Accountability and accuracy in subordinates' ratings of their supervisors' performance

Abstract

We experimentally evaluated 3 different rating conditions that balanced accountability and anonymity, and evaluated the impact of each on the accuracy of subordinates' ratings of their supervisors. Self-accountability, the rating method that reflects the status quo, involved the anonymous submission of ratings. Ratee accountability involved the rater being identified to the ratee (their supervisor). In the external-accountability condition the rater was held accountable to a consultant. We used two popular rating methodologies. Although not all results reached significance, the pattern of results pointed to external accountability and ratee accountability generally resulting in more accurate ratings than did self-accountability.