Search results

The purpose of this paper is to provide a new interpretation of underestimation for the particular case of servant leadership, contending the ideas that underestimation is caused by lack of self-awareness or low self-esteem, and that self-other agreement is a necessary condition for self-awareness. Additional reflections are provided on the development of servant leadership in organizations.

A revision of the self-other agreement literature was done, with a focus on underestimation. The theoretical foundations of servant leadership were analysed. The main hypothesis was derived, including a set of supporting propositions. An empirical study was conducted based on a polynomial regression and 3D surface analysis, including 36 managers and 160 followers.

Underestimation was the strongest predictor of servant leadership effectiveness in generating psychological empowerment amongst followers. The theoretical revision provides arguments to support the claim that servant leaders underestimate themselves because of their humility and valuing of others.

With the increasing adoption of servant leadership, this study supports the need to develop specific processes for detecting, assessing, and developing servant leaders in organizations. Additional care is necessary on the interpretation of self-other ratings through 360-degree instruments in light of the leadership model being considered.

It is the first empirical study within the self-other leadership agreement that incorporates servant leadership. It provides an alternative explanation of underestimation for servant leaders. The paper also provides a reflection on the practical implications of underestimation for developing servant leadership in organizations.

This study aims to examine whether the internal locus of control, self-esteem and leadership self-efficacy can predict differences in self–other rating agreement on leader effectiveness. First, the authors predicted that the greater the internal locus of a leader the more their self-rating will be in agreement with others' rating of them (1a). Second, the authors proposed that the greater the self-esteem of a leader the more their self-rating will be in discrepancy with others' rating (1b). Third, the authors hypothesized that the greater the self-efficacy of a leader the more their self-rating will be in agreement with others' rating (1c).

To test the hypotheses, multisource data were collected from 128 banking leaders (who responded about different aspects of leadership self-efficacy, internal locus of control, self-esteem and leadership effectiveness) and 344 subordinates (who rated their leaders' effectiveness in performing leadership tasks).Multivariate regression was performed by jointly regressing both leaders' self-ratings and subordinates' ratings as a dependent variable on internal locus of control, self-esteem and leadership self-efficacy as predictor variables.

Self-esteem of a leader the more their self-rating will be in discrepancy with others' ratings.

The study tried to investigate the leader-subordinate dis(agreement) on leaders’ effectiveness taking banking leaders in the Ethiopian Context. The finding of the results is crucial and important for leadership development programs.

This paper aims to examine the Self-Other Agreement between leaders and employees in the sector of Libraries and Information Services (LIS) to construct a sustainable and strategic communicational process among library directors and staff.

A sample of 135 leaders-employees of 17 organisations of LIS in more than five countries answered on a quantitative methodological research instrument in a multiplicity of variables. Statistical analysis of independent samples t-test was used to testify our research hypotheses.

Results indicated that there is a difference in means between the two independent samples (leaders-employees). There are library leaders who rate themselves quite high, and there are employees who rate their leaders with lower evaluations.

This research extends and improves the matter of Self-Other Agreement in the sector of LIS through the collection of data that indicated a possible gap of communication and trustworthiness between leaders and employees.

Regardless of the difference or the consensus of ratings among leaders and employees, the results of this research could be served as a stimulus plus as a starting point for library leaders by correcting or developing relations of communication and trustworthiness between them and their followers.

Self-Other Agreement is one of the major factors that positively or negatively affect the overall operation of the organization in the way a leader could perceive the additional feedback. In the sector of LIS, the study of Self-Other Agreement is a rich and unexplored research area which deserves further analysis.

The purpose of this paper is to address the subjectivity inherent in existing methods of human capital value measurement (HCVM) by proposing a 360‐degree peer review as a method of validating self‐reporting in HCVM surveys.

The case study is based on a survey of a section of the Royal Australian Navy. The sample was 118 respondents, who were mainly engineering and technical workers, and included both civilian and uniform.

The research may be summarised in three main findings. First, it confirms previous research demonstrating that correlations between self‐ and other‐ratings tend to be low. However, while previous research has found that self‐rating tends to be higher than other‐rating, it was found to be the opposite: other‐rating was higher than self‐rating. Second, personality is discounted as an influencing variable in self‐rating of knowledge. Third, there are patterns in the size of the discrepancy by knowledge dimension (i.e. employee capability, employee sustainability) that allow generalisation about the adjustment necessary to find an accurate self‐other rating of knowledge.

The findings are based on a single case study and are therefore an exercise in theory development rather than theory testing.

The 360‐degree peer review rating of knowledge has considerable application. First, use the outcomes in the way 360‐degree feedback has been traditionally used; i.e. identifying training needs assessment, job analysis, performance appraisal, or managerial and leadership development. Second, use it for performance appraisal – given the method's capacity to identify issues at a very finite level: e.g. are you building effective relationships with customers? Third, identify knowledge gaps, at a strategic level, for recruitment and development targets. Finally, in terms of financial decisions investors might be able to compare knowledge scores by organization.

Traditionally, researchers and practitioners have used other‐ratings as a tool for identifying training and development needs. In this paper, other‐ratings have been introduced as a method for validating self‐rating in the measurement of knowledge. The objective was to address one of the weaknesses in existing methods – subjectivity. The solution to this problem was to use three data points – self‐reporting, 360‐degree peer review, and personality ratings – to validate the measurement of individuals’ human capital. This triangulation method aims to introduce objectivity to survey methods, making it a value measurement rather than value assessment.

