TY - JOUR
T1 - Differential dimensions employed in rating subordinates, peers, and superiors
AU - Fox, Shaul
AU - Bizman, Aharon
PY - 1988/7
Y1 - 1988/7
N2 - In this research, we examined whether people utilize different dimensions in their ratings of subordinates, peers, and superiors. Middle managers (N = 98) from various Israeli organizations were asked to nominate three pairs of superiors, peers, and subordinates, reflecting excellence and failure. They then selected, for each nominee, the three dimensions out of seven that they considered as central to their performance rating. A 7 × 2 × 3 (Dimension × Performance Quality × Status Group) analysis of variance (ANOVA) yielded significant results, p <.05, for the Dimension × Status interaction. Five out of the seven dimensions had differential effects on the impression of the three ratee groups. The dimensions of obedience, motivation, and efficacy were used more often to characterize subordinates, whereas interpersonal relations and managerial ability were used more commonly to describe peers and superiors. We also found that the weight of some dimensions differed as a function of performance quality. The results indicate that variations in the use of dimensions were an outcome of functional interactions between rater and ratee tasks.
AB - In this research, we examined whether people utilize different dimensions in their ratings of subordinates, peers, and superiors. Middle managers (N = 98) from various Israeli organizations were asked to nominate three pairs of superiors, peers, and subordinates, reflecting excellence and failure. They then selected, for each nominee, the three dimensions out of seven that they considered as central to their performance rating. A 7 × 2 × 3 (Dimension × Performance Quality × Status Group) analysis of variance (ANOVA) yielded significant results, p <.05, for the Dimension × Status interaction. Five out of the seven dimensions had differential effects on the impression of the three ratee groups. The dimensions of obedience, motivation, and efficacy were used more often to characterize subordinates, whereas interpersonal relations and managerial ability were used more commonly to describe peers and superiors. We also found that the weight of some dimensions differed as a function of performance quality. The results indicate that variations in the use of dimensions were an outcome of functional interactions between rater and ratee tasks.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0000014878&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1080/00223980.1988.9915524
DO - 10.1080/00223980.1988.9915524
M3 - ???researchoutput.researchoutputtypes.contributiontojournal.article???
AN - SCOPUS:0000014878
SN - 0022-3980
VL - 122
SP - 373
EP - 382
JO - Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied
JF - Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied
IS - 4
ER -