Knowledge summary series: 360-degree assessment.

The common thread of the three short pieces that make up this article is assessment. We assess ourselves. We ask others to give us their assessments. And we welcome (or at least tolerate) boss assessments. All for the purpose of performance improvement, development, and getting ahead.

The research presented here first looks into whether self-assessment is accurate or even important. Because self-rating is commonly used in organizations, its deficiencies--and how to overcome them-should be well-understood. In a cautionary mode, the second piece explores whether sharing 360 assessments is good practice. Next comes assessments of strengths and weaknesses, and where to focus development efforts. Much has been written about concentrating on strengths. Here, the dangers of overemphasizing strengths are exposed and an argument made for balance: enhancing strengths but working on or around weaknesses.

The Dynamics and Value of Self-Ratings

Self-rating is a common HR practice. Almost all 360s, many performance appraisal processes, and some competency systems include a serf-rating component. Many development programs allow people to self-insert based upon self-evaluation. Few would argue self-ratings should not be included in these applications. People should compare their own viewpoints with what bosses, direct reports, peers, and customers have to say about them, but probably not for the expected reasons. The dynamics of self-rating must be understood in order to use it better: to know the ways in which it is useful, useless, or even harmful.

To look at the dynamics and value of self-ratings, the existing research is summarized by the following questions:

1. Do self-ratings agree with ratings by other people?

2. Do self-ratings relate to anything of importance? Who is right?

3. Does it make any difference that self-ratings are not very accurate? (This makes perhaps the biggest difference of all: A person with inaccurate self-ratings might end up getting fired.)

4. What are the typical patterns of inaccurate rating? (On what areas are those who get fired overrated?)

5. Summing up, what might some best practices be?

Do Self-Ratings Agree with Ratings by Other People?

No. Not closely. Many studies show low relationships between self-ratings and those by other people (Conway & Hunnicut, 1997; Clark, et al., 1992; Harris & Schaubroeck, 1991; Mabe & West, 1982). There is much higher agreement between "all of the other rater groups (boss, peers, and direct reports) than between any of these groups and self-raters. The norm is for serf and other ratings to be different; so one use of self-ratings is to look at differences. Differences between self and others of typically a scale point or more are usually called either blind spots or hidden strengths. In blind spots, one rates oneself higher than others, hi hidden strengths, one rates oneself lower than others do. As discussed later, only one of these is a likely problem. The other may be a blessing.

Self-ratings and ratings by others differ significantly most of the time.

Do Self-Ratings Relate to Anything of Importance? Who Is Right?

The question here is who is most right? Whether self-ratings agree with those of others (they do not) begs the question of who is more accurate. Self-ratings might relate to performance or promotion better than those of others. Shouldn't the self know the self best?

Self-ratings ordinarily relate to nothing of importance (Mabe & West, 1982). In our last round of studies, the overall correlation between self-ratings and performance was .00, with the boss being the most accurate rater by far in predicting long-term performance and promotion (Lombardo & Eichinger, 2003). On average, we collected competency data about two years before collecting measures of performance and if the person was terminated, status unchanged, or promoted. Peers and direct reports provided some value as well, with at least some of their competency ratings correlating with the criterion measures. But the boss was the best rater.

Other than for public relations purposes, why include self-ratings at all when they are likely to be different from everyone else and wrong.

Self-ratings do not relate to performance or potential for promotion or whether a person gets promoted in the future.

Does It Make Any Difference that Self-Ratings Are Not Very Accurate?

The inaccuracy of self-ratings is understandable. People often overestimate their strengths as part of a positive self-image or false self-esteem. Research by Stone (1994) indicates people tend to overestimate their facility at more complex tasks. Similarly, Vonk (1999) found people engaged in more bragging and self-promoting behavior when they thought that a claim could not be verified, that statements were more a matter of opinion. That self-ratings tend to be higher than those of others is fairly well-established (Harris & Schaubroeck, 1988).

This finding requires important qualification when we look more deeply at research data. Thrown together so far are low performers and high, people with little interest or possibility of promotion, and people on the fast track upward.

When we split data by performance, we find the overestimators (who rate themselves higher than others do) are the poorest performers. Research by Fleenor, et al. (1996) concludes those who overrate themselves are perceived as lower in effectiveness by others, noting that the evidence is clear that "self-ratings (alone) tell us little about leader effectiveness" and that there is a kind of manager who routinely over evaluates his or her performance, mad that tendency is associated with poor leadership. Atwater, et al. (1998) came to a similar conclusion.

Research findings differ on whether higher performers agree more with others and are presumably more self-aware, seeing themselves more as others see them, or underestimate their ratings in comparison with those of others. Stone researchers (Kelley, 1998; Boyatzis, 1982; Atwater, et al.., 1998) find them to be more in agreement. Others find they are just underestimators (they rate themselves lower than others do). On 360-degree competency assessments, average performers typically overestimate their strengths, whereas star performers rarely do. If anything, the stars tended to underestimate their abilities, possibly an indicator of higher internal standards (Goleman, 1998). Lombardo and Eichinger (2003), in predicting performance two years out, also found the more effective people to be underestimators.

Looking at the flip side, at what gets people in career trouble, the evidence is similar. Shipper and Dillard (2000) found that detailers (people who fail or stumble alter being successful for some period of time) are "managers who overestimate their own abilities, are often ineffective and fail to learn from management development programs." They note: "those rating themselves high often demonstrate traits such as lack of self-awareness and arrogance, usually associated with ineffective management." The managers most likely to derail are usually those who have too high an opinion of their own skills and abilities compared to managers who underestimate their abilities. Underestimators were more able to bounce back from career derailment regardless of level.

In our last round of studies we looked at three groups of people across on average a two-year period. Some were promoted, most were unchanged, and some were terminated. In terms of actual promotion (as well as performance), the higher the self-rating compared with those of other groups, the more likely a person is to be terminated. Those who are terminated rate themselves higher (as do their direct reports). Direct reports tend to rate fairly highly and undifferentiatedly in most cases. Some may have worried about retribution from a marginal boss. Bosses and peers rated them much lower (a full standard deviation on average).

Those who were unchanged rate more similarly to their rater groups, but still rate themselves more highly. And those who are promoted rate themselves lower than does any rater group. The same trend holds for career derailers or stallers. Those terminated rate themselves lower (more positive) on career-stalling behaviors; those promoted rate themselves higher (less positive) (Lombardo & Eichingm; 2003).

To get an idea of how differently those who get fired rate, we looked at our 86 measures (67 competencies and 19 career-stalling patterns). Exhibit 1 shows the significant differences.

Overraters fail and underraters succeed.

What Are the Typical Patterns of Inaccurate Rating? On WhatAreas Do Those Who Get Fired Overrate?

They are generally self deluded, but in particular they think they are better at creating something new and different, keeping on point, making accurate people calls, energy and drive, managing diverse relationships, inspiring others, and honor.

The most accurate rater by tar in our studies is the immediate boss (many more boss ratings are related to long-term performance and whether promoted/terminated/unchanged). Bosses rate significantly lower than the fired do 41 times out of 67. Thirteen of the differences are large (more than a standard deviation). Bosses describe the terminated as less able to deal with conflict, make tough choices, or think things through broadly. There is also a large interpersonal theme: lack of interpersonal savvy, poor at managing diversity, or failure to build teams. Finally, as other research has shown, lower self-knowledge (see Shipper & Dillard, 2000).