Abstract
This study tested two competing hypotheses concerning the occurrence of halo error in self-(i.e., leader) and subordinate ratings of leader behavior in a field setting at the United States Military Academy (West Point). Unit leaders at Cadet Field Training and their followers described leader behavior in terms of effectiveness and several specific forms of behavior (e.g., communication processes, reward/punishment contingencies). The intercorrelations among the nine measures were examined separately for both self -and subordinate ratings. Based on the attribution literature, the first hypothesis stated that subordinate ratings would show significantly more halo error than self-ratings. A competing hypothesis, based on the rater-ratee acquaintance literature, posited that subordinate ratings would not show significantly more halo than self-ratings. The results supported the first hypothesis. The implications of this finding for future research are discussed.
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 callDisclaimer: 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.
