Ratings of counterproductive performance: the effect of source and rater behavior

Purpose - The purpose of this study was to examine inter‐rater agreement on counterproductive performance between self‐ and peer‐ratings, and the factors that moderate this agreement. The factors investigated included self‐reported levels of counterproductive performance and known antecedents of counterproductive performance: conscientiousness and integrity values. Design/methodology/approach - Data were gathered (three to five peer ratings per individual) from 108 undergraduate students. Findings - The paper finds that there was a significantly low correlation between self‐ and peer‐ ratings of counterproductive performance. Ratings given by peers were much higher than ratings given by oneself. Individuals and peers who are similar in the extent to which they engage in counterproductive behaviors were in agreement with respect to ratings of counterproductive performance. Practical implications - This study provided evidence that rater disagreement is a consistent phenomenon across dimensions of performance. In addition, rater perceptions of counterproductive performance have a significant impact on overall performance ratings; therefore individual differences between the rater and ratee may have a large influence on overall ratings in an organizational setting. There is some evidence in this study that peer ratings of counterproductive behavior vary depending on the rater's own counterproductive behaviors. The fact that rater agreement is influenced by the rater's own behavior implies that individual rater effects are influencing counterproductive performance measurement. Originality/value - This study adds value by extending the literature on inter‐rater agreement to counterproductive performance. In addition, this study is unique in that it shows that a rater's own level of counterproductive performance can impact their ratings of others.