Accountability and accuracy in subordinates’ ratings of their supervisors’ performance

Kevin M. Doyle1, Richard D. Goffin1
1Department of Psychology, University of Western Ontario, Canada
Cite this article:  Doyle, K. M., & Goffin, R. D. (2018). Accountability and accuracy in subordinates’ ratings of their supervisors’ performance. Social Behavior and Personality: An international journal, 46(9), 1449-1460.

Volume 46 Issue 9 | e6967 | Published: September 2018 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.6967

Abstract
Full Text
References
Tables and Figures
Acknowledgements
Author Contact

We experimentally evaluated 3 different rating conditions that balanced accountability and anonymity, and evaluated the impact of each on the accuracy of subordinates’ ratings of their supervisors. Self-accountability, the rating method that reflects the status quo, involved the anonymous submission of ratings. Ratee accountability involved the rater being identified to the ratee (their supervisor). In the external-accountability condition the rater was held accountable to a consultant. We used two popular rating methodologies. Although not all results reached significance, the pattern of results pointed to external accountability and ratee accountability generally resulting in more accurate ratings than did self-accountability.

Please login and/or purchase the PDF to view the full article.
Please login and/or purchase the PDF to view the full article.
Please login and/or purchase the PDF to view the full article.
Please login and/or purchase the PDF to view the full article.
Please login and/or purchase the PDF to view the full article.