PERFROMANCE CALIBRATION MEETING GUIDELINES

Performance calibration meetings provide a forum for discussions about individual employees' performances
with the goal of making sure managers apply similar standards for all employees.
The core of such meetings is discussion of each employee's performance rating and the manager(s) reasons
for that rating. The process also provides managers with opportunities to discuss the definition of each
performance rating and ask questions.
There are many ways that these discussions can benefit us:
 Managers take what they learn in the session and use it to have constructive meetings with employees
about their performances, even when the conversations promise to be difficult ones. A manager is
also likely to have more confidence in his or her rating after discussing and defending that rating in a
calibration meeting.
 It easily identifies managers who rate employee performance easily and those who rate employee
performance more harshly, ensuring an objective performance assessment.
 It also significantly simplifies second level approval process, as the latter is part of the discussion.
 The calibration process provides an opportunity to validate the ratings against input & feedback from
stakeholders interacting with the employee.
 For Amref this is an opportunity to make sure our employees are being rated appropriately,
embedding a culture of a high performance organization, transparency, and impartiality.
 The calibration process provides an opportunity to the Line managers get to know our staff from
diverse perspectives provided by their (Managers) peers and additionally feed into Talent discussions
that lead to identification of high potentials.

 The calibration process provides a panoramic view of the performance progression in the
organization over a period of time (e.g. 3 years) with specific focus on direct reports to SMT, high
performers and emerging high performers. This will set the stage for appropriate talent discussions
and development interventions such as leadership development programs, Coaching, Mentoring, Job
shadowing, exchange program, enhanced job scope to challenge and stretch.

 It will also be an opportunity to interrogate the performance progression of Unsatisfactory and

Needs improvement category with the view to challenge and trigger appropriate interventions (e.g.
PIP, Coaching or termination)

It doesn’t necessary imply that managers were initially unfair, as we all have different background and
expectations. Through calibration discussions we can increase consistency and objectivity of the process.
Managers attending the meeting should be open to ask and receive questions and discuss. The managers
should leverage on the information gathered. The power of calibration goes beyond the performance ratings.
The discussions yield important insight into the talent pipeline and overall development needs for the
organisation.
Eventually, calibration discussions ensures better performance management and employee reviews.
Guidelines for person chairing the calibration meeting
As the chair of the consistency check meeting here are some guidelines regarding facilitation of the
meeting.
The chair is responsible for meeting introduction, setting the stage and engaging in discussion.

1. Ground rules and the basic flow will be presented by facilitator (HR). The facilitator also
distributes information packages with preliminary ratings for the employees to be discussed.

2. Managers’ presentations and discussions of each employee’s rating as follows:

1 | Page Calibration Guidelines
 a) First wave- employees who initially were assigned “Outstanding” rates.

b) Second wave – employees who initially were assigned “Unsatisfactory” and “Need
Improvement” rates

c) Third wave - employees rated “Good performance”. The detailed presentation of employees in
third wave and consequent discussion is held only if any of the meeting participants disagrees
with “GP” rating.

3. Calibration points to watch out for.

a. Rating employees in reference to the role
Rating employees favourably because they are in critical roles, rather than rating their
performance or leadership attributes within that role

b. Rating based on one incident

Basing the evaluation on one incident whether positive or negative

c. Rating based on recent incidence

Focusing on the most recent examples of behaviour/performance, rather than the entire
performance period

d. Any form of Bias

This refers to the different assumptions and expectations in regards to diversity of employees

e. Level of contribution
It is important to ensure that participant are contributing to the calibration conversation based
on several interactions with the employee under discussion and not just one instance.

4. Check List for Line Managers

a. Have I reviewed the person’s holistic performance with regards to individual performance
goals, job description, organizational & department goals and the overall contribution towards
team’s/organizational strategy?
b. Have the person’s results been achieved in a difficult business environment?
c. Has the person delivered effectively on additional responsibilities over and above their defined
goals?
d. Is the person consistently role modeling leadership behaviours according to their position level?
e. Can I describe leadership competencies and behaviors that the Employee displayed throughout
the year as his / her strengths?
f. Can I describe leadership competencies & behaviors that were consistently viewed as
development opportunity?
g. Have I taken feedback from Stakeholders of the Employees to support my assessment?
h. Have I ensured that my decision on the Performance Rating is without any Personal or
Unconscious Bias (gender, race, sexual orientation, etc.) towards the Employee?
i. Have I reviewed that the Performance Rating is not influenced with any other biases like Halo,
Recency, Tendency effect etc.?
j. Have I ensured that the Performance Ratings of Employees within my team are appropriately
differentiated?

5. What HRBP will look out for

a. Do Line Managers understand the concept of performance assessment, performance

descriptors and did they apply this consistently?

b. Is the pre-calibrated performance distribution coherent with the expected business results?
2 | Page Calibration Guidelines
 c. Did the Line Manager differentiate performance rating

6. Meeting summary and close by Senior Line Manager:

a) Summarise the discussion
b) Emphasise on unanimity of outcomes of calibration process and ensure all participating
managers take a common view when communicating ratings to employees.
c) Emphasize on the confidentiality of the calibration process and discourage divulging of
information discussed at the session.
d) Closes the meeting

HR collates the proposed department ratings and shares with respective line managers. Staff are informed
of confirmed ratings and this are sent to HR.

It is important to note that line managers will only be able to confirm the staff ratings after the calibration
meeting.

3 | Page Calibration Guidelines