Self–Other Rating Accuracy and Leadership Emergence: Does Rating Accuracy Influence Who Emerges as a Leader?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current study investigated how individual differences in self–other rating agreement (SOA) were related to leadership emergence. A sample of 4,524 students from MBA programs in the United States and Canada completed a leaderless group task as part of an assessment center. The results revealed that emergence varied by SOA, with underraters exhibiting the highest levels of emergence, followed by self‐aware (i.e., accurate), and then overraters. One of the intriguing results is that underraters were more likely to display emergent behaviors than accurate raters, raising questions about the widely held belief regarding the use of accurate self‐assessments as an indicator of leadership effectiveness. Overall, the results indicate that SOA is an antecedent of leadership emergence behaviors. While prior research has examined the effect of SOA on performance, commitment, and leadership perceptions, the study contributes to the literature by examining whether SOA influences actual emergence behavior.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".