“A ‘five’ rating in my work group is not the same as a ‘five’ rating in another group.”

When you design a performance evaluation system you want it to be fair. Yet, fairness is often an elusive characteristic in public sector employee performance evaluation systems.  A common request I get when asked to redesign a performance evaluation system is to increase consistency of ratings across work groups.  Public agencies can tackle the consistency challenge by implementing the practice of calibration.

In a survey conducted by the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) and APTMetrics, 54% of organizations reported that they conduct formal calibration or group review sessions as part of the performance evaluation process. While the study was not focused primarily on public sector organizations, the results suggest that the practice is worthy of consideration by government employers.

In calibration meetings groups of supervisors from the same division or department discuss the rationale behind each employee’s performance rating.  Ratings are adjusted up or down as needed to ensure that ratings are consistent over work groups and reflect similar standards and performance expectations.

Sixty-three percent of respondents in the SHRM/APTMetrics survey said ratings are changed infrequently during calibration, but 35% said ratings are changed frequently.  Rating changes are made because of inconsistency or when a manager learns new information about an employee’s performance during the calibration session. These are conversations that often don’t take place in the public sector environment unless a process like calibration is used.

Calibration is an example of an important conversation that should be taking place in your organization. It’s a conversation, which can drive a performance-driven culture.  If your public agency is struggling to find consistency in performance ratings, calibration may be the solution.