1932

Abstract

Reputations are immensely consequential for both people and organizations. Yet research on reputations in the workplace is fragmented across a number of literatures. In this article, we first review conceptual and definitional issues surrounding the study of reputations in the workplace. We then summarize several theoretical frameworks for studying reputations drawing from the literature on accuracy and errors in person perception, surveying the Realistic Accuracy Model, Self-Other Knowledge Asymmetry model, impression management, socioanalytic theory, social cognition, stereotypes, gossip, and culture. We present the Trait-Reputation-Identity model as a framework for integrating these disparate literatures. Next, we discuss broad areas where workplace reputations may impact individual and organizational outcomes including job performance, career success, and well-being. We conclude by offering a number of observations regarding the state of the literature on reputations and prospects for contributing to organizational psychology and organizational behavior.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-110721-022320
2024-01-22
2024-04-14
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/organ/11/1/annurev-orgpsych-110721-022320.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-110721-022320&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Allik J, de Vries RE, Realo A. 2016. Why are moderators of self-other agreement difficult to establish?. J. Res. Personal. 63:72–83
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Allport GW. 1954. The Nature of Prejudice Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley
  3. Ambady N, Rosenthal R. 1992. Thin slices of expressive behavior as predictors of interpersonal consequences: a meta-analysis. Psychol. Bull. 111:256–74
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Barrick MR, Mount MK. 1991. The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: a meta-analysis. Pers. Psychol. 44:1–26
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Beer A 2021. Information as accuracy in personality judgment. The Oxford Handbook of Accurate Personality Judgment TD Letzring, JS Spain 132–48 New York: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Beer A, Brooks C. 2011. Information quality in personality judgment: the value of personal disclosure. J. Res. Personal. 45:175–85
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Beer A, Vazire S. 2017. Evaluating the predictive validity of personality trait judgments using a naturalistic behavioral criterion: a preliminary test of the self-other knowledge asymmetry model. J. Res. Personal. 70:107–21
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Beer A, Watson D. 2008. Personality judgment at zero acquaintance: agreement, assumed similarity, and implicit simplicity. J. Personal. Assess. 90:250–60
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Beer A, Watson D. 2010. The effects of information and exposure on self-other agreement. J. Res. Personal. 44:38–45
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Bian L, Cimpian A. 2017. Are stereotypes accurate? A perspective from the cognitive science of concepts. Behav. Brain Sci. 40:22–24
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Biesanz JC. 2010. The social accuracy model of interpersonal perception: assessing individual differences in perceptive and expressive accuracy. Multivar. Behav. Res. 45:853–85
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Biesanz JC, West SG, Millevoi A. 2007. What do you learn about someone over time? The relationship between length of acquaintance and consensus and self-other agreement in judgments of personality. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 92:119–35
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Bjornsdottir RT, Tskhay KO, Ishii K, Rule NO. 2017. Cultural differences in perceiving and processing emotions: a holistic approach to person perception. Cult. Brain 5:105–24
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Blackman M 2017. Using interviewing in selection. The Wiley Blackwell Handbook of the Psychology of Recruitment, Selection and Employee Retention HW Goldstein, ED Pulakos, J Passmore, C Semedo 182–201 Chichester, UK: Wiley Blackwell
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Blickle G, Schutte N, Wihler A. 2018. Political will, work values, and objective career success: a novel approach—the Trait-Reputation-Identity Model. J. Vocat. Behav. 107:42–56
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Bolino M, Long D, Turnley W. 2016. Impression management in organizations: critical questions, answers, and areas for future research. Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 3:377–406
