Abstract

In recent years, multi-source feedback (MSF) has emerged as a popular performance appraisal method. This method promises performance evaluation data that is less biased, more reliable, and more valid than the traditional supervisor-only appraisal method. However, given that it is common practice in a MSF process for ratees to select the raters of their performance, the method may actually be introducing new biases. Given this, the current study employed a web-based survey to assess the effects that an individual's level of organizational based self-esteem (OBSE) may have on rater selection. The hypothesis that individuals low in OBSE would be more likely that individuals high in OBSE to select raters that were perceived as being good friends was supported by some of the analyses. In addition, the hypothesis that individuals high in OBSE would be more likely than individuals low in OBSE to choose raters that were perceived as being highly acquainted with their work was also supported by some of the analyses. The assumption behind these hypotheses is that choosing friends as raters will lead to positively enhanced and unrealistic assessments while choosing raters that are highly task acquainted will lead to accurate and thereby potentially negative assessments. While critical performance assessments may not be desired in the short-term, the long-term growth and developmental consequences are substantial. In addition, the possible effects that the rater source (peer/subordinate) and the purpose of the appraisal (administrative/developmental) may have on the process were also examined.