Calibrating Performance Appraisals
Calibration, according to Webster’s Dictionary, is a set of graduations to indicate values or positions. In the realm of performance management, calibration can be important to getting performance appraisals as accurate as possible by introducing graduated review of the performance appraisal to help ensure it is as accurate as possible.
Because of inherent individualized bias that we all tend to have when it comes to how we perceive the behavior and performance of those who work for us, having a process in place where others are allowed to review the ratings, comments, goals and development plans for employees will yield better performance appraisals. Yes, there are new biases introduced into this process, but by inserting multiple people into the performance review process, there is opportunity for new perspectives and for alternative views to help create an appraisal that is reflective of the employee’s performance.
The process of having other individuals or groups review appraisals is the basis for performance management calibration. In a recent SHRM study, fifty-four percent of HR professionals who responded said their organizations conduct some form of calibration and 35 percent said ratings were changed as a result of the calibration process.
With more than one-third of the appraisals being changed in some manner, it is likely that the quality of performance appraisals is enhanced on an overall basis. That is a significant quality assurance process that is lacking in many organizations.
Some calibration processes involve a simple escalation from the manager to his or her manager for review of the appraisal. Others are more stout in that they involve a group that is responsible for looking appraisals over and working closely with the manager in refining appraisals.
It’s important that the process be kept agile and to not involve too many people. By doing so, you can help avoid paralysis by analysis. A performance management calibration process is intended to be a quality assurance measure and not a means by which criticism is levied against the manager.
Calibration generally involves other managers, supervisors or team leads who have a fair amount of knowledge about the employee in question. The preference is that they be in a position to provide input based on some level of first-hand experience working with the employee.
There are some organizations, however, that will place an individual with little or no knowledge of the employee’s work or workplace behavior into the group reviews. The thinking here is that that individual can ask appropriate questions and take an unbiased view of how the appraisal is being conducted. What they can’t offer though is any substantive input on the performance of the employee. But, if performance notes (journal entries) have been used extensively throughout any given appraisal period, that individual will have a fair amount of information to use as a basis for discussing the employee’s appraisal.
Having some sort of calibration laid over the top of the performance management process is something most organizations should consider. From a morale perspective, employees will feel better knowing that more care has been taken to complete their appraisals.