Identifying Motivation and Interpersonal Performance Using Peer Evaluations

Abstract

Peer evaluations have historically shown high predictive validity, but the reason for this strength has not been clear. This research used an assessment center and subsequent training program to investigate the hypothesis that interpersonal performance and motivation are two key dimensions of performance that may account for the historical strength of peer assessments. Consistent with previous research, results showed that peer rankings from the assessment center predicted final training outcomes better than did staff ratings. Congruent with our hypothesis, results from the training program demonstrated that, when rating a student's expected future on-the-job performance, peers placed significantly more importance on interpersonal performance and motivation than did staff, and they placed significantly less importance on task performance. Additional longitudinal research is needed to explicitly link peer evaluations of interpersonal skills and performance motivation with future job performance.

Notes

1 The descriptions provided here for the Special Forces programs are those that were in place at the time data was collected for this research.

2 The second two phasesofSpecial Forces training include specialty training (e.g., medical, weapons, and communications) and a final collective training phase.

3 Although some research suggests this may overcorrect the scores (Willingham, 1959), the sizeofthe groups in this research varied only slightly, with 91% ranging in size from 10 to 13 members, and the other 9% with either 9 or 14 members.

4 Behavioral indicators were not provided for the overall current performance and predicted future on-the-job performance rating scales.

5 Although researchers may argue that multicollinearity necessitates that variables with intercorrelations in the range of .80 or .90 be combined (Green, 1978), these results emphasize that this decision depends onthe purposeofthe research. Inthis case, maintaining the multiple rating dimensions provided insight into the content of the ratings and the nature of the rating process.