Performance reviews
A performance calibration agenda that keeps the evidence visible.
A calibration meeting gives authorized reviewers a place to examine how performance criteria were applied. This agenda is a suggested format for two prepared cases. Use it to check the reasoning, record what still needs evidence and assign the next step under your organization’s review process.
1. Confirm what the meeting can decide
Before sending invitations, write the purpose, participants and decision owner. State whether the meeting reviews a manager’s proposal, recommends an outcome or approves one. Identify which decisions and employee records each participant is authorized to see.
Use the organization’s existing criteria and process. Check how employees can contribute corrections and how a decision will be communicated. If a reviewer has a conflict, agree how that case will be handled. UC Davis describes calibration within its appraisal process as a way to establish a consistent language for performance standards. Its local rating arrangements should be adapted only through your own approved process.
2. Ask each presenter for the same preparation fields
Send a short case brief with the role, responsibilities, review period, relevant criterion, proposed conclusion and the sources behind it. Ask for a specific observation that supports the proposal, a material counterexample and context that could change the interpretation.
The field names should be consistent while the evidence remains relevant to the work. A project specialist and a shift supervisor may need different sources. Check that any comparison has a meaningful basis before putting cases next to one another. Ask managers to identify missing periods or observations in advance so the facilitator can plan the discussion.
3. Use a 45-minute agenda for two prepared cases
This timing is an illustrative starting point. Allocate more time or fewer cases when the evidence is complex.
Minutes 0–5. Confirm scope, authority, access and the criterion to examine. Each participant states any relevant conflict. Minutes 5–12. Read the two preparation briefs. Ask factual clarification questions and identify the comparison being made. Minutes 12–30. Give each case equal discussion time. Test the source, relevant period, contrary evidence and operating context. Minutes 30–39. Compare the reasoning used in the two cases. Record whether the evidence supports a next decision or requires a further check. Minutes 39–45. Read back the rationale, open questions, owners and communication plan. Confirm who will update the record.
4. Work through a fictional case
This case is fictional. Two fulfillment shift leads are reviewed on an agreed responsibility to reallocate open tasks when staffing changes. A presenter proposes a lower conclusion for Drew because a late task remained open. Another proposes a stronger conclusion for Alex because all tasks were closed.
The briefs add useful context. Drew reassigned the available work and escalated a task requiring authorization the shift did not hold. Alex completed the work during a shift with additional cover. Neither brief explains how the criterion treats work that requires another team’s authorization.
The reviewers ask for the approved responsibility boundary and evidence of each lead’s actual decisions. They record the different conditions and a question about the criterion. The facilitator leaves the accountable owner to reach a supported conclusion after that check.
5. Ask questions that can change the interpretation
For each proposed conclusion, ask which responsibility it refers to and what the person was expected to do in that situation. Ask what the presenter observed directly, what a work record shows and what the employee has added or disputed. Then ask which missing fact would make the interpretation different.
If two presenters use the same word differently, return to the written definition and its examples. If the definition is unclear, record a process issue for the owner. OPM’s standards guidance is useful for distinguishing a numeric measure from work assessed through observable factors and an identified reviewer.
6. Record a decision or a specific evidence request
For a conclusion that can proceed, record the criterion, supporting source, relevant context and the reason. For a case needing more evidence, write the question precisely, assign someone to check it and agree when the decision owner will return to it.
A useful request in the fictional case is, “Confirm which task decisions the shift lead was authorized to make during the period.” A vague action such as “bring more evidence” leaves the presenter guessing. Keep changes to the review record traceable, including which fact or interpretation changed. Limit distribution to the people who need the record.
7. Follow the meeting through to the employee conversation
Confirm who will explain the decision through the organization’s normal process and how corrections will be handled. Separate recurring process issues into an improvement record. Those might include unclear role boundaries, uneven evidence coverage or a criterion introduced late in the period.
The meeting can expose a consistency problem, while the next action still needs an owner. A meeting’s consensus alone gives little explanation to the person affected. Use the documented reasoning and the employee’s opportunity to respond. If the cases require expertise the group lacks, obtain the appropriate review before the decision proceeds.
Frequently asked questions
Questions that come up
When should a calibration meeting take place?
Place it at the stage defined by your organization’s review process. Confirm whether employee input has been gathered, whether conclusions are provisional and who communicates the final outcome.
What if cases involve very different roles?
Check the application of each role’s relevant standards. Use a comparison only where responsibilities, authority and evidence are meaningfully comparable, and document the limits.
What should happen when the evidence is incomplete?
Record the specific gap, who can check it and when the decision owner will revisit the case. An incomplete record may require a further step before a conclusion can proceed.
Talk to Lontra HR
Bring one real HR question.
See how a first campaign could work for your team.