Multi‐source perspectives of self‐esteem, performance ratings, and source agreement

Purpose – To examine the relationship between self‐esteem and job performance using others' perceptions of self‐esteem and to examine agreement in ratings of self‐esteem across sources. Design/methodology/approach – A sample of 143 sales representatives, 113 supervisors, 420 peers, 435 customers, and 510 family and friends completed Rosenberg's measure of self‐esteem and a measure of acquaintanceship. Peers and supervisors rated the subjects' job performance. Correlations and hierarchical regression were used to explore the relationships. Findings – Customer, peer, and supervisor perceptions of subjects' self‐esteem related significantly to peer and supervisor performance ratings, whereas self and family/friends perceptions did not. There was limited support for the acquaintanceship effect (greater agreement across sources when familiarity is greater), while context affected agreement (same context sources had greater agreement). Practical implications – The study highlights the importance of looking at an employee from a variety of perspectives. Also, training employees to develop self‐enhancing behaviors may enhance their outcomes. Finally, training raters that their perceptions of co‐workers' self‐esteem may influence evaluations of performance could reduce unconscious errors. Originality/value – If this had been a traditional study measuring self‐esteem's impact on performance ratings, no significant relationships could have been reported since individuals' perceptions of their own self‐esteem were not valid predictors of performance ratings. It may be the individual's public self‐esteem (e.g. impression management skills) that influences performance ratings. In particular, workplace sources perceived high self‐esteem as being important to job performance. The validity of self‐esteem may be understated through reliance on the self‐report method alone.