Predictors and Consequences of Differences in Supervisor Evaluations and Feedback
At the end of each X-Culture round, about 1,000 team reports are evaluated by about 140 professors. Each professor evaluates about 30 reports on average (some up to 200) and each report is evaluated by 3-7 professors.
There are often considerable differences in how professors evaluate the reports. The following evaluation styles are common (though there may be more distinct evaluation styles):
- Differentiates across reports or not (some professors give roughly the same grade to all teams, some differentiate a lot and give very low grades to some teams and very high to other teams).
- Differentiates across evaluation dimensions (some professors give all 7s if they like the report, or all 3s if they don’t, but some may give 7 for formatting, 2 for economic viability, 4 for executive summary and so on).
- Extreme response vs. cautious response (some hardly ever give 1 or 7 and stay closer to the middle, others tend to give extremely low or extremely high grades)
- Rich-poor feedback (some provide very detailed feedback, others barely say a few words)
- Did or did not (some professors, about 5%, never submit their evaluations)
- On time or late (some professors, about 20%, submit their evaluations late)
Supervisor / professor evaluation style plays a critical role in promotion/advancement opportunities, as well as in development of the students/subordinates.
The question is: What do these evaluation styles depend on?
- Academic pedigree?
- Years of work experience?
- Anything else?
Another good question is: Do these evaluation styles predict student performances and satisfaction? E.g., do students of “strict” professors do a better job than students of “lenient” professors?
Vas Taras (corresponding author, firstname.lastname@example.org)