a matter of perspective: the effect of race of rater and ratee on managerial performance feedback

Darden Graduate School of Business Administration University of Virginia

Working Paper No. 02-03

A Matter of Perspective: The Effect of Race of Rater and Ratee on Managerial

Performance Feedback

Martin Davidson Silvia Swigert

Marian Ruderman

This paper can be downloaded without charge from the Social Science Research Network Electronic Paper Collection at:

http://ssrn.com/abstract=392422

http://ssrn.com/abstract=392422

A MATTER OF PERSPECTIVE: THE EFFECT OF RACE

OF RATER AND RATEE ON MANAGERIAL PERFORMANCE FEEDBACK

MARTIN N. DAVIDSON Darden Business School University of Virginia

P.O. Box 6550 Charlottesville, VA 22906-6550

[email protected] 804/924-4483

Fax: 804/243-5020

SILVIA SWIGERT MARIAN RUDERMAN

Center for Creative Leadership One Leadership Place

P.O. Box 26300 Greensboro, NC 27438-6300

[email protected] [email protected]

336/288-7210 Fax: 336/288-3999

April 26, 2000

Running Head: Rater-Ratee Race

Rater-Ratee Race

2

A MATTER OF PERSPECTIVE: THE EFFECT OF RACE OF RATER

AND RATEE ON MANAGERIAL PERFORMANCE FEEDBACK

The credibility 360-degree feedback may be threatened by perceived race bias. Analysis

of black and white raters’ and ratees’ performance ratings showed psychological similarity was

more important to effectiveness for different-race than for same-race pairs; and psychological

similarity and attractiveness were more important to effectiveness for white than black ratees.

Implications are discussed.

Keywords: feedback, race, similarity

Rater-Ratee Race

3

One of the most critical pieces of information for developing managers is feedback on

their performance. Performance appraisals have typically been used with one of two objectives

in mind (though sometimes these objectives become commingled). The first objective is

administrative: appraisal is used to mete out managers’ raises or promotions. The second

objective, and the one upon which our study focuses, is to help managers develop their career

and professional competence. While at one time a manager’s only source of developmental

feedback was a superior’s performance appraisal, emergent organizational structures and

practices that emphasize coordination, cooperation, and relationship-building among peers call

for more variety in the sources of that feedback (Handy, 1995; Miles & Snow, 1995). In

response, uni-directional methods of supplying feedback are being supplemented by multirater or

“360-degree” feedback. The assumption underlying 360-degree feedback is that one’s superior,

subordinates, and peers all have critical information to offer regarding a manager’s effectiveness

(Borman, 1974; Hazucha, Hezlett, & Schneider, 1993).

The ultimate purpose of developmental 360-degree feedback is to motivate individuals to

change problematic behaviors and sustain constructive behaviors. But in order for this feedback

to be effective, it must be seen as credible by the recipient: an individual must have confidence

that the feedback is likely to be accurate, or else the individual will not act on it. One of the

greatest threats to credibility is bias, both real and perceived. There is a great deal of research

documenting the extent to which appraisals are conducted unfairly, and the consequences of such

behavior can be damaging (Cox & Nkomo, 1986; Igbaria & Wormley, 1995; Quinn, 1969;

Robbins & DeNisi, 1993). Moreover, subjective processes such as performance ratings are

especially susceptible to such bias. In the present study, we explore one domain in which bias

has been found to exist in appraisals—the area of race effects. Our research goal was to examine

Rater-Ratee Race

4

how race influences the way developmental feedback is generated. To that end, we examined

rater-ratee race effects in developmental performance ratings for black and white managers.

Specifically, we tested 1) whether racial similarity between rater and ratees affected ratings of

effectiveness of those ratees, and 2) whether racial similarity was associated with psychological

similarity and attraction.

Race Effects In Performance Feedback

The majority of the research on bias in performance ratings identifies characteristics of

raters and ratees that are likely to engender bias and then examines the impact of those

characteristics on relevant outcomes. One of the more widely examined characteristics, race, has

yielded a series of interesting, if not always consistent, results. For example, Kraiger & Ford

(1985) conducted a meta-analysis of how the race of the ratee affected performance ratings by

examining 74 studies with a total sample of 17,159 ratees for white raters and 14 studies with

2,428 ratees for black raters. Results showed that both black and white raters gave significantly

higher ratings to members of their own race, and that these race effects were more likely in field

settings when blacks composed a small percentage of the work force. Also, in a more recent

study of 360 degree performance feedback, black raters from all perspectives (peers,

subordinates, and bosses) assigned more favorable ratings to ratees of their own race, whereas

white bosses assigned more favorable ratings to ratees of their own race, but white subordinates

did not. Both white and black managers received higher ratings from black raters than from

white raters (Mount, Sytsma, Hazucha, & Holt, 1997). Finally, Tsui & O'Reilly (1989) found

that mixed-race superior subordinate dyads were associated with higher levels of role ambiguity.

