X hits on this document





140 / 185

to reliably capture the culture of the organization. At the same time, the agreement

between respondents coupled with the significant convergence between focal and

coworker perspective provides some assurance that I am capturing the underlying

phenomenon with a fair level of objectivity.

Another limitation of the study is its survey design using rating scale format.

Constructs measured through surveys tend to be influenced by rater errors and biases,

thus, introducing measurement error (Visser, Krosnick, & Lavrakas, 2000). However,

many of the research questions posed in this dissertation required the survey format (e.g.

employee behaviors). Objective assessments regarding those behaviors are difficult to

obtain. Furthermore, I assumed that ratings of behaviors are uniform across raters and

aggregated the ratings based on the aggregation statistics, which were sufficient to allow

aggregation. Naturally, the measures of behavior did not exhibit perfect agreement. While

statistically this is to be expected, theoretically, there may be important differences in

perspectives depending on a range of factors such as the quality of the relationship

between the rater and the ratee (Wayne et al., 1997). However, given my focus on the

context and cognitive role perceptions as drivers of behaviors, I expected sufficient level

of uniformity of behavior across raters.

Somewhat complicating the problem of obtaining valid ratings, was the fact that

focal individual was asked to select his/her raters because he/she was the point of contact

with the researchers. The selection process can, thus, be expected to have resulted in

rating inflation (Murphy & Cleveland, 1990). Obtaining a random sample of raters was

not plausible due to the design of the study. This limitation may be overcome by

collecting data as part of an organizationally endorsed 360-degree feedback initiatives,


Document info
Document views386
Page views386
Page last viewedFri Oct 28 05:18:05 UTC 2016