Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Abstract Use of subordinates and peers for job performance ratings has increased markedly in recent years, on the assumption that these sources cover different parts of the criterion space and provide incremental validity over and above supervisors. This study directly tested this assumption using a meta-analytically derived correlation matrix including supervisor-, subordinate-, and peer-ratings as well as objective performance measures. Hierarchical regression results showed that both subordinates and peers accounted for significant variance in objective measures, over and above other sources. Further meta-analyses investigated nomological networks of subordinate and peer ratings, specifically relations with personality and ability measures. Ability correlations for peers and especially subordinates were lower than those previously found for supervisors. Correlations for personality dimensions affiliation and agreeableness, although low, were somewhat higher than previous supervisor values. Results provide justification for the added expense of including subordinates and peers in a rating system.
Conway et al. (Mon,) studied this question.