Specifically, white subordinates reporting to black superiors reported the highest levels of role

ambiguity and conflict, while black subordinates reporting to white superiors reported the lowest

Rater-Ratee Race

5

level of role ambiguity. The thrust of these results suggest that raters made distinctions, at a

group level, between black and white managers.

Though most of these studies do not have strong theoretical bases for explaining the

direction of the observed race differences, many of the results are consistent with a social

identity explanation (Tajfel, 1978). Social identity theory posits that one psychologically

identifies with a group as a means of sustaining and enhancing one’s own self-concept. This

identification becomes especially powerful when one can compare one’s own group (ingroup) to

another group (outgroup). Typically this comparison takes on a well documented flavor: one

tends to favor members of one’s ingroup and derogate members of an outgroup. Interracial

interaction is one domain in which such comparison is obviously salient. Several results above

reveal raters favoring managers of the same race and derogate managers of a different race.

Recall that Kraiger and Ford (1985) found that both black and white raters gave significantly

higher ratings to members of their own race, and Mount et al. (1997) found that black raters

rated black managers higher than white managers—all outcomes consistent with social identity

theory.

However, even results from the Mount et al. study do not lend themselves unequivocally

to a social identity explanation. For example, the theory does not offer a reason why black raters

would rate all managers higher than would white raters. The picture becomes even more

complicated in light of a second set of studies. Sackett & DuBois (1991) examined the effects of

rater and ratee race on performance ratings by comparing data from 3 sources: a large-scale

civilian study, a large-scale military study and Kraiger and Ford’s (1985) meta-analytic study.

Results from the civilian and military data converged, but they differed from the meta-analytic

results: whites rated white managers higher than blacks in the civilian study, but black raters did

Rater-Ratee Race

6

not rate blacks higher than whites. Moreover, in the military data, race effects depended upon

which dimension was examined. The authors suggests that the Kraiger and Ford findings could

result from the preponderance of lab studies in their analysis. A further meta-analysis confirmed

the Sackett and DuBois results (Oppler, Campbell, Pulakos, & Borman, 1992). This set of

findings is wholly inconsistent with a pure social identity explanation. Thus we are left with a

set of findings regarding race differences that are unclear in revealing precisely what the pattern

of differences is, yet unequivocal in demonstrating that differences do emerge. Our approach,

then is to explore another model that could offer a more parsimonious explanation for these

findings.

The Impact of Similarity on Race-Based Ratings Differences

As a means of clarifying these issues, we utilize the similarity-attraction paradigm

(Berscheid & Walster, 1969; Byrne, 1971) as a theoretical tool to help understand what affects

the observed race-effects. Our model is shown in Figure 1.

Insert Figure 1 about here

This paradigm suggests that racial demographic similarity between a rater and ratee will lead to

the rater’s perceived similarity to the ratee. Moreover, racial similarity will lead to interpersonal

attraction as well as positive effectiveness ratings. Perceived similarity has been found to

influence strongly managers’ rating of their subordinates’ performance (e.g., Rand & Wexley,

1975). For example, managers and subordinates provided the most positive evaluations of each

other when both perceived themselves as similar; the least positive evaluations occurred when

both saw themselves as dissimilar (Pulakos & Wexley, 1983). Additionally, increasing

Rater-Ratee Race

7

dissimilarity in superior-subordinate demographic characteristics, (relational demography) is

associated with lower effectiveness as perceived by superiors, less personal attraction on the part

of superiors for subordinates, and increased role ambiguity experienced by subordinates (Tsui &

O'Reilly, 1989). Following the formal similarity-attraction model, perceived similarity also

leads to interpersonal attraction, as has been observed in interview settings (Keenan, 1977).

Finally, interpersonal attraction is hypothesized to lead to positive judgments of effectiveness.

