Guide · Feedback
Why self-ratings and others' ratings differ: the self–peer rating gap
On average, people rate their own performance more highly than the people around them do. This guide covers what the research measures, some reasons the gap can appear, why the difference can be a useful place to start a conversation, and how to use it without blaming anyone.
About 8 minutes to read · Sources at the foot · Last reviewed
What the research actually measures
The cleanest evidence comes from comparing what people say about themselves with what a second party says about the same behavior. Heidemeier and Moser (2009) pooled studies of employees’ self-ratings against their supervisors’ ratings of the same performance. Two findings matter here.
- On average, the gap points up. In the studies summarized (89 studies, 35,417 people, Western samples), people rated their own performance more highly than their supervisors did, on average, by about a third of a standard deviation (d = 0.32). That is a finding about averages, not about any one person.
- The two views barely correlate. Across 115 samples and 37,752 people, self- and supervisor ratings correlated at r = .22 (ρ = .34 after correcting for measurement error). Knowing how someone rates themselves tells you surprisingly little about how they are seen.
The pattern is not confined to performance reviews. McEwan and colleagues (2017) reviewed 72 teamwork-training interventions (8,439 participants) and found that the same training looked far more effective when outside observers scored teamwork behavior (d = 0.80) than when the team scored itself (d = 0.38). In the studies reviewed, the chance that a trained team out-scored an untrained one was 71% when outside observers did the scoring and 61% when the teams scored themselves, so who does the scoring changes how effective the training looks.
The plain version: you are not the best available witness to your own behavior. The people who work with you are a second witness, and the disagreement between the two is information.
Some reasons the gap can appear
These are possible explanations drawn from the research on self- and other-ratings. They describe people in general, not any one person.
- Different evidence. You see your intentions, your effort, and the obstacles. Others see what arrived. When a task slipped because of three things outside your control, you rate the effort; they rate the slip. Neither is lying.
- Different base rates. People judge themselves against what they could have done and others against what people usually do. The first comparison is more forgiving, because the imagined self is always available and always slightly better.
- Motivated reading. A generous self-view can be comfortable and, in many workplaces, mildly rewarded, since self-ratings are often the opening bid in a review. That pressure pushes upward. It need not be a character flaw; it can be what the incentives ask for.
Telling people to be more honest does not address any of these. Adding a second observer and comparing the two views is one way to see the difference.
Why the gap is a useful place to start
A score on its own can read as a verdict. A gap is a question. “Your teammates rate you 3.6 on speaking up early about risks” invites defensiveness. “You rated yourself 4.4, predicted your teammates would say 3.9, and they said 3.6” invites a different response: what are they seeing that I am not, and why did I already half-know it?
That second gap — between what you predicted others would say and what they did say — is the more useful of the two. A large self–peer gap with an accurate prediction may mean the person knows how they are seen and holds a different standard, which is a conversation about standards. A small self–peer gap with a wildly wrong prediction may mean they have little sense of how they land, or that they read the question differently. Either way, the pattern is a reason to ask, not an answer.
| Pattern | Self | Prediction | Peers | What it might mean | A question to ask |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aware, disagrees | High | Low | Low | They may know how they are seen and hold a different standard, or read the question differently | What standard are you using for this behavior? |
| Unaware | High | High | Low | They may have had less chance to see how others experience them, or read the behavior differently | Can we look at one specific example together? |
| Underrates | Low | Low | High | They may hold themselves to a higher standard than colleagues do | Which of these strengths do you recognize in yourself? |
| Aligned | ≈ | ≈ | ≈ | Their views may line up closely | What here do you want to build on? |
What not to do with it
- Do not use it to rank. The gap is a property of one person’s self-knowledge, not a comparison between people. Two people with the same peer score and different self-scores are not “better” or “worse”; they are differently informed.
- Do not put it in a review. Once a self–peer gap can affect pay or promotion, the self-rating tends to become strategic and the number loses its value. In Facets, survey feedback is not added to performance records. The one route is a Leadership 360 summary that the person it is about chooses to send; if the recipient attaches it to that person’s record, it is used when drafting their assessment.
- Do not act on one rater. Below 3 raters a peer score can point to one person. Below 5, question-by-question detail is too unstable to read.
- Do not diagnose. The research says that the gap exists, not why this person’s does. The reasons above are the population’s, not the individual’s.
How Facets shows it
In a Facets team run each person rates every teammate on observable behavior from the last three months, rates themselves on the same items, and predicts how their teammates rated them. The private note each person receives puts the three views side by side, names what teammates see going well, names one thing to work on, and shows the gap. The note is for the person it is about. If an owner or admin names a facilitator for the team, that person can also read every member’s note, before and after release, for as long as they hold the role. Leading the team, managing someone or administering the workspace does not give anyone access; being appointed facilitator does, and a manager or an admin can be appointed. Who can see what sets out each viewer. The team-level pack shows the team’s climate as group numbers and does not name or rank individuals.
That structure is a deliberate answer to the research above: add a second witness, ask for the prediction, show the comparison to the person it concerns first, and put the conversation at the center. How the team survey works, step by step · The items themselves · The conversation it is built for.
Frequently asked questions
Do people usually rate themselves higher than others do at work?
Is a self–peer gap always a bad sign?
How accurate are peer ratings compared with self-ratings?
Should self-assessments be part of performance reviews?
How does Facets measure the gap?
Sources and notes
Heidemeier, H., & Moser, K. (2009). Self–other agreement in job performance ratings: A meta-analytic test of a process model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(2), 353–370. · McEwan, D., Ruissen, G. R., Eys, M. A., Zumbo, B. D., & Beauchamp, M. R. (2017). The effectiveness of teamwork training on teamwork behaviors and team performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled interventions. PLoS ONE, 12(1), e0169604.
The trained-versus-untrained percentages are probabilities of superiority, computed as Φ(d/√2), which fits two independent groups. We do not apply that conversion to the self-versus-supervisor comparison, which pairs each person’s two ratings. The two Heidemeier & Moser figures are different analyses in the same paper and are reported separately on purpose. Full discussion on the research page.
See your team's three views.
Everyone rates everyone, rates themselves, and predicts how they were rated. Each person gets the comparison in a private note; a facilitator the team has named can also read it.