Bosses are Tougher Raters than Direct Reports

“First get your facts; then you can distort them at your leisure.”

Mark Twain

The prevalence of self-enhancement (i.e., high regard for one’s own skills and abilities) is not hotly debated but there is controversy on whether it is adaptive or maladaptive which has implications for understanding and interpreting multi-rater feedback ((Nowack, K. (in press).  Leveraging 360 degree feedback to facilitate behavior change.  Consulting Psychology: Practice and Research)).  If self-enhancement means seeing one’s self more positively than others, then the outcomes (performance, health, career and life success) are frequently more favorable but if it is defined as having higher self-ratings than others who provide feedback, then the outcomes are frequently less than favorable.

Much of the literature in 360-degree feedback research suggests that self-ratings tend to be inflated relative to others including some of my own work ((Nowack, K. (1992). Self-assessment and rater-assessment as a dimension of management development. Human Resources Development Quarterly, 3, 141-155)).  It has been suggested that these inflated self-ratings contribute to the “no clue” gene that many leaders have leading to being “blinded” by how others in their organizations really see them.

In fact, It has been estimated that 65%-75% of the employees in any given organization report that the worst aspect of their job is their immediate boss. In fact, estimates of the base rate for managerial incompetence in corporate life range from 30% to 75% with the average level of poor leadership hovering at about 50% ((Hogan, R. & Kaiser, R. (2005).  What we know about leadership. Review of General Psychology. 9 (2), 169-180)).

But are leaders viewed the same way by others?

Do bosses filter the world through their own lenses and are these different from direct reports, peers at the same level and other team members at different levels of the organization?

We analyzed data from three of our most popular multi-rater assessments to test these questions (Emotional Intelligence View 360, Executive View 360, and Manager View 360).  We took a random sample of participants in our data base and compared how self-ratings compared to those of bosses, direct reports, team members and peers.  This sample represents diverse industries and a mix of males and female leaders across three assessments with distinctly different competency models.

What we found in our analyses surprised us a bit:

1. First, contrary to earlier research, self-ratings were not inflated relative to others.
2. We consistently found significant differences in our statistical analyses in the mean ratings of leaders by bosses, direct reports, peers and team members (ANOVAs p’s < .01).
3. Bosses consistently were the toughest evaluators and their ratings were significantly lower than other rater groups.
4. Direct reports tended to consistently and significantly rate leaders higher than any rater groups except for “Team Members” who might lack a “day to day” perspective.

There is some evidence that the different rater groups have different lenses they use to rate and evaluate leaders ((Nowack, K. (2002). Does 360 Degree Feedback Negatively Effect company performance: Feedback Varies With Your Point of View. HR Magazine, Volume 47 (6))).

Supervisor feedback tends to be based on bottom-line results (are tasks completed on time and well), technical competence and whether an employee’s behavior draws complaints from colleagues or clients.

By contrast, direct reports base their reviews on factors such as willingness to involve the direct report in decisions, interest in a direct report’s professional development and trustworthiness (i.e., interpersonal and process).

Peers, who lack perspective on their colleagues’ day-to-day performance, tend to focus on leadership potential. Their remarks often reflect opinions on whether the participant has the “right stuff” to motivate and create a compelling vision for others to follow.

Bosses might be tougher in evaluating talent because they are held accountable for the “bottom line” and are more apt to focus on task (what gets done) over process (how things get done).  Our analysis suggests that if your boss has any influence over your career, you might want to find out what makes them look good to senior management and play the political game of emphasizing what you have accomplished (results focused advertising). Our results don’t guarantee that your boss or direct reports will value what you do and how you do your work but it does suggest we are all “feeling different parts of the same elephant.”

I am going to stop now and go ask my boss for some feedback about this Blog…..Be well….
[tags]self-ratings, distortion, self-awareness, multi-rater feedback, leadership effectiveness, 360 feedback, self-insight, emotional intelligence,  kenneth nowack, ken nowack, nowack[/tags]

Ken Nowack

Kenneth Nowack, Ph.D. is a licensed psychologist (PSY13758) and President & Chief Research Officer/Co-Founder of Envisia Learning, is a member of the Consortium for Research on Emotional Intelligence in Organizations. Ken also serves as the Associate Editor of Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research. His recent book Clueless: Coaching People Who Just Don’t Get It is available for free for a limited time by signing up for free blog updates (Learn more at our website)