Research examining the effect of sex similarity on recruiters' evaluations of actual

applicants used this model as a theoretical framework (Graves & Powell, 1995). The authors

tested whether perceived similarity and interpersonal attraction mediated sex-differentiated

judgments. The results revealed complex effects of sex similarity on recruiters' decision

processes. Perceived similarity and interpersonal attraction mediated the effect of sex similarity

on female recruiters’ assessments of applicants’ qualifications. Surprisingly, female recruiters

saw male applicants as more similar to themselves and more qualified than female applicants.

For male recruiters, interview outcomes were not affected by sex similarity. In addition, Liden,

Wayne, & Stilwell (1993) examined perceived similarity, liking, demographic similarity, and

performance as determinants of leader-member exchanges and found that perceived similarity

and liking from both the leaders’ and members’ perspectives predicted the quality of a leader-

member exchange.

Thus, the similarity-attraction paradigm offers a way of exploring interracial and

intraracial dynamics in 360-degree feedback. Our model suggests the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1: Racial similarity is positively related to a) psychological similarity; b)

attractiveness; and c) effectiveness.

Hypothesis 2: Psychological similarity is positively related to attractiveness.

Rater-Ratee Race

8

Hypothesis 3: Attractiveness is positively related to effectiveness.

METHODS

Data Collection Procedures and Samples

Data were collected from two different types of managers: The ratees and the raters. The

ratees were evaluated by the raters. The ratees were managers participating in leadership

development programs run by an American management development organization. Participants

in 5 sessions of a program for only African-American managers and participants from 10

sessions of a program for the managerial population at large were asked to participate. Both

programs feature intensive assessment for development and are intended for mid-level managers

in large organizations. A total of 299 managers participated in these programs.

As part of the leadership development program, each ratee was asked to identify others in

the work environment he or she wanted to use as raters on Benchmarks (Dalton et al., 1997), a

multi-rater assessment for development instrument. Raters were either bosses, peers, or direct

reports. The data from Benchmarks was fed back to the ratees during their training program.

For the purposes of the study reported here, raters were asked to complete a supplemental survey

asking about their demographics, perceived similarity to the ratee, attraction to the ratee, and

overall effectiveness of the ratee. Both Benchmarks and the supplemental surveys were sent by

mail to the raters of the mangers. In addition, all raters received information explaining that they

were being invited to participate in a study of Benchmark rating processes. Participation in such

a study required completing the supplemental survey. Raters were instructed to send both their

Benchmarks’ ratings and supplemental surveys directly to the testing offices of the management

Rater-Ratee Race

9

development organization. Participation in the study was voluntary and confidentiality was

assured.

The supplemental surveys were sent to potential raters of the ratees. We received 2,094

surveys back, which is an average of 8 raters per person. The ratees themselves were asked to

complete the self-report version of Benchmarks and a biographical information form. They did

not fill out a supplemental survey. They gave permission for their biographical data to be used

in research.

From this group of ratees and raters, we selected a sample suitable for use in our

analyses. We wanted a sample of only African-American and white managers, each of whom

was rated by a pair of raters with each pair consisting of one African-American and one white

manager from the same rater category. The first step was to identify all ratees who were either

African-American or white. All other ratees and their associated raters were eliminated from the

sample. Next we selected only the peer and direct report rater groups since it was unlikely for a

meaningful analysisthat enough of the managers would have a racially different pair of raters

who were bosses. Next, we examined each case to identify cases with a racially different pair of

raters in one of the two rater groups. Of the 299 managers, 60% did not have a single African-

American rater and 2% did not have a single white rater. In many cases there was more than one

rater of the same race for a given category of rater. In this case, one rater was randomly selected

for inclusion in the data set. The requirement for a racially mixed pair of raters reduced the

number of ratees to 99, 33% of the starting sample. Since there was a pair of raters for each

ratee, we had 198 raters. Of the 99 pairs of raters, 53 were direct reports and 46 were peers.

Rater-Ratee Race

10

The Ratees

Of the 99 ratees, 54 were African American and 45 were white. Appropriate chi-square

and t-tests were conducted on key demographic and background variables to determine the

comparability of the African-American and white managers. No significant differences were

found with regard to distributions of gender or level in the organization. Of the total sample,

58% were female. Over 70% of the total sample described themselves as either middle- or

upper-middle-level managers. There were some differences with regard to the types of

organizations the managers came from (Chi-square=20.05, p<.05), with more whites in service

organizations and more African Americans in manufacturing and public service organizations.

There were also differences with regard to function (Chi-square=29.91, p<.05), with more

African Americans in human resource functions than the whites. There were no differences

between the two groups with regard to age.

