A COMPARISON OF SELF-EVALUATIONS, PEER-EVALUATIONS, AND ASSESSOR-EVALUATIONS OF MANAGERIAL POTENTIAL

Self-, peer, and assessor evaluations in an assessment center were com pared to determine whether these three sources utilized the same types of performance information when making overall assessments of manager ial potential. Peer and assessor evaluations were expected to show mor e similarity in terms of information usage than either source would sh ow with self-evaluations. Participants were 186 employees of a large p etroleum company rated in an assessment center. Self-, peer, and asses sor evaluations were made on six performance dimensions and on overall managerial potential. Results supported the first hypothesis that sel f-assessments of managerial potential would be based to a greater exte nt on information not generated in the assessment center (due to preex isting knowledge of the self) than would peer and assessor evaluations . However, the second hypothesis was not supported since assessors and peers weighted the six performance dimensions least similarly, contra ry to predictions that self-ratings would be least similar. The impact of the rating context (job versus assessment center) was discussed as a possible explanation for the unexpected similarity of self-evaluati ons with both peer and assessor evaluations in the present study.