Differential Comparison Standards and Their Subsequent Effects on the Agreement Between Self- And Supervisor Performance Appraisal Ratings.

This study examined differential comparison standards (i.e., comparative bases for performance evaluation) and their effects on the level of agreement between supervisory and self-raters (i.e., subordinates) within the context of a performance appraisal system. The purpose of the research was to determine whether differential comparison standards represented an underlying mechanism in the traditionally poor correlational relationship between self-supervisor performance ratings. Supervisor and subordinate rater dyads (N = 106 dyads) evaluated job performance across three dimensions using five different comparison standards (ambiguous, internal, absolute, relative, and multiple) in addition to providing preference, availability, and relevancy ratings. Results supported the hypotheses indicating that more explicit and objective comparison standards produced higher levels of interrater agreement, preference, availability, and relevancy. The implications of these findings are discussed, particularly in terms of comparison standards being adopted in current research and future performance appraisal systems