The Raters

Of the 198 raters, 99 were African American and 99 were white. Chi-square tests were

conducted on key demographic and background variables to determine the comparability of

these raters. No significant differences were found with regard to the gender distribution, level

of education, and function of raters in the African-American and white groups. Both groups of

raters are highly educated and have members from a variety of functions.

Measures

Demographic information. For the ratees, demographic characteristics assessed via a

biographical information form included: title, sex, age, race or ethnic origin, number of years of

school, highest degree earned, type of organization, organizational level, function, country of

Rater-Ratee Race

11

birth, and country of current residence. Demographic information for the raters was assessed via

the supplemental survey and included gender, race or ethnic origin, highest degree earned,

function, country of birth, and country of current residence. Racial similarity between the ratee

and each rater was calculated. Racial similarity was coded as 1 if it was the same for the rater

and ratee and 0 if it was different.

Perceived similarity. The measure of perceived similarity is an adaptation of the scale

used by Liden (Liden et al., 1993). Liden et al. took the first three items of their scale from a

measure of Turban (Turban & Jones, 1988) and then added 3 of their own for a total of 6 items.

Since Liden et al. had studied only supervisor-subordinate pairs, we changed the phrasing, “My

supervisor and I” to “This person and I.” The six items used are: “This person and I are alike in

a number of areas,” “This person and I are similar in terms of our outlook, perspective, and

values,” “This person and I see things in the same way,” “This person and I handle problems in a

similar way,” “This person and I think alike in terms of coming up with a similar solution for a

problem,” “This person and I analyze problems in a similar way.”

Raters responded to these items on a 5-point scale ranging from (1) Strongly disagree to

(5) Strongly agree. This is a departure from the 7-point scale used by Liden et al. A 5-point

scale was used in order to be consistent with the scales on Benchmarks. The measure of

perceived rater-ratee similarity was created by summing the 6 items. The scale had an alpha of

.84 in our sample, slightly lower than the .91 in Liden et al.’s sample. They also found the scale

to have moderate test-retest reliabilities during several different intervals of time.

Attraction. The scale measuring attraction was an adaptation of the Liden scale for

assessing liking of a leader. Their scale was taken from the work of (Wayne & Ferris, 1990).

The wording was changed to make the scale more generic, and an additional item was added.

Rater-Ratee Race

12

The items are: “I like this person very much,” “This person would make a good friend,” and “I

enjoy spending time with this person.” The response scale ranged from (1) Strongly disagree to

(5) Strongly agree. This is in contrast to the 7-point scale used by Liden. The scale was formed

by summing these items. The alpha in our sample is .92, slightly higher than the .86 reported by

Liden.

Effectiveness. Effectiveness was measured by two items summed to make a scale. These

items are adaptations of the effectiveness criterion measures used in the validity studies of

Benchmarks (Dalton et al., 1997; McCauley, Lombardo, & Usher, 1989). Since the validity

items were framed from the perspective of the boss, these items were rewritten to reflect more

generically the perspective of a peer or direct report. Rated on a 5-point scale with (1)

Unacceptable and (5) One of the best ever; a star, raters were asked “What is this person’s level

of performance in his/her present job”? The second question asked, “In all, how satisfied are

you with this person as a leader?” with a 5-point response scale ranging from (1) Very

dissatisfied to (5) Very satisfied. The alpha coefficient for this scale is .83.

RESULTS

Analysis of race, psychological similarity, attraction, and effectiveness

Design Strategy. A matched rater-ratee sample was used in the analyses that follow.

Within ratees in this design, rater race and race similarity represented conditions that were

essentially equivalent. That is, each ratee was either black or white and each had two raters who

were: (1) racially black and racially white (rater race variable) and, (2) racially similar and

racially dissimilar (race similarity). For the rater, however, rater race and race similarity were

between-subject variables: each rater was either racially similar or racially dissimilar to the ratee,

Rater-Ratee Race

13

and each had a black or a white ratee. In sum, rater race and race similarity were within-subject

variables for ratees and between-subject variables for raters. Ratee race was a between-subjects

variable.

The first hypothesis involved the race similarity variable, and, consistent with our design

specifications, this variable was used as a between-rater variable and as a within-ratee variable.

When within-ratee variables of rater race and race similarity are used in the comparison analysis,

some additional power is gained by using a within-ratee design (Kraemer & Thiemann, 1987, p.