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Bolino MC, Kacmar KM, Turnley WH, Gilstrap JB. 2008. A multi-level review of impression management motives and behaviors. J. Manag. 34:1080–109
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Bolino MC, Klotz AC, Daniels D. 2014. The impact of impression management over time. J. Manag. Psychol. 29:266–84
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Bollich KL, Rogers KH, Vazire S. 2015. Knowing more than we can tell: People are aware of their biased self-perceptions. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 41:918–29
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Borkenau P. 1992. Implicit personality theory and the five-factor model. J. Personal. 60:295–327
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Bozeman DP, Kacmar KM. 1997. A cybernetic model of impression management processes in organizations. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 69:9–30
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Brady DL, Brown DJ, Liang LH. 2017. Moving beyond assumptions of deviance: the reconceptualization and measurement of workplace gossip. J. Appl. Psychol. 102:1–25
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Bromley DB. 1993. Reputation, Image and Impression Management Oxford, UK: Wiley & Sons
  24. Brown JA, Bernieri F. 2017. Trait perception accuracy and acquaintance within groups: tracking accuracy development. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 43:716–28
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Brunswik E. 1956. Perception and the Representative Design of Psychological Experiments Berkeley, CA: Univ. Calif. Press
  26. Carlson EN, Vazire S, Oltmanns TF. 2011. You probably think this paper's about you: narcissists’ perceptions of their personality and reputation. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 101:185–201
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Chan W, Mendelsohn GA. 2010. Disentangling stereotype and person effects: Do social stereotypes bias observer judgment of personality?. J. Res. Personal. 44:251–57
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Christiansen ND, Hoffman BJ, Lievens F, Speer AB 2013. Assessment centers and the measurement of personality. Handbook of Personality at Work ND Christiansen, RP Tett 477–97 New York: Routledge
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Christiansen ND, Wolcott-Burnam S, Janovics JE, Burns GN, Quirk SW. 2005. The good judge revisited: individual differences in the accuracy of personality judgments. Hum. Perform. 18:123–49
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Claxton A, O'Rourke N, Smith JZ, DeLongis A. 2012. Personality traits and marital satisfaction within enduring relationships: an intra-couple discrepancy approach. J. Soc. Pers. Relat. 29:375–96
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Colman DE 2021. Characteristics of the judge that are related to accuracy. The Oxford Handbook of Accurate Personality Judgment TD Letzring, JS Spain 85–99 New York: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Connelly BS, Hülsheger UR. 2012. A narrower scope or a clearer lens? Examining the validity of personality ratings from observers outside the workplace. J. Personal. 80:603–31
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Connelly BS, McAbee ST, Oh I-S, Jung Y, Jung C-W. 2022. A multirater perspective on personality and performance: an empirical examination of the trait–reputation–identity model. J. Appl. Psychol. 107:1352–68
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Connelly BS, Ones DS. 2010. An other perspective on personality: meta-analytic integration of observers' accuracy and predictive validity. Psychol. Bull. 136:1092–122
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Connelly BS, Ones DS, Ramesh A, Goff M. 2008. A pragmatic view of assessment center exercises and dimensions. Ind. Organ. Psychol. 1:121–24
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Costello CK, Srivastava S. 2021. Perceiving personality through the grapevine: a network approach to reputations. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 121:151–67
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Craik KH. 2008. Reputation: A Network Interpretation New York: Oxford Univ. Press
  38. Cronbach L. 1955. Processes affecting scores on “understanding of others” and “assumed similarity. Psychol. Bull. 52:177–93
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Cuddy AJC, Fiske ST, Glick P. 2008. Warmth and competence as universal dimensions of social perception: the stereotype content model and the BIAS map. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 40:61–149
