Self-Other Agreement in 360-Degree Leadership Ratings: A Cross-Cultural Measurement Equivalence Study

360-degree leadership feedback has been increasingly used for leadership assessment and development in the past two decades. As the enthusiasm for applying it globally grows, cross-cultural research in evaluating its generalizability to countries outside the North America is warranted. Toward this end, the present study examined measurement equivalence and latent means differences of 360-degree leadership ratings between different rating sources and between the United States and China. Leaders from America and China were evaluated in a 360-degree ratings program by their supervisors, peer workers, subordinates, and themselves on seven leadership competencies. Taking the means and covariance structure (MACS) analytic approach, the study found conceptual (factor form and factor loadings) equivalence and partial scalar (item intercepts) equivalence between self-raters, supervisors, peers, and subordinates. The U.S. ratings and Chinese ratings were similar in factor structures and item means, but Chinese ratings had smaller uniqueness variances of item indicators. Self-other agreement in ratings varied from the U.S. sample to Chinese sample, after controlling for measurement error variances. The U.S. raters produced stronger self-supervisor agreement yet weaker self-peer agreement compared to Chinese raters. Self-raters and subordinate raters in both countries revealed leniency bias, although the U.S. self-ratings were generally higher than Chinese self-ratings. The stringency of supervisor ratings was prominent in China. As the first cross-cultural measurement equivalence study of 360-degree ratings, the present research has supported meaningful score comparison on the competency level across rating sources and between America and China