47). On the other hand, it was simpler to compare the two types of analyses (one-way ANOVA

with the race similarity variable and a two-way ANOVA with the rater race and ratee race

variables) in an overall between-rater design. Given these advantages and disadvantages, all of

the analyses were replicated using a between- and within- multivariate MANOVA (rater race

and race similarity as within variables, ratee race as the between variable).

Analysis. Table 1 shows the intercorrelations between the variables in the analyses.

Table 2 shows the means, standard deviations, and standardized differences for each of the

similarity-attraction variables by race variable. Hypothesis 1 stated that racial similarity between

rater and ratee would be positively related to the psychological similarity, attractiveness, and

effectiveness. No direct support for this hypothesis was observed, since racial similarity was not

correlated with psychological similarity (r = .06, ns) , attractiveness (r = -.06, ns), or

effectiveness (r = .06, ns). However, significant correlations between ratee race and

attractiveness (r=.17, p < .05) and between rater race and effectiveness (r = .15, p < .05) led us to

explore more deeply the possible impact race had on these variables. To this end, we sought to

understand whether the race variables (rater race and ratee race) might also moderate the

Rater-Ratee Race

14

relationships between psychological similarity and attractiveness, and between these variables

and effectiveness.

Insert Table 1 about here


To explore this possibility, we examined relationships between the relevant variables for

separate race groups of rater and ratees. All of the subgroup correlations were statistically

significant (alpha of .05, two-tailed). Z-tests of the differences between the Fisher z transformed

correlations in each race category (by variable) were statistically significant in 4 out of 9

subgroup comparisons. In the first comparison using race similarity, the correlation between

psychological similarity and effectiveness was .638 (n = 98) in different race pairs compared to

.400 in same race pairs (n = 94) (z = 2.258, p = .023); in the second between rater race, the

correlation between attraction and effectiveness was .543 for black raters (n = 95) compared to

.270 (n = 98) for white raters (z = 2.267, p =.023); in the third, between manager or ratee race,

the correlation between psychological similarity and effectiveness was .398 for black ratees (n =

106) compared to .682 for white ratees (n = 87) (z = 2.872, p = .004). Finally in the fourth, the

correlation between attraction and effectiveness was .264 for black ratees (n = 105) compared to

.527 for white ratees (n = 88) z = 2.149, p = .032).

These results show that when each race variable is considered alone, psychological

similarity is more important to effectiveness in different as opposed to same race pairs, attraction

is more important to effectiveness for black raters compared to white raters, and psychological

Rater-Ratee Race

15

similarity and attraction are each more important to effectiveness for white ratees compared to

black ratees.

Mean differences. To further explore the impact of race on the key dependent variables,

six ANOVAs were conducted to examine the effects of race similarity, rater race and ratee race

with respect to this hypothesis 1. The results of these analyses are shown in Table 3. None of

the effects of the one-way ANOVAs with race similarity as the independent variable were

statistically significant. However, in conducting two-way ANOVAs using rater race and ratee

race as independent variables, two significant main effects were observed. Black ratees (M =

12.44) were rated as more attractive than white ratees (M = 11.67) [F (1,195) = 5.30, p = .022],

and black raters (M = 8.12) judged their ratees as more effective than white raters (M = 7.63),

regardless of the race of the ratee [F (1,194) = 4.08, p = .045]. None of the interactions between

the rater race and ratee race variables were significant.


These main effects are consistent with results of inspection of standard differences in means ( d

). It is evident that black ratees were rated as more attractive than white ratees ( d = .33) and that

blacks raters judged their ratees as more effective than white raters ( d = .30), regardless of the

race of the ratee (Cohen's d; equivalent to units of standard deviation, see Howell, (1992), p.

207). These effects, considered small in size (.20 = small; .50 = medium; .80 = large), were the

only differences that were statistically significant, as shown in the ANOVA results in Table 3.

The value of using race similarity in this analysis rests in the increased power it offers

(e.g., fewer degrees of freedom used, smaller sample required). However, unless there is a

significant interaction between rater race and ratee race, the main effects of the component

Rater-Ratee Race

16

variables provide more information. When the interaction in the two-way ANOVA is compared

to the main effect in the one-way ANOVA (i.e., race similarity), there is a small but insignificant

loss of power. The exception to this appears to be in effectiveness, which has the most

significant ( p = .377) race similarity (or interaction) effect; however further probing in a later

section shows that rater race is the more powerful effect and supersedes ratee race entirely.

