Search results

Congruent self-other agreement in leadership evaluations is associated with positive outcomes such as work unit performance. In contrast, poor self-other agreement in leadership evaluations is associated with negative outcomes such as leaders making ineffective job-relevant decisions. This study examined whether the extent of leaders’ preference for intuitive and rational thinking predicted self-other agreement in leadership evaluations.

Self-ratings and follower ratings of transformational leadership were analysed for 160 dyad pairs of leaders and followers (n = 320). Leaders self-rated their preference for rational and intuitive thinking. Response surface analysis was used to model the relationship between self-other agreement and leaders’ thinking styles.

As ratings of transformational leadership increased in both leaders and followers, we observed higher scores on preferences for both rational and intuitive thinking. Leaders’ preference for intuitive thinking showed a curvilinear relationship with self-other agreement, such that more intuitive thinking was related to higher leader–follower congruence in ratings of transformational leadership. We further uncovered that higher leader preferences for rational thinking were related to increased leader–follower disagreement in transformational leadership ratings.

Research has focused more on the outcomes than antecedents of self-other agreement in leadership. Thinking styles have undergone limited examination as antecedents of self-other agreement in leadership evaluations. Thinking styles are semi-malleable traits that can be used for the selection of leadership potential and developed to improve leadership performance. The current research suggests that relationships between thinking styles and self-other agreement on leadership effectiveness are more complicated than first thought.

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.

Given the importance of the extent to which supervisors and their subordinates agree in their assessment of supervisors’ leadership, the purpose of this paper is to investigate the possible relationship between self-other agreement on supervisors’ transformational leadership and subordinates’ perceptions of supervisors’ in-role and extra-role performance, through the mediating role of leader-member exchange.

Self-other agreement was conceptualized as the degree of congruence between supervisors’ self-assessment and subordinates’ assessment of supervisors’ transformational leadership. Data were collected from 36 supervisors and 189 of their subordinates. Cross-level polynomial regressions and surface response analysis were used to analyze the hypothesized relationships.

Statistical analyses revealed that self-other agreement on idealized influence and individual support are positively associated with subordinates’ perception of leader-member exchange, and in turn leader member fully mediates the relationship between self-other agreement and subordinates’ perceptions regarding their supervisors’ performance. Results from polynomial analyses indicate that subordinates’ ratings of leader-member exchange would be highest for underestimator, second for in-agreement/good supervisors, third for in-agreement/poor and lowest for overestimator supervisors both for the idealized influence and individual support.

This is one of the pioneer studies investigating the potential relationship between self-other agreement on supervisors’ transformational leadership and the subordinates’ perceptions on their supervisors’ performance through social exchange. Since researchers have paid scant attention to intervening mechanisms, this study aims to extend previous research in the literature by investigating those associations through the mediating effect of leader-member exchange.

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.

This study seeks to examine the effects of a “personal effectiveness” training on both assertiveness and Psychological Capital (PsyCap) that were monitored before and after the training.

In addition to self‐ratings, other‐ratings were assembled to explore two ways in which they can contribute to the monitoring of intervention effects. To verify self‐reported results, and to predict participants' performance through the use of self‐other agreement.

Overall, rater and ratee scores showed a similar increase on assertiveness and most components of PsyCap. Self‐other agreement measures showed an increase in agreement for assertiveness and PsyCap after the training. Lastly, the type of relationship between rater and ratee appeared to have significant influence on the consistency between raters, such that agreement was higher for cohabiting partners than colleagues, supervisors or friends.

This study has created a better understanding of the role that the self‐other agreement and PsyCap can play in monitoring intervention effects.

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.

Self-report questionnaires are the predominant method used in human resource management (HRM) research to assess employees’ work-related psychological constructs (e.g., processes, states, and attributes). However, this method is associated with significant shortcomings, including the introduction of self-serving bias and common method variance when used exclusively. In this chapter, the authors challenge the assumption that individuals themselves are the only accurate source of the self-focused information collected in HRM research. Instead, the authors propose that other-ratings – ratings of a target individual that are provided by a workplace observer, such as a coworker, supervisor, or subordinate – can accurately assess commonly measured work-related psychological constructs. The authors begin by explaining the advantages of other-ratings for HRM research and practice, reviewing the history of other-ratings and how they emerged in the personality and person-perception literature, and outlining how they have been used in HRM research to date. Then, the authors build upon Funder’s (1995) realistic accuracy model to develop a theoretical argument detailing why workplace others should be able to accurately judge how another employee thinks and feels about work. Next, the authors highlight existing evidence in the literature on the accuracy of other-ratings and present the results of a preliminary meta-analysis on the ability of other-ratings to predict self-ratings of work-related psychological constructs. Finally, the authors discuss potential moderators of other-rating accuracy and reflect on a number of practical considerations for researchers looking to use other-ratings in their own work. The authors intend for this chapter to meaningfully contribute to the larger conversation on HRM research methods. Other-ratings are a simple, yet powerful, addition to the methodological toolkit of HRM researchers that can increase flexibility in research design and improve the overall quality of research.

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 paper aimed to examine the relationship between 360° assessment of leadership derailment factors and leadership effectiveness, differences across position levels, and impact of self‐other agreement.

The data were from an archive of 360° feedback (N=523). Boss ratings of leadership effectiveness were regressed on leadership derailment factors as rated by other rater sources (e.g. peers and direct reports). Polynomial regressions were conducted to examine the impact of self‐other agreement.

As hypothesized, derailment factors had statistically significant negative correlations with leadership effectiveness. Higher‐level managers were rated higher on derailment factors than lower‐level managers. In‐agreement high ratings of derailment factors (i.e. rated high by both self and others) were associated with lower effectiveness than in‐agreement low ratings (i.e. rated low by both self and others). Self under‐ratings of derailment factors (i.e. self ratings lower than others’ ratings) were related to lower effectiveness than self over‐ratings (i.e. self ratings higher than others’ ratings). It also was found that self ratings were less accurate than ratings from other rater sources.

Leadership derailment induces significant direct as well as indirect costs to organizations. The 360° feedback process can be used to help managers enhance their self‐awareness of derailment potential. Findings of this study can be used to help interpret 360° assessment results.

Past research on 360° feedback has focused primarily on positive leadership characteristics. This study represents one of the few in the literature that empirically has examined the assessment of negative leadership characteristics in 360° feedback.

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.