Participants' Reactions to Subordinate Appraisal of Managers: Results of a Pilot

Abstract

Practitioners and scholars alike have proposed the use of subordinate appraisal of managers (SAM) as part of a multiple appraisal system. This paper reports the results of a study conducted in the Dade County Public School System to assess SAM's impact on central office administrators—subordinates as well as supervisors. Subordinate ratings of supervisors were obtained on 19 managerial competencies. A performance profile was sent to each supervisor rated by at least three subordinates. Subsequently, participants were given an opinion survey in order to assess SAM's impact on them. Results of a factor analysis of subordinates' (n = 94) mean scores on the opinion survey indicated that there are three dimensions of SAM's impact on participants: overall acceptance of SAM, perceived validity of SAM, and perceived accuracy of subordinate ratings. Overall, the majority of participants: 1) expressed their approval of SAM for self-development—only subordinates supported it for evaluation purposes; 2) thought that SAM provided valid ratings; and 3) believed that subordinate ratings were accurate. Finally, the majority of participants did not think that SAM would have adverse effects on the supervisor-subordinate relationship.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 20 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.