Relationships between the Similarity-Attraction Variables

The second and third hypotheses involved average effects (i.e., all-rater) first, then race

variable subgroup comparisons. Because the point of these analyses was to compare and

contrast correlations between the similarity-attraction variables and the race variables, we used a

between-rater design as an analytic strategy.

Hypotheses 2 and 3 stated that attractiveness would be positively related to psychological

similarity and that psychological similarity would be positively related to effectiveness. Both of

these hypotheses were supported in the full sample analysis, as shown by highly significant zero-

order correlations between attractiveness and psychological similarity (r = .45, p = .001), and

between psychological similarity and effectiveness (r = .53, p = .001) (see Table 1).

In sum, the race variables independently moderated the relationship between the

similarity-attraction paradigm variables in four of nine ways. Only one of the cross-matched

race group subgroupings further improved the results by showing an increased measure of

relatedness, and this was between rater race, race similarity, and effectiveness ratings in which

black raters gave higher ratings to both black and white ratees (e.g., same and different ratees)

compared to white raters. This was only significant to black ratees in same race pairs compared

to white ratees in same race pairs. This means that white ratees received higher effectiveness

Rater-Ratee Race

17

ratings from black raters, but not as high or significantly different from white raters in same race

pairs, compared to black ratees in same race pairs.

DISCUSSION

In the pursuit of an increased understanding of the role race plays in the presentation of

developmental feedback, the present study looked at what difference racial similarity makes by

looking at perceived similarity with regard to value, outlook, and perspectives at work as a

mediating variable. The similarity-attraction paradigm was introduced as a conceptual means for

examining the relationship between racial similarity and performance effectiveness ratings.

The analysis presented here found some general trends. While we did not find strong

simple effect of racial similarity, race plays a much more complicated role in feedback. These

results show that when each race variable is considered alone, psychological similarity is more

important to effectiveness in different as opposed to same race pairs, attraction is more important

to effectiveness for black raters compared to white raters, and psychological similarity and

attraction are each more important to effectiveness for white ratees compared to black ratees.

Perceived psychological similarity—similarity of outlook, values, etc.—is a better explanatory

device than racial similarity as perceived similarity. This is probably because these more

generalized types of similarity are more task-related than racial similarity.

The results dealing with mean racial differences were also intriguing. Whether a

manager is of the same or different race from the rater had no impact on the rater’s attractiveness

rating of the manager. However, black mangers received higher ratings from all raters than did

white managers. One explanation for this effect is that it is socially desirable to have a positive

opinion of a black manager in non-“bottom-line” regards such as attractiveness or liking. Blacks

liked black managers because they are ingroup and whites liked black managers because if they

Rater-Ratee Race

18

don’t, they are vulnerable pragmatically and psychologically. Pragmatic vulnerability stems

from the legal and social environment in which a white person’s misstatement about race is

reacted to by blacks and other whites forcefully. High-profile examples of whites being

punished for a misstatement discourages whites from behaving any way but conservatively in

interracial interactions. Psychological vulnerability stems from the genuine desire many whites

have to not to see themselves as biased or racist (Steele, 1990). The United States experience of

white racism against blacks so dominates U.S. whites’ perceptions of themselves in race

relations that they staunchly hold onto any positive attitudes they can that do not cause

dissonance (Dalton, 1995). Thus, if a white rater has a negative rating of a black manager

(whether biased or accurate), the white rater will overcompensate by saying how much he or she

likes the black manager so that the white rater doesn’t feel bad—i.e., prejudiced, racist—about

negatively evaluating a black.

What do these findings suggest for those management development specialists using 360-

degree development tools in diverse organizations? Unfortunately at this point in time there is

no easy answer to this question. This study has opened up more questions than it has answered.

However these results suggest that in debriefing 360-degree instruments it may be important to

talk about the source of the ratings and the impact of prejudice on perceptions. It is also

important to discuss the role of perceived similarity in predicting overall effectiveness.

Managers may want to consider that ratings from those who feel more dissimilar may be more

critical. They may purposely want to query a group of raters that combines both those who are

similar and dissimilar in order to get a true 360-degree perspective. Management development

specialists need to carefully handle conversations about raters. Too much emphasis on the

dissimilarity of the raters may cause managers to dismiss critical feedback. The discussion

Rater-Ratee Race

19

needs to be handled in such a way so that managers understand that the perceptions of dissimilar

others are important and contribute to their everyday reality.