    [Google Scholar]
  40. De Kock FS, Lievens F, Born MP. 2015. An in-depth look at dispositional reasoning and interviewer accuracy. Hum. Perform. 28:199–221
    [Google Scholar]
  41. De Kock FS, Lievens F, Born MP. 2020. The profile of the ‘Good Judge’ in HRM: a systematic review and agenda for future research. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 30:100667
    [Google Scholar]
  42. de Vries RE, Realo A, Allik J. 2016. Using personality item characteristics to predict single-item internal reliability, retest reliability, and self–other agreement. Eur. J. Personal. 30:618–36
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Digirolamo GJ, Hintzman DL. 1997. First impressions are lasting impressions: a primacy effect in memory for repetitions. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 4:121–24
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Dilchert S. 2008. Measurement and prediction of creativity at work PhD Diss. Univ. Minn. Minneapolis:
  45. Dores Cruz TD, Nieper AS, Testori M, Martinescu E, Beersma B 2021. An integrative definition and framework to study gossip. Group Organ. Manag. 46:252–85
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Elfenbein HA, Ambady N. 2002. Is there an in-group advantage in emotion recognition?. Psychol. Bull. 128:243–49
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Elfenbein HA, Barsade SG, Eisenkraft N. 2015. The social perception of emotional abilities: expanding what we know about observer ratings of emotional intelligence. Emotion 15:17–34
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Ellwardt L, Labianca G, Wittek R. 2012. Who are the objects of positive and negative gossip at work? A social network perspective on workplace gossip. Soc. Netw. 34:193–205
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Ferris GR, Blass FR, Douglas C, Kolodinsky RW, Treadway DC. 2003. Personal reputation in organizations. Organizational Behavior: The State of the Science211–46 Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Freeman JB, Rule NO, Ambady N. 2009. The cultural neuroscience of person perception. Cultural Neuroscience: Cultural Influences on Brain Function JY Chiao 191–201 New York: Elsevier
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Funder DC. 1995. On the accuracy of personality judgment: a realistic approach. Psychol. Rev. 102:652–70
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Funder DC, Colvin CR. 1988. Friends and strangers: acquaintanceship, agreement, and the accuracy of personality judgment. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 55:149–58
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Funder DC, Kolar DC, Blackman MC. 1995. Agreement among judges of personality: interpersonal relations, similarity, and acquaintanceship. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 69:656–72
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Giacomin M, Rule NO. 2020. How static facial cues relate to real-world leaders’ success: a review and meta-analysis. Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 31:120–48
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Goodwin GP, Piazza J, Rozin P. 2014. Moral character predominates in person perception and evaluation. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 106:148–68
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Gorman AH, Schwartz D, Nakamoto J, Mayeux L. 2011. Unpopularity and disliking among peers: partially distinct dimensions of adolescents' social experiences. J. Appl. Dev. Psychol. 32:208–17
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Goyal N, De Keersmaecker J. 2022. Cultural dyes: cultural norms color person perception. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 43:195–98
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Gräf M, Unkelbach C. 2016. Halo effects in trait assessment depend on information valence: why being honest makes you industrious, but lying does not make you lazy. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 42:290–310
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Hall JA, Goh JX. 2017. Studying stereotype accuracy from an integrative social-personality perspective. Soc. Personal. Psychol. Compass 11:e12357
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Hedricks CA, Robie C, Oswald FL. 2013. Web-based multisource reference checking: an investigation of psychometric integrity and applied benefits. Int. J. Sel. Assess. 21:99–110
