Does rater personality matter? A meta‐analysis of rater Big Five–performance rating relationships

Abstract

We examined rater personality traits consistent with the Five‐Factor Model as sources of systematic non‐performance variance in job performance ratings using meta‐analysis ( k = 28). Several personality factors, including agreeableness, extraversion, and emotional stability, were related to performance ratings (ρ = .25, .12, and .12, respectively), and features of the rating context (e.g., study setting, appraisal purpose, accountability) moderated these relationships. Cumulatively, the Big Five accounted for between 6% and 22% of the variance in performance ratings. Implications for performance appraisal research and practice are discussed. Practitioner points Performance ratings serve a number of important functions in organizations, and their construct validity is a central issue. We identified rater personality traits, consistent with the Five‐Factor Model, as sources of non‐performance variance in performance ratings. To the extent that job performance ratings are contaminated by rater personality traits, requiring raters to justify their ratings may result in criterion scores that reflect greater levels of criterion relevance.