Rater-Ratee Race

20

REFERENCES

Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. H. 1969. Interpersonal attraction. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Borman, W. C. 1974. The rating of individuals in organizations: An alternate approach.

Organizational Behavior & Human Performance, 12(1): 105-124.

Byrne, D. 1971. The attraction paradigm. New York: Academic Press.

Cox, T., Jr., & Nkomo, S. M. 1986. Differential performance appraisal criteria: A field study of

black and white managers. Group and Organization Studies, 11(1/2): 101-119.

Dalton, H. L. 1995. Racial healing: Confronting the fear between blacks and whites. New York:

Doubleday.

Dalton, M., Lombardo, M. M., McCauley, C. D., McDonald-Mann, D., Moxley, R., & Wachhoz,

J. 1997. Benchmarks: A manual and trainer's guide. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative

Leadership.

Graves, L. M., & Powell, G. N. 1995. The effect of sex similarity on recruiters' evaluations of

actual applicants: A test of the similarity-attraction paradigm. Personnel Psychology,

48(1): 85-98.

Handy, C. 1995. Trust and the virtual organization. Harvard Business Review, 73(3): 40-50.

Hazucha, J. F., Hezlett, S. A., & Schneider, R. J. 1993. The impact of 360-degree feedback on

management skills development. Human Resource Management, 32(2,3): 325-351.

Howell, D. C. 1992. Statistical methods for psychology (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Duxbury Press.

Igbaria, M., & Wormley, W. M. 1995. Race differences in job performance and career success.

Communications of the ACM, 38(3): 82-92.

Rater-Ratee Race

21

Keenan, A. 1977. Some relationships between interviewers' personal feelings about candidates

and their general evaluation of them. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 50(4): 275-

283.

Kraemer, H. C., & Thiemann, S. 1987. How many subjects? Statistical power analysis in

research. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.

Kraiger, K., & Ford, J. K. 1985. A meta-analysis of ratee race effects in performance ratings.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 70(1): 56-65.

Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Stilwell, D. 1993. A longitudinal study on the early development

of leader-member exchanges. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(4): 662-674.

McCauley, C. D., Lombardo, M. M., & Usher, C. J. 1989. Diagnosing management

development needs: An instrument based on how managers develop. Journal of

Management, 15(3): 389-403.

Miles, R. E., & Snow, C. C. 1995. The new network firm: A spherical structure built on a

human investment philosophy. Organizational Dynamics, 23(4): 4-18.

Mount, M. K., Sytsma, M. R., Hazucha, J. F., & Holt, K. E. 1997. Rater-ratee race effects in

developmental performance ratings of managers. Personnel Psychology, 50(1): 51-69.

Oppler, S. H., Campbell, J. P., Pulakos, E. D., & Borman, W. C. 1992. Three approaches to the

investigation of subgroup bias in performance measurement: Review, results, and

conclusions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(2): 201-217.

Pulakos, E. D., & Wexley, K. N. 1983. The relationship among perceptual similarity, sex, and

performance ratings in manager-subordinate dyads. Academy of Management Journal,

26(1): 129-139.

Quinn, J. L. 1969. Bias in performance appraisal. Personnel Administration, 32(1): 40-43.

Rater-Ratee Race

22

Rand, T. M., & Wexley, K. N. 1975. Demonstration of the effect, ''similar to me,'' in simulated

employment interviews. Psychological Reports, 36(2): 535-544.

Robbins, T. L., & DeNisi, A. S. 1993. Moderators of sex bias in the performance appraisal

process: A cognitive analysis. Journal of Management, 19(1): 113-126.

Sackett, P. R., & DuBois, C. L. 1991. Rater-ratee race effects on performance evaluation:

Challenging meta-analytic conclusions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(6): 873-877.

Steele, S. 1990. The content of our character. New York: St. Martin's Press.

Tajfel, H. 1978. Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of

intergroup relations. New York: Academic Press.

Tsui, A. S., & O'Reilly, C. A. 1989. Beyond simple demographic effects: The importance of

relational demography in superior-subordinate dyads. Academy of Management Journal,

32(2): 402-423.

Turban, D. B., & Jones, A. P. 1988. Supervisor-subordinate similarity: Types, effects, and

mechanisms. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73(2): 228-234.

Wayne, S. J., & Ferris, G. R. 1990. Influence tactics, affect, and exchange quality in supervisor-

subordinate interactions: A laboratory experiment and field study. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 75(5): 487-499.

