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,