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Hendrick C, Costantini AF. 1970. Effects of varying trait inconsistency and response requirements on the primacy effect in impression formation. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 15:158–64
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Higgins CA, Judge TA, Ferris GR. 2003. Influence tactics and work outcomes: a meta-analysis. J. Organ. Behav. 24:89–106
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Hirschmüller S, Egloff B, Schmukle SC, Nestler S, Back MD. 2015. Accurate judgments of neuroticism at zero acquaintance: a question of relevance. J. Personal. 83:221–28
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Hogan R. 1996. A socioanalytic interpretation of the five-factor model. The Five-Factor Model of Personality JS Wiggins 163–79 New York: Guilford
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Hogan R, Blickle G. 2013. Socioanalytic theory. Handbook of Personality at Work ND Christiansen, RP Tett 53–72 New York: Routledge
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Hogan R, Shelton D. 1998. A socioanalytic perspective on job performance. Hum. Perform. 11:129–44
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Huffcutt AI, Culbertson SS, Weyhrauch WS. 2013. Employment interview reliability: new meta-analytic estimates by structure and format. Int. J. Sel. Assess. 21:264–76
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Human LJ, Biesanz JC. 2013. Targeting the good target: an integrative review of the characteristics and consequences of being accurately perceived. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 17:248–72
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Human LJ, Biesanz JC, Finseth SM, Pierce B, Le M. 2014. To thine own self be true: Psychological adjustment promotes judgeability via personality–behavior congruence. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 106:286–303
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Human LJ, Mignault M-C, Biesanz JC, Rogers KH. 2019. Why are well-adjusted people seen more accurately? The role of personality-behavior congruence in naturalistic social settings. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 117:465–82
    [Google Scholar]
  71. John OP, Robins RW. 1993. Determinants of interjudge agreement on personality traits: the Big Five domains, observability, evaluativeness, and the unique perspective of the self. J. Personal. 61:521–51
    [Google Scholar]
  72. John OP, Robins RW. 1994. Accuracy and bias in self-perception: individual differences in self-enhancement and the role of narcissism. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 66:206–19
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Johnson JA, Hogan R 2006. A socioanalytic view of faking. A Closer Examination of Applicant Faking Behavior RL Griffith, MH Peterson 209–32 Charlotte, NC: Information Age
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Jussim L. 2012. Social Perception and Social Reality: Why Accuracy Dominates Bias and Self-Fulfilling Prophecy New York: Oxford Univ. Press
  75. Jussim L. 2017. Précis of social perception and social reality: why accuracy dominates bias and self-fulfilling prophecy. Behav. Brain Sci. 40:e1
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Kang SK, Bodenhausen GV. 2015. Multiple identities in social perception and interaction: challenges and opportunities. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 66:547–74
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Kenny DA. 2004. PERSON: a general model of interpersonal perception. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 8:265–80
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Kenny DA. 2019. Interpersonal Perception: The Foundation of Social Relationships New York: Guilford
  79. Kenny DA, Albright L, Malloy TE, Kashy DA. 1994. Consensus in interpersonal perception: acquaintance and the big five. Psychol. Bull. 116:245–58
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Kim Y-H, Cohen D, Au W-T. 2010. The jury and abjury of my peers: the self in face and dignity cultures. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 98:904–16
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Kluemper DH, McLarty BD, Bing MN. 2015. Acquaintance ratings of the Big Five personality traits: incremental validity beyond and interactive effects with self-reports in the prediction of workplace deviance. J. Appl. Psychol. 100:237–48
    [Google Scholar]
  82. Knowles ED, Morris MW, Chiu C-Y, Hong Y-Y. 2001. Culture and the process of person perception: evidence for automaticity among East Asians in correcting for situational influences on behavior. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 27:1344–56
