You are on page 1of 1

Calibration, The process of reviewing, calibrating and finalizing performance ratings after the employees have completed their

self assessment and the heads of department have developed initial ratings to ensure: - Accuracy & Consistency of rating - Fairness - Alignment of performance rating distribution with corporate guidelines - Any employee whose Performance Development Review rating is being calibrated should not attend the calibration session. - The calibration session is confidential and the Performance Development Review results should not be shared by the calibration team. - Final Ratings should be communicated to the employee by his/her department head.

Our guidelines include setting "ground rules" such as how long a new employee has to be in place before we can fairly compare him/her to their peers. For example for new hires or newly transferred employees - we will not allow them to be rated the lowest rating if they've not been in their role for at least 6 months. The assumption is we thought they would do well or we wouldn't have hired them - therefore we are not going to allow them to be rated "Poor" without solid evidence of poor performance. We separate those who manage people from those who don't manage others. These are a few examples of our ground rules. Secondly, we determine what characteristics or criteria make up each rating category - i.e. poor, good, better, best. So what does the "Best" rating look like? What does someone who rates "Better" do differently than someone we'd rate "Good" or "Best"? What constitutes "Poor" performance? For example: Best - always does more than required and always delivers quality output. Better - sometimes does more than required and delivers quality output. Good - always delivers quality output and rarely does more than required. Poor - inconsistently delivers quality output and never does more than required. Once the ground rules/criteria are agreed upon we then have each mgr rate their team based on the ground rules and criteria. Then we have meetings to review the ratings and calibrate/compare each team member against the team. The meetings - can vary. If you're taking the time to talk about each employee (= ideal), then the meeting can be very long or take several days depending upon the volume of people being calibrated. Sometimes we only calibrate the two extremes - "Poor" and "Best" - this takes less time. In either case - our goal is for someone to present each employee and discuss how they did against their goals, how they rate against our criteria and their strengths and areas of opportunity. We then hear about a second employee and compare the two. After a third is presented we compare the third to the first and then to the second employee presented...this comparison process repeats until we've completed the roster of employees. We have several process to choose from regarding the calibration or comparison process. It can be difficult to compare dissimilar work output. Be aware that we sometimes undervalue those team members who simply "keep the lights on" - we shouldn't penalize those team members who are not client facing or who don't have opportunity to present to senior mgmt or work on the "hot" projects. ...