In order to determine the usefulness of multi‐source rating in different types of organizations, this study explored differences among organization types in four areas: leniency, interrater agreement, relationships between these ratings and effectiveness, and the relationship between agreement and effectiveness. Used self, subordinate, peer, and supervisor ratings for 1,080 target managers in six types of organizations: education, military, government, manufacturing, finance, and health. Interrater agreement was measured in three ways: an index of variance, a point‐difference categorization method, and categories of self‐other agreement. Results indicated that a leniency bias was present in educational institutions, after controlling for demographic characteristics. Interrater agreement was lowest in government agencies and highest in education and manufacturing organizations. In private sector organizations, more poor‐performing managers tended to over‐estimate their performance relative to the perceptions of others. Interrater agreement was positively related to effectiveness especially in education and finance organizations. Results suggest that multi‐source feedback may work differently in different types of organizations, and such differences may need to be taken into account by researchers, practitioners, and feedback recipients.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the impact of self-other rating agreement (SOA) on ethical decisions and behavior.

A sample of 169 students (60 women and 109 men) enrolled in a part-time, regional MBA program was divided into three SOA categories: (1) Self-aware, individuals whose self-ratings matched observer ratings, (2) Underraters, those whose self-ratings were lower than observer ratings and (3) Overraters, individuals whose self-ratings were higher than other ratings. Ethical behavior was evaluated with the completion of a managerial in-basket assessment.

The results revealed that ethical behavior varied by SOA, with underraters exhibiting the highest levels of ethical behavior, followed by self-aware (i.e. accurate) and then overraters. One of the intriguing results is that underraters displayed more ethical behaviors than accurate raters, raising questions about the use of accurate self-assessments as an indicator of personal and professional effectiveness.

The results indicate that organizations should consider SOA in their human resource processes because it has important implications for employee training, selection and promotion. While prior research has examined the effect of SOA on performance, commitment and leadership perceptions, the authors contribute to the literature by examining whether SOA influences actual ethical decisions and actions.

Peer evaluations of performance increasingly are being used to make organizational decisions and to provide individuals with performance related feedback. Using Kenny’s social relations model (SRM), data from 14 teams of undergraduate students who completed performance ratings of themselves and other team members were analyzed. Results indicated a significant target variance effect for the majority of performance dimensions and a significant perceiver variance effect for all performance dimensions. Results further indicated that, in general, how individuals see themselves is not congruent with how others see them, how individuals see themselves is congruent with how they see others, how individuals are seen on a particular dimension is related to how they are seen on other performance dimensions, and, how a person is seen by others does not relate to how that individual sees others. Implications, limitations, and suggestions for future research using the SRM are discussed.

The purpose of this paper is to examine whether agreement between frontline employee self-ratings and supervisory ratings of service performance functions as an indicator of healthy supervisor-subordination relationships above and beyond what might be indicated simply by either supervisory ratings or self-ratings.

Research hypotheses were tested using a sample of 220 matched pairs of frontline service workers and their immediate supervisors from nine full service hotels in the USA.

The results show that higher levels of agreement in service performance ratings between employees and supervisors is associated with higher levels of leader-member exchange (LMX) and organizational commitment.

Senior managers can refer to the level of performance rating agreement between customer service employees and their supervisors in assessing supervisors’ competency to manage their work relationship with their subordinates.

This study examined rating agreement in a service performance context and found rating agreement between subordinates and their supervisor may have a unique effect on service worker effectiveness, producing a unique incremental effect on LMX and organizational commitment. This is important given that few attempts have been made to examine service performance from both subordinates’ and supervisors’ perspectives and the implication that rating agreement may have for improving employee service performance.

To examine the relationship between self‐esteem and job performance using others' perceptions of self‐esteem and to examine agreement in ratings of self‐esteem across sources.

A sample of 143 sales representatives, 113 supervisors, 420 peers, 435 customers, and 510 family and friends completed Rosenberg's measure of self‐esteem and a measure of acquaintanceship. Peers and supervisors rated the subjects' job performance. Correlations and hierarchical regression were used to explore the relationships.

Customer, peer, and supervisor perceptions of subjects' self‐esteem related significantly to peer and supervisor performance ratings, whereas self and family/friends perceptions did not. There was limited support for the acquaintanceship effect (greater agreement across sources when familiarity is greater), while context affected agreement (same context sources had greater agreement).

The study highlights the importance of looking at an employee from a variety of perspectives. Also, training employees to develop self‐enhancing behaviors may enhance their outcomes. Finally, training raters that their perceptions of co‐workers' self‐esteem may influence evaluations of performance could reduce unconscious errors.

If this had been a traditional study measuring self‐esteem's impact on performance ratings, no significant relationships could have been reported since individuals' perceptions of their own self‐esteem were not valid predictors of performance ratings. It may be the individual's public self‐esteem (e.g. impression management skills) that influences performance ratings. In particular, workplace sources perceived high self‐esteem as being important to job performance. The validity of self‐esteem may be understated through reliance on the self‐report method alone.

Empirical tests of Hersey and Blanchard’s situational leadership theory (SLT) have demonstrated that the assessment of follower competence and commitment, critical contextual features dictating optimal leadership style, poses several problems in testing the validity of this theory. As well, most previous studies have used leader rating as the only information source in making these assessments. The purpose of this paper is to use the degree of agreement between leader rating and follower self-rating to determine follower competence and commitment, and consequently an optimal leadership style.

Survey data collected from both supervisors and employees in business organizations in Norway were analyzed to test the predictions put forward in SLT.

The results show that SLT principles are supported when leader rating and follower self-rating are congruent. However, no support was obtained for Blanchard’s suggestion to apply followers’ self-ratings of competence and commitment in the case of discrepant ratings of follower development level. But data do support the contention that leader assessment would be a better basis for providing followers with appropriate direction and support.

So far SLT has been a very popular but as yet under-researched theory. An important contribution of the present study is by making SLT an evidence-based theory, as opposed to just being intuitively sound. As such, the authors think SLT in an updated “convergent” version should be applied in organizations and taught in leadership development programs.