issn><eissn>1744-6570</eissn><abstract>The viability of self‐assessment in the performance appraisal process has been the focus of recent work. Although some contend that self‐appraisals can be beneficial, the consistent finding of lenient and inaccurate self‐ratings has led others to discount and doubt their usefulness. Recent research (Farh & Dobbins, 1989a,b) has investigated the influence of a variety of factors in improving the accuracy of self‐ratings. The present study was conducted to examine the effect of perceived system knowledge (PSK) on the discrepancy between self‐ and supervisor ratings. Seventy‐three employees of two banking institutions participated by completing a questionnaire on their perceived knowledge of the performance appraisal system. The results of moderated regression analyses suggest that the level of knowledge did in fact influence the agreement among subordinates and supervisors. Self‐ratings were more congruent with supervisors’ratings when the subordinates reported high levels of perceived system knowledge. Implications of these findings for organizations and areas for future research are discussed.</abstract><cop>Oxford, UK</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><doi>10.1111/j.1744-6570.1992.tb00970.x</doi><tpages>13</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0031-5826 |
| ispartof | Personnel psychology, 1992-12, Vol.45 (4), p.835-847 |
| issn | 0031-5826 1744-6570 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_220140636 |
| source | Wiley Journals; Periodicals Index Online; EBSCOhost Business Source Complete; Education Source |
| subjects | Agreements Civil Rights Due process of law Employees Figurative Language Hypotheses Knowledge Opportunities Perceptions Performance appraisal Performance Based Assessment Personnel Evaluation Process Approach (Writing) Questionnaires Ratings & rankings Researchers Response rates Self evaluation Self Evaluation (Individuals) Statistical analysis Studies Supervisors Validity |
| title | THE EFFECTS OF PERCEIVED SYSTEM KNOWLEDGE ON THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN SELF-RATINGS AND SUPERVISOR RATINGS |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-28T04%3A01%3A27IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=THE%20EFFECTS%20OF%20PERCEIVED%20SYSTEM%20KNOWLEDGE%20ON%20THE%20AGREEMENT%20BETWEEN%20SELF-RATINGS%20AND%20SUPERVISOR%20RATINGS&rft.jtitle=Personnel%20psychology&rft.au=WILLIAMS,%20JANE%20R.&rft.date=1992-12&rft.volume=45&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=835&rft.epage=847&rft.pages=835-847&rft.issn=0031-5826&rft.eissn=1744-6570&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1992.tb00970.x&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E742773%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=220140636&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |