A comparison of self-, peer, and assessor evaluations of managerial potential

Self-, peer, and assessor evaluations in an assessment center were compared to determine whether these three sources utilized the same types of performance information when making overall assessments of managerial potential. Peer and assessor evaluations were expected to show more similarity in terms of information usage than either source would show with self-evaluations. Participants were 186 employees of a large petroleum company rated in an assessment center. Self-, peer, and assessor evaluations were made on six performance dimensions and on overall managerial potential. Results supported the first hypothesis that self-assessments of managerial potential would be based to a greater extent on information not generated in the assessment center (due to pre-existing knowledge of the self) than would peer and assessor evalua-tions. However, the second hypothesis was not supported since asses-sors and peers weighted the six performance dimensions least similarly, contrary to predictions that self-ratings would be least similar. The impact of the rating context (job versus assessment center) was dis-cussed as a possible explanation for the unexpected similarity of self-evaluations with both peer and assessor evaluations in the present study. Historically, research on ratings of performance dimensions in the Industrial/Organizational Psychology literature has emphasized accu-rate measurement. Disagreement among rating sources (e.g., self-, peer, and assessor or supervisor) has long been viewed as problematic and as indicative of both rating bias and lack of construct validity. Furthermore