{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02413515687851971, 'fraction_numerical': 0.007240547063555913, 'mean_word_length': 6.1085714285714285, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Self–Observer Rating Discrepancies of Managers in Asia: A Study of Derailment Characteristics and Behaviors in Southern and Confucian Asia

Antecedents to self–observer rating discrepancies in multisource instruments have been established at the individual and organizational level. However, research examining cultural antecedents is limited, which is particularly relevant as multisource instruments gain popularity around the world. We investigated multisource ratings of 860 Asian managers from the regions of Southern Asia (n=261) and Confucian Asia (n=599) and analyzed cultural differences in self–observer rating discrepancies. Multivariate regression procedures revealed that the self–observer rating discrepancy was wider for managers from Southern Asia as compared with Confucian Asia. The reason for the discrepancy was driven by managers' self-ratings being different across cultures than by observer ratings from managers' bosses, direct reports, or peers; the predictor is related to self-ratings not observer ratings, producing differential self–observer ratings due to self-ratings. We discuss cultural differences in self- and observer ratings within Asia and provide implications for the practice of multisource assessments.