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Krzyzaniak SL, Letzring TD 2021. Characteristics of traits that are related to accuracy of personality judgments. The Oxford Handbook of Accurate Personality Judgment TD Letzring, JS Spain 119–31 New York: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  84. Kuncel NR, Kochevar RJ, Ones DS. 2014. A meta-analysis of letters of recommendation in college and graduate admissions: reasons for hope. Int. J. Sel. Assess. 22:101–7
    [Google Scholar]
  85. Lämmle L, Nussbeck FW, Ziegler M. 2021. Hello from the other side: Can we perceive others’ darkness? Observers’ accuracy of the Dark Triad. J. Personal. Assess. 103:106–19
    [Google Scholar]
  86. Leary MR, Kowalski RM. 1990. Impression management: a literature review and two-component model. Psychol. Bull. 107:34–47
    [Google Scholar]
  87. LeBreton JM, Scherer KT, James LR. 2015. Corrections for criterion reliability in validity generalization: a false prophet in a land of suspended judgment. Ind. Organ. Psychol. 7:478–500
    [Google Scholar]
  88. Leising D, Erbs J, Fritz U. 2010. The letter of recommendation effect in informant ratings of personality. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 98:668–82
    [Google Scholar]
  89. Leising D, Gallrein A-MB, Dufner M. 2014. Judging the behavior of people we know: objective assessment, confirmation of preexisting views, or both?. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 40:153–63
    [Google Scholar]
  90. Letzring TD. 2008. The good judge of personality: characteristics, behaviors, and observer accuracy. J. Res. Personal. 42:914–32
    [Google Scholar]
  91. Letzring TD 2021. Conclusions and future directions for the study of accurate personality judgment. The Oxford Handbook of Accurate Personality Judgment TD Letzring, JS Spain 321–25 New York: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  92. Letzring TD, Wells SM, Funder DC. 2006. Information quantity and quality affect the realistic accuracy of personality judgment. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 91:111–23
    [Google Scholar]
  93. Lievens F. 2017. Assessing personality-situation interplay in personnel selection: towards more integration into personality research. Eur. J. Pers. 31:424–40
    [Google Scholar]
  94. Lievens F, Sackett PR. 2017. The effects of predictor method factors on selection outcomes: a modular approach to personnel selection procedures. J. Appl. Psychol. 102:43–66
    [Google Scholar]
  95. Luft J, Ingham H. 1955. The Johari window, a graphic model of interpersonal awareness. Proceedings of the Western Training Laboratory in Group Development Los Angeles, CA: Univ. Calif. Los Angeles
    [Google Scholar]
  96. Macrae CN, Bodenhausen GV. 2000. Social cognition: thinking categorically about others. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 51:93–120
    [Google Scholar]
  97. Martinescu E, Peters K, Beersma B. 2022. What do we talk about when we talk about others? Evidence for the primacy of the horizontal dimension of social evaluation in workplace gossip. Int. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 35:1–12
    [Google Scholar]
  98. McAbee ST, Connelly BS. 2016. A multi-rater framework for studying personality: the Trait-Reputation-Identity model. Psychol. Rev. 123:569–91
    [Google Scholar]
  99. Mignault M-C, Human LJ 2021. The good target of personality judgments. The Oxford Handbook of Accurate Personality Judgment TD Letzring, JS Spain 100–18 New York: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  100. Mignault M-C, Kerr LG, Human LJ. 2023. Just be yourself? Effects of an authenticity manipulation on expressive accuracy in first impressions. Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci. 14:562–71
    [Google Scholar]
  101. Mischel W. 1968. Personality and Assessment New York: Wiley
  102. Ng TWH, Eby LT, Sorensen KL, Feldman DC. 2005. Predictors of objective and subjective career success: a meta-analysis. Pers. Psychol. 58:367–408
    [Google Scholar]
  103. Nisbett RE, Ross L. 1980. Human Inference: Strategies and Shortcomings of Social Judgment Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall
  104. Oh IS, Wang G, Mount MK. 2011. Validity of observer ratings of the five-factor model of personality traits: a meta-analysis. J. Appl. Psychol. 96:762–73
    [Google Scholar]
  105. Paulhus DL. 1984. Two-component models of socially desirable responding. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 46:598–609
    [Google Scholar]
  106. Paulhus DL, Bruce M. 1992. The effect of acquaintanceship on the validity of personality impressions: a longitudinal study. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 63:816–24
