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