Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Seven task-oriented teams worked together for between 4 and 6 months on a project. At the end of the task, members were each subject to four task-performance ratings: from self, superior, team-peers, and a consultant who was part of the team. There were fewer than chance differences between the different teams on the congruence measures so the data was combined. While the congruence between self and manager, self and peer, and self and consultant ratings were very low, the manager-peer, manager-consultant, and peer-consultant congruence was overall high. Observable behaviors like forward planning and communication showed overall highest congruence while less observable cognitive variables showed much lower congruence. These results are similar to previous studies in the area. Implications of the use of these ratings in management development are considered.
Furnham et al. (Wed,) studied this question.