    [Google Scholar]
  107. Rogers KH, Biesanz JC. 2019. Reassessing the good judge of personality. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 117:186–200
    [Google Scholar]
  108. Schneider DJ. 1973. Implicit personality theory: a review. Psychol. Bull. 79:294–309
    [Google Scholar]
  109. Scott BA. 2013. A conceptual framework for the study of popularity in the workplace. Organ. Psychol. Rev. 3:161–86
    [Google Scholar]
  110. Smith ER, Collins EC. 2009. Contextualizing person perception: distributed social cognition. Psychol. Rev. 116:343–64
    [Google Scholar]
  111. Smith PB, Easterbrook MJ, Koc Y, Lun VM-C, Papastylianou D et al. 2021. Is an emphasis on dignity, honor and face more an attribute of individuals or of cultural groups?. Cross-Cult. Res. 55:95–126
    [Google Scholar]
  112. Speer AB, Christiansen ND, Laginess AJ. 2019. Social intelligence and interview accuracy: individual differences in the ability to construct interviews and rate accurately. Int. J. Sel. Assess. 27:104–28
    [Google Scholar]
  113. Sullivan J. 2019. The primacy effect in impression formation: some replications and extensions. Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci. 10:432–39
    [Google Scholar]
  114. Sun TJ, Schilpzand P, Liu YH. 2023. Workplace gossip: an integrative review of its antecedents, functions, and consequences. J. Organ. Behav. 44:311–34
    [Google Scholar]
  115. Sutton A. 2020. Living the good life: a meta-analysis of authenticity, well-being and engagement. Personal. Individ. Dif. 153:109645
    [Google Scholar]
  116. Swann WB 2011. Self-verification theory. Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology PAM Van Lange, ET Higgins, AW Kruglanski 23–42 London: Sage
    [Google Scholar]
  117. Uleman JS, Saribay SA, Gonzalez CM. 2008. Spontaneous inferences, implicit impressions, and implicit theories. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 59:329–60
    [Google Scholar]
  118. Vazire S. 2010. Who knows what about a person? The self–other knowledge asymmetry (SOKA) model. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 98:281–300
    [Google Scholar]
  119. Vergauwe J, Hofmans J, Wille B. 2022. The Leadership Arena–Reputation–Identity (LARI) Model: distinguishing shared and unique perspectives in multisource leadership ratings. J. Appl. Psychol. 107:2243–68
    [Google Scholar]
  120. Viswesvaran C, Ones DS, Schmidt FL. 1996. Comparative analysis of the reliability of job performance ratings. J. Appl. Psychol. 81:557–74
    [Google Scholar]
  121. Wax A, Rodriguez WA, Asencio R. 2022. Spilling tea at the water cooler: a meta-analysis of the literature on workplace gossip. Organ. Psychol. Rev. 12:453–506
    [Google Scholar]
  122. West TV, Kenny DA. 2011. The truth and bias model of judgment. Psychol. Rev. 118:357–78
    [Google Scholar]
  123. Wiedenroth A, Wessels NM, Leising D. 2021. There is no primacy effect in interpersonal perception: a series of preregistered analyses using judgments of actual behavior. Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci. 12:1437–45
    [Google Scholar]
  124. Wihler A, Blickle G, Ewen C, Genau H, Fritze S et al. 2023. An integrative approach to more nuanced estimates of personality–job–performance relations. Appl. Psychol. 72:588–624
    [Google Scholar]
  125. Wilmot MP, Connelly BS, Geeza AA. 2023. Context generality and specificity in multi-informant personality ratings Paper presented at the Annual Conference for the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology Boston:
  126. Zimmerman RD, Triana MC, Barrick MR. 2010. Predictive criterion-related validity of observer ratings of personality and job-related competencies using multiple raters and multiple performance criteria. Hum. Perform. 23:361–78
    [Google Scholar]
  127. Zinko R, Ferris GR, Blass FR, Dana Laird M. 2007. Toward a theory of reputation in organizations. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management JJ Martocchio 163–204 Bingley, UK: Emerald Group
    [Google Scholar]
  128. Zinko R, Ferris GR, Humphrey SE, Meyer CJ, Aime F 2012. Personal reputation in organizations: two-study constructive replication and extension of antecedents and consequences. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 85:156–80
    [Google Scholar]
  129. Zola A, Condon DM, Revelle W. 2021. The convergence of self and informant reports in a large online sample. Collabra Psychol. 7:25983
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-110721-022320
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-110721-022320
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error