Common comparison standards: An approach to improving agreement between self and supervisory performance ratings.

This study examined differential comparison standards (i.e., comparative bases for performance evaluation) and their effects on agreement between supervisory raters and selfraters within the context of a performance appraisal system. The purpose of the research was to examine differential comparison standards as an underlying mechanism in the traditionally poor correlation between self and supervisor performance ratings. Supervisor and subordinate rater dyads (N = 106 dyads) evaluated job performance across 3 dimensions, using 5 different comparison standards (ambiguous, internal, absolute, relative, and multiple). Results support the hypotheses, indicating that more explicit and objective comparison standards produced higher levels of interrater agreement. The implications of these findings in terms of comparison standards being adopted in current research and future performance appraisal systems are discussed.