| Abstract: | Although 360-degree feedback programs are rapidly increasing in popularity, few studies have examined how well ratings from these programs predict an independent criterion. This study had 2 main aims: First, to examine the validity of ratings from a 360-degree feedback program using assessment center ratings as an independent criterion and to determine which source (i.e., self, supervisor, peers, or subordinates) provided the most valid predictor of the criterion measure of competency. Second, to better understand the relationship between self-observer discrepancies and an independent criterion. The average of supervisor, peer, and subordinate ratings predicted performance on the assessment center, as did the supervisor ratings alone. The self-ratings were negatively and nonlinearly related to performance with some of those who gave themselves the highest ratings having the lowest performance on the assessment center. Supervisor ratings successfully discriminated between overestimators but were not as successful at discriminating underestimators, suggesting that more modest feedback recipients might be underrated by their supervisors. Peers overestimated performance for poor performers. Explanations of the results and the implications for the use of self-ratings in evaluations, the design of feedback reports, and the use of 360-degree feedback programs for involving and empowering staff are discussed. |
