Bottom-up versus top-down evaluations of candidates' managerial potential: An experimental study

When a position of responsibility is to be filled in an organization, do organizational members subordinate to this position evaluate candidates differently than those superordinate to the position? Managers (N=140) were randomly assigned to play the role of either subordinates (junior management) to a middle-management vacancy or superiors (senior management). From these respective perspectives they rated the suitability of six candidates for the vacancy, the candidates possessing varying combinations of moral, technical and social qualities. There was, as predicted, a significant interaction between rater perspective and candidate qualities; both individual. and group judgments of the suitability of candidates moderate in moral integrity but high in technical competence and social skills were significantly higher from the superordinate perspective than from the subordinate perspective. The findings indicate that, in so far as management selection and promotion decisions are normally made from a superordinate perspective, these can be insensitive to candidates' moral flaws.