The relationship of self-ratings to assessor ratings of assessment center performance
Is Version Of
This study investigated the relationships between self and assessor ratings of management dimensions (e.g. communication skills, interpersonal skills, problem solving skills) measured by two assessment centers, overall ratings of managerial potential, and background variables including demographics, work experience and cognitive abilities. Subjects were 179 candidates from an advanced management assessment program and 156 candidates from a middle management assessment program. For each assessment center candidate, self-ratings and assessor ratings of management dimensions were obtained as well as the overall assessment rating and background information (age, sex, race, education level, education major, years since degree, employment with the company, years of service, number of subordinates, line/staff employment, and verbal and mathematical ability measures);The relationships between assessor and self-ratings were investigated through correlations, comparison of means and standard deviations, and factor analyses. Relationships of assessment ratings to background variables were investigated through correlations and analyses of variance. The relationships of background variables and assessment dimensions to the overall assessment ratings were analyzed through regressions;Results revealed that self and assessor ratings of management dimensions were widely different, with significantly different means and low correlations. Self-ratings were more lenient and displayed less halo than assessor ratings. Assessor ratings were negatively related to age, and positively related to education level and cognitive abilities, whereas self-ratings showed limited relationships with these variables. Assessor ratings of dimensions showed a strong relationship to the overall assessment ratings, a relationship that was not affected significantly by self-ratings or background variables. Self-ratings were not strongly related to the overall assessment ratings. Implications of these findings and limitations of the study are discussed.