The purpose of this study is to inspect the valid and biased predictors of employee and student performance. In this study, we hypothesized that employees and students who were higher on conscientiousness would reserve higher scores on their performance ratings (Hypothesis 1), and raters who were higher on agreeableness would rate higher scores on ratees’ performance (Hypothesis 2). Also, we testified whether there was a difference between supervisors and peers on performance rating (Exploratory Question). To operate this research, 26 students handed out surveys to 107 participants in order to collect data for analyses. Some students recruited supervisors and coworkers at their ...view middle of the document...
Likewise Barrick and Mount (1991) mentioned, this study also provided evidence that conscientiousness was a valid predictor of performance.
For Hypothesis 2, there was a significant result of negative correlation between raters’ agreeableness and their performance ratings. The correlation indicated that when raters’ agreeableness increased, raters’ performance ratings decreased. As the result, Hypothesis 2 was not supported by the findings. This might cause by the potential reason that many raters in this study had certain rating training and known about rater biases before they involved in this study. Raters who were high on agreeableness might had been more aware of the leniency effect, which leaded them to be more straight on rating others performance as an adjustment. Unlike Grahek (2007) found that agreeableness was positively correlated to rater leniency, we found agreeableness was negatively correlated to performance rating instead. This might suggested that participants in this study over estimated their agreeableness, which in turn had high agreeableness and lower rating scores among others performance.
For Exploratory Question, there was no significant difference between the ratings of supervisors and peers. The independent t test indicated that the mean scores difference (effect size) between supervisors and peers were not large enough to show practical meaning. This might cause by the small sample size of two variables, which our sample size in hand may not be big enough to show and detect the true effect between supervisors’ and peers’ rating scores on performance.
There were some limitations in this study. First, this study was limited by the small sample size of 107 participants. In the total number of participants, we only had data of 26 students to measure Hypothesis 1 on ratees’ conscientiousness and performance. Furthermore, we only had data of 81 participants to calculate Hypothesis 2 on raters’ agreeableness and ratings. In the Exploratory Question, only 33 supervisors and professors were compared with 48 coworkers and peers on rating mean scores. Due to the small sample size, this study might not able to detect the detailed differences and show significant results. Secondly, data was gathered by self-reported surveys. Since participants could over or under estimate their conscientiousness and agreeableness, the data on personality measures may not be reliable. Also, participants could possibly provide information that was not true because of boredom, keeping their own privacy, or decrease of motivation during answer process. Thirdly, most of the samples were collected in the area of Dekalb, which the study might not able to generalize to larger population. Meanwhile, analyze on ratees’ conscientiousness and performance were calculated with the data of 26 Northern Illinois University students who were in the same class, which suggested the findings on ratees’ conscientiousness and performance only...