Suchergebnisse

It has become common practice for management students to participate in some sort of self-assessment or multisource feedback assessment (MSF; also called 360-degree assessment or multirater assessment) during their management degree program. These assessments provide students invaluable feedback about themselves and assist students in their personal and professional development. This article draws on a conceptualization of the self as multifaceted to examine the benefits and limitations of self-assessment and MSF. Specifically, although an aid to students' learning, self-assessment tools predominantly treat the self as an individual self, thereby ignoring the relational and collective aspects of the self. Moreover, self-assessments that people make tend to be inflated, unreliable, and biased. MSF improves on self-assessment by including others' assessment of the self; however, it also possesses three limitations in its current treatment: MSF (a) conceptualizes the self as an individual self, (b) ignores the importance of context, and (c) relies primarily on a self-other rating agreement. These limitations are explored, and remedies are offered to better account for the multifaceted nature of the self.

Management schools must be prepared to aid leaders and managers to succeed in uncertain environments. We offer two approaches, each designed for critical thinking skill development, to teach graduate management students about leading in and through potential disruption to organizational life. First, we present a personalized case method that relies on a critical incident approach to examine crises students personally experienced at work. We provide a description of the student assignment and a process for student analysis. Second, we present a group project involving a poster session in which students collaboratively work on complex crisis leadership challenges and present their analysis to their peers. We describe how these two approaches develop the critical skills effective crisis leaders possess.

Women and men leaders have been noted to be similar in terms of emotional and social competence in the workforce. We analyzed gender differences in self-ratings, others' ratings, and predicted ratings of men and women leaders on a multi-source feedback assessment of emotional and social competence. Findings revealed that there were significant differences between how leaders were rated on emotional and social competence versus how they predicted they would be rated. Furthermore, results indicated that when asked to predict how they were rated by their managers, direct reports, and peers, women were significantly poorer at predicting others' ratings compared with men. However, women self-rated their demonstration of emotional and social competence similar to men. Age was investigated, but not found to have an effect on men and women's predictions of others' ratings. The article concludes with a discussion of the implications of the findings and areas for future research.

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to determine the influence of emotional and social competence (ESC) on job performance by considering self‐ratings and the ratings of others (supervisor, peer and subordinate) using a multisource feedback assessment of ESC.Design/methodology/approachThe authors utilized the 2004‐2006 performance evaluations of 36 staff members of the Ilo Copper Refinery, owned by the Southern Peru Corporation. To assess ESC, the Emotional Competence Inventory (ECI 2.0) was administered to the Ilo staff.FindingsThe study reinforces the importance of ESC to workplace performance and provides evidence of ESC's positive influence. The results reveal that 70 percent of the variance of working performance is explained linearly by the total average of ESC, with four significant competencies – self‐confidence, achievement orientation, optimism, and teamwork & collaboration – accounting for 63 percent of the variance.Research limitations/implicationsAs an initial study in Peru, the authors had a small sample size. There is limited independence in the performance evaluations because the evaluators of performance were repeated in several cases. Job performance ratings were based on the following computerized objective assessment: use of abilities, work organization planning, interpersonal relations, results, initiative, aptitude to the work, and creativity.Originality/valueThe paper is aimed at improving understanding of the links between ESC and performance. It is the first study the authors are aware of to examine these relationships in a Peruvian organization. The approach used in this study contributes to and provides evidence of the importance of emotional competence in the workplace.

Whereas overt forms of discrimination against women at work have decreased over time with the passage of formal antidiscrimination laws, implicit biases against women still plague organizations. To understand how implicit biases may appear in the workplace today, we examined how dissimilar outcomes may emerge for men and women leaders when their self-ratings differ from others' (e.g., subordinates, peers) ratings. Drawing upon role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders and the status incongruity hypothesis, we theorized and found that women who overrated their leadership behaviors received lower performance ratings and higher perceived risk of derailment scores from their supervisors than did women who underrated their leadership behaviors. Men, however, experienced fewer negative consequences (than women) when they overrated. Given these findings, especially in light of discovering that most self–other agreement (SOA) research does not explicitly address gender as a main variable of interest, we question some of the field's previous findings. We discuss the implications of our results for both practice and research regarding how SOA plays a role in the development of one's career, highlighting the potential importance of implicit gender biases.