Rater-Ratee Race

23

TABLE 1

Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations

Variable n M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1. Ratee Age 83 42.84 6.38

2. Rater Ed. Degree 198 3.02 1.03 -.11

3. Ratee Sexa 81 .42 .50 .09 .04

4. Rater Sexb 197 .49 .50 -.10 .16* .10

5. Ratee Racec 198 .56 .50 -.04 -.02 -.05 -.18*

6. Rater Raced 198 .50 .50 .00 .04 .00 -.04 .00

7. Rater Relatione 198 .46 .50 -.01 .27** -.15* .13 .06 .00

8. Race Similarityf 198 .50 .50 .00 .07 .00 .01 .00 .11 .00

9. Attract 196 12.09 2.33 -.09 -.01 -.17* .09 .17* .03 .17* -.06

10. Effective 195 7.87 1.67 .01 -.11 -.02 .16* -.01 .15* .05 .06 .40**

11. Similar 194 19.68 3.93 -.12 -.21** -.11 .14 -.04 .09 -.09 .06 .45** .53**

aRatee Sex (1=Male, 0=Female) **Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). bRater Sex (1=Male, 0=Female) *Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). cRatee Race from Ratee Bio Form (1=Black, 0=white) dRater Race(1=Black, 0=white) eRater Relation(1=Peer, 0=Subordinate) fRace Similarity(1=Same, 0=Different)

Rater-Ratee Race

24

TABLE 2

Means of psychological similarity, attractiveness, and effectiveness by race variables

Psych similarity

Attractiveness

Effectiveness

Race Variable

n Mean SD n Mean SD n Mean SD

Race Similarity

Same 96 19.90 3.97 98 11.98 2.52 96 7.98 1.54 Differen

t 98 19.46 3.90 98 12.20 2.14 99 7.77 1.79

da .18 .09 .13 Ratee Race

Black 107 19.55 3.97 108 12.44 2.11 107 7.86 1.56 white 87 19.83 3.90 88 11.67 2.53 88 7.89 1.80 d .07 .33 .02 Rater Race

Black 97 20.03 4.15 98 12.19 2.21 96 8.12 1.63 white 97 19.32 3.68 98 11.99 2.45 99 7.63 1.68 d .18 .09 .30 a d is the standardized difference between means (Howell, 1987)

Rater-Ratee Race

25

TABLE 3

One-way and two-way ANOVA results for race variables with psychological similarity, attractiveness, and effectiveness

Psychological Similarity

One-way ANOVA

Source SS df MS F p Main Effect Race Similarity 9.246 1 9.246 .598 .440 Error 2969.295 192 15.465 Total 2978.541 193 15.433

Two-way ANOVA Source SS df MS F p Main Effects (Combined) 25.252 2 12.626 .815 .444 Ratee Race 3.487 1 3.487 .225 .636 Rater Race 21.579 1 21.579 1.393 .239 2-Way Interactions

Ratee Race * Rater Race 6.490 1 6.490 .419 .518 Model 34.498 3 11.499 .742 .528 Error 2944.043 190 15.495 Total 2978.541 193 15.433 * p < .05

Rater-Ratee Race

26

TABLE 3 (cont.)


Attractiveness

One-way ANOVA


Two-way ANOVA

Source SS df MS F p Main Effects (Combined) 30.909 2 15.454 2.889 .058 Ratee Race 28.357 1 28.357 5.302 .022* Rater Race 2.551 1 2.551 .477 .491 2-Way Interactions

Ratee Race * Rater Race

2.980 1 2.980 .557 .456

Model 33.378 3 11.126 2.080 .104 Error 1026.969 192 5.349 Total 1060.347 195 5.438 * p < .05

Rater-Ratee Race

27

TABLE 3 (cont.)


Effectiveness

One-way ANOVA


Two-way ANOVA

Source SS df MS F p Main Effects (Combined) 11.265 2 5.633 2.044 .132 Ratee Race 1.475E-02 1 1.475E-02 .005 .942 Rater Race 11.238 1 11.238 4.078 .045* 2-Way Interactions

Ratee Race * Rater Race

1.304 1 1.304 .473 .492

Model 13.445 3 4.482 1.626 .185 Error 526.350 191 2.756 Total 539.795 194 2.782 * p < .05

Rater-Ratee Race

28

FIGURE 1

Model of Hypothesized Relationships

Race Perceived Similarity

Attraction

Effectiveness

b

a matter of perspective: the effect of race of rater and ratee on managerial performance feedback

Documents