EFFECTS OF RATING SOURCE There is also reason to believe that the proposed relationships just discussed will depend on the source providing the ratings of managerial performance and integ- rity. For example, Conway, Lombardo, and Sanders (2001) conducted a ysis of the relationship between traits and performance ratings provided by raters from different organizational levels. Briefly, the results of this indi- cated that personality constructs were differentially related to performance, de- pending on the source providing the performance ratings. Furthermore, Conway and Huffcutt (1997) observed that interpersonal and conceptual performance rat- ings had different reliabilities for different sources. That is, subordinate ratings on interpersonal dimensions had higher reliabilities than did supervisor ratings on in- terpersonal dimensions, whereas subordinate ratings on conceptual dimensions had lower reliabilities than did supervisor ratings on cognitive dimensions. To date, research has not investigated the extent to which the source providing the per- formance ratings impacts this relationship between narcissism and performance. However, gaining a better understanding of different sources of feedback is benefi- cial, especially as the use of multifeedback increases (Conway & Huffcutt, 1997). Consequently, analyses investigating the extent to which narcissism–performance relationships vary depending on the source providing the rating will be exploratory in nature. RQ1: Will the relationship between narcissism and managerial performance dif- fer depending on the source providing the performance ratings? METHOD Participants and Procedures One-hundred fifty-four (81% male, 19% female) professionals enrolled in an exec- utive MBA program at a large southeast American university between the years 2002 and 2005 served as the participants for this study. These participants repre- sented a variety of industries including banking, insurance, manufacturing, health care, and military. Furthermore, the participants held a wide variety of managerial positions including safety manager, head controller, chief of staff, and vice presi- dent of sales. On average, they had a substantial number of years of supervisory (M = 11.43, SD = 7.61) and executive experience (M = 9.73, SD = 7.46). to en- rolling in the program, the participants completed a personality inventory. In addi- tion, the participants’ immediate supervisors and employees were asked to com- plete an appraisal of the participants’ managerial performance. analysis
TABLE 1 Correlations, Means, and Standard Deviations Among Narcissism Scores and Supervisor Ratings Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1. Narcissism 24.57 6.28 .78 2. Participative management 4.01 0.67 –.199* .87 3. Team building 4.09 0.70 –.223** .764** .81 4. Confrontation effectiveness 3.90 0.63 –.189* .711** .765** .86 5. Sensitivity 4.21 0.61 –.187* .660** .762** .783** .80 6. Integrity 4.31 0.49 –.211** .636** .671** .718** .684** .72 7. Analysis 4.00 0.58 –.065 .585** .518** .681** .522** .688** .82 8. Judgment and decision making 4.09 0.52 –.124 .601** .563** .708** .620** .703** .793** .82 9. Planning and organizing 3.94 0.69 –.091 .502** .449** .520** .428** .678** .695** .641** .86 10. Initiative 4.12 0.61 –.111 .554** .495** .600** .433** .685** .690** .618** .680** .74 Note. Coeffecient alphas are reported on the diagonal. N = 148–154. *p < .05, two-tailed. **p < .01, two-tailed.