Abstract
We experimentally evaluated 3 different rating conditions that balanced accountability and anonymity, and evaluated the impact of each on the accuracy of subordinates' ratings of their supervisors. Self-accountability, the rating method that reflects the status quo, involved the anonymous submission of ratings. Ratee accountability involved the rater being identified to the ratee (their supervisor). In the external-accountability condition the rater was held accountable to a consultant. We used two popular rating methodologies. Although not all results reached significance, the pattern of results pointed to external accountability and ratee accountability generally resulting in more accurate ratings than did self-accountability.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callSimilar Papers
More From: Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
