Self–other rating agreement in leadership: A review.

By John W. Fleenor, James W. Smither, Leanne Atwater, Phillip W. Braddy, Rachel E. Sturm. 2010

385 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/7473ead1067e4e661809bf20f925c08d03dafd9c

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

Citations in the corpus

The Thin Line Between Empowering and Laissez-Faire Leadership: An Expectancy-Match Perspective (2018, methodology): “Research on leader-follower agreement has shown that the dyadic characteristics may contribute to the likelihood of discrepancies in their views (Fleenor et al., 2010).”
Values and behaviors of effective lean managers: Mixed-methods exploratory research (2017, neutral): “, 2001; Vie, 2010; Yukl, 2012): in addition to the usual (self-rating) surveys (Davis & Luthans, 1979, 1980; Fleenor et al., 2010).”
Congruence of leader self-perceptions and follower perceptions of authentic leadership: Understanding what authentic leadership is and how it enhances employees’ job satisfaction (2014, background): “Therefore, a lack of agreement between different perspectives is interesting in itself (Fleenor et al., 2010), both methodologically (to ensure more accurate assessments) and content-wise (to contribute to tapping into the true nature of the construct).”
Managing employee innovative behaviour through transformational and transactional leadership styles (2018, neutral): “But it would be very surprising if this tendency towards inflated measures correlated for leaders and their followers (Fleenor et al. 2010; Jacobsen andAndersen 2017).”
Servant leadership and ethics: a dyadic examination of supervisor behaviors and salesperson perceptions (2015, background): “Although both ratings contain systematics errors like leniency bias (for supervisors self-ratings) and rater ability (for salesperson ratings), they also share elements of ‘true score’ variance (Fleenor et al. 2010).”
Mutuality in leader–subordinate empowerment expectation: Its impact on role ambiguity and intrinsic motivation ☆ (2013, background): “agreement literature have provided us with evidence on a wide range of antecedents, such as raters’ biographical characteristics, their cognitive ability and the contextual factors that could affect self–other agreement/disagreement (Fleenor et al., 2010).”