The performance review is one of the key tools to measure the work of any professional during a period, whether yearly or even shorter durations as several companies have now implemented. A key drawback of this system however, is a lot weighs on the immediate superior manager who assigns the scores. Inherent biases may creep in. To rectify this trend, some companies have started making use of calibration committees. These are committees which moderate the scores assigned by team managers. On average, the ones giving higher scores tend to see their scores normalized. This enables increased consistency in evaluation. However, one flaw of calibration is that too many people get similar scores. This fails to identify either the high-performers for leadership positions or the ones slagging off to provide increased corporate training. As complex, knowledge-based work is so difficult to measure, subjective evaluation methods are being used by companies. This subjectivity can be made less random by the use of such calibration.

Source:https://hbr.org/2018/06/why-managers-shouldnt-have-the-final-say-in-performance-reviews

Uploaded Date:26 September 2018