Abstracts
Résumé
Le but de cet article est d'étudier la relation qui existe entre l’évaluation qu'un subalterne fait de son propre rendement et les évaluations qu'il reçoit de son supérieur et de ses collègues. Suite à une revue de la littérature, l'auteur présente et explique les résultats d'une recherche effectuée récemment auprès de 215 cadres d'une entreprise canadienne
Abstract
The purpose of this article is to study the relationship between an employee's own evaluation and the ratings he receives from his superior and his colleagues. Following a review of the literature, the author presents the results of a study conducted recently in a canadian firm.
More precisely, this article attempts to provide answers to the following four questions : (a) does the evaluation which the subordinate makes of his own performance agree with the evaluation made by his superior? (b) if there is little or no agreement, which evaluation is more favorable to the employee? (c) does the evaluation made by the employee's peers agree with his own and/or with that of his superior? (d) if there is little or no agreement, are the peers more or less severe than the superior and/or the employee himself ?
A review of eight studies which have compared self with superiors' evaluations indicates clearly that the two sets of ratings seldom correlate very well. Moreover, there are good reasons to believe that the subordinates generally tend to evaluate themselves more favorably than their superiors do. As far as peers are concerned, several studies suggest that their perceptions of the employees' performance correlate relatively well with those of the employees' superiors. There is very little research, however, concerning the relationship between peers' and self evaluations. There is also a serious lack of information concerning the favorableness of peers' ratings as compared with self and superiors' ratings.
The study reported here was done with 215 managers in a manufacturing firm whose main operations are located in Québec and Ontario. Self evaluations on six factors were collected on a questionnaire. The respondents were then evaluated by their immediate superior and by an average of 3.2 peers.
The results of this study can be summarized as follows: (a) there is little or no correlation between self and superiors' evaluations ; (b) subordinates evaluate themselves more favorably then their superiors do, on all six factors; (c) peers' evaluations correlate relatively well with superiors' evaluations, but do not correlate at all with the evaluations done by the subordinates themselves; (d) as far as favorableness is concerned, there are indications that peers' evaluations are located half-way between superiors' and subordinates' evaluations.
Several explanations are suggested for these and similar results obtained else-where: lack of agreement on what the subordinate's job really is and what qualities itrequires ; stereotyped role-playing by both the superiors and the subordinates ; establishment of a « bargaining position » by both actors prior to the appraisal interview A major source of disagreement could also be found in the way superiors, peers, and subordinates select the norms against which they evaluate performance, and this is discussed at some length.
As indicated in the conclusion, these results suggest that a « Management by Objectives » type of appraisal may be more necessary than some managers are inclined to think.