Performance review calibration aligns managers on rating criteria, reduces bias, and creates consistent, fair employee scores across teams.
Performance review calibration is about getting every manager to use the same scoring language so that employees in similar roles are judged by identical standards. When two managers rate identical performers with wildly different scores, morale drops and compensation decisions become skewed. Calibration conversations force a shared definition of what a 1 versus a 5 means, turning a subjective process into a repeatable one.
The piece walks through a three-step playbook: pick a scale, define each rating, and agree on the expected distribution of scores. A five-point scale is recommended, with clear language for each tier-from "Did not meet expectations" to "Far exceeded expectations". Once the scale is set, managers discuss their ratings, expose inconsistencies, and adjust scores together, either one-on-one or in calibration committees for larger orgs. The goal is to surface bias, ensure fairness, and give senior leaders trustworthy data.
Beyond fairness, the article shows why separating performance calibration from compensation cycles matters. By finalizing calibrated scores before pay discussions, managers face less pressure to inflate ratings, and employees receive more honest feedback. Tools like Lattice Analytics provide real-time visibility into pre- and post-calibration scores, helping HR spot trends and intervene early. The overall message is clear: a disciplined calibration process protects morale, improves data quality, and makes performance management a strategic advantage.
Check out the full stdlib collection for more frameworks, templates, and guides to accelerate your technical leadership journey.