Performance calibration is a structured meeting, usually managers and HR together, held before appraisal ratings are finalized, where individual managers’ proposed ratings are compared and adjusted against shared criteria across teams.

Why companies run it, and a real critique worth knowing

Different managers naturally vary in how lenient or strict they rate, and unconscious biases can skew individual judgment. Calibration aims to counter that, ensuring employees are judged by a consistent standard regardless of who happens to manage them, which matters especially once ratings feed pay and promotion decisions. That said, it’s not a bias-free fix: a widely discussed critique argues calibration sessions can introduce their own problems, groupthink, the most persuasive or senior voice in the room disproportionately swaying outcomes, and managers making second-hand judgments about employees they don’t actually manage. It’s worth presenting calibration as a genuine improvement on uncoordinated individual ratings, not as a solved problem.

Frequently asked questions

Who typically attends a calibration session?

Managers across a team or department, usually facilitated by HR, comparing notes on their direct reports before ratings are locked in.

Can calibration change an individual employee’s rating?

Yes, that’s the point, a manager’s initial proposed rating can shift up or down once compared against peers rated by other managers.

Does calibration replace the need for a good rating scale?

No, it works alongside one. A clear rating scale gives calibration a shared reference point to compare against.

See how this connects to bell curve rating as an alternative consistency mechanism.