Abstract:
This research compared ratings of task performance and contextual performance from three different sources:self, peer, and supervisor. Participants were service industry employees in the service industries in Yogyakarta, Indonesia. A Sample of 146 employees and 40 supervisors from the service industries provided ratings of task performance and contextual performance. The results indicated that there were significant differences in the mean ratings across the two sources. Self-ratings and peer-ratings of task and contextual performance are not significantly different, but self-rating and supervisor-ratings of task and contextual performance are significantly different. Peer-ratings are significantly different from supervisor ratings of task performance, but not significantly different of contextual performance. Using MTMM matrix, there is a convergence for self-rating and peer-ratings of task and contextual performance. I also find strong method effects, indicating that ratings from different sources provide different information. Using raters from different levels may also help to develop consensus, eliminate bias, and perhaps in turn lead to general acceptance by ratee. Practitioner considering the use of self- rating should be aware that there is liable to be much disagreement
Machine summary:
Wahyu Ariani Department of Management, Atma Jaya University, Yogyakarta, Indonesia ABSTRACT: This research compared ratings of task performance and contextual performance from three different sources:self, peer, and supervisor.
Numerous advantages of using multiple raters have been cited, for example, enhanced ability to observe and measure various job facets, greater reliability, fairness, ratee acceptance, and improve defensibility of the performance appraisal program from a legal standpoint (Harris and Schaubroeck, 1988).
Self-ratings are actually higher or more lenient than ratings obtained from supervisor or peers (Harris and Schaubroeck, 1988; Yu and Murphy,1993; Khalid and Ali, 2005).
Performance feedback from multiple sources including self, supervisor, subordinate, peers, and customers has been shown to lead to more reliable ratings, better performance information, and greater performance improvements than traditional performance appraisal methods.
One of the constraints in extra-role performance research is reliability and validity solely on ratings provided by immediate supervisors, peers, or by self-ratings.
The study by Becker and Vance (1993) found a moderate correlation between self-ratings and supervisor- ratings of extra-role performance.
Hypothesis 3 is supported, because correlations between self ratings and peer-ratings of task and contextual performance are significant.
Hypothesis 4 is not supported, because correlations between peer-ratings and supervisor-ratings of task and contextual performance are not significant.
DISCUSSION The results of the research show that measuring the contextual performance and task performance with the use of self and supervisor ratings indicates a significant gap.
Factors Affecting the Convergence of Self-Peer Ratings on Contextual and Task Performance.