Calibration committees are groups of managers who come together to review and adjust employee performance ratings, typically submitted by direct supervisors. Their aim is to improve the fairness, consistency, and accuracy of evaluations by aligning rating standards across teams, facilitating information sharing, and mitigating individual biases. While widely adopted, calibration remains a subject of debate, with questions about both its effectiveness and unintended consequences. Drawing on recent research, this article examines how calibration committees function, why organizations rely on them, and the potential pitfalls in their design and implementation. It offers practical guidance for HR professionals and managers seeking to enhance the fairness and impact of their performance evaluation systems through more thoughtful calibration practices.
BolJ. C. (2011). The determinants and performance effects of managers' performance evaluation biases. The Accounting Review, 86(5), 1549–1575. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr-10099
3.
BolJ. C.Braga de AguiarA.LillJ. B. (2025). Calibration in the performance evaluation process. Human Resource Management. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.22302
4.
BretzR. D.Jr.MilkovichG. T.ReadW. (1992). The current state of performance appraisal research and practice: Concerns, directions, and implications. Journal of Management, 18(2), 321–352. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639201800206
5.
ChattopadhyayR. (2019). Impact of forced distribution system of performance evaluation on organizational citizenship behaviour. Global Business Review, 20(3), 826–837. https://doi.org/10.1177/0972150917721819
6.
ColquittJ. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 386–400. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.386
7.
DemeréB. W.SedatoleK. L.WoodsA. (2019). The role of calibration committees in subjective performance evaluation systems. Management Science, 65(4), 1562–1585. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2017.3025
8.
GreenbergJ. (1986). Determinants of perceived fairness of performance evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(2), 340–342. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.71.2.340
9.
HoltzB. C. (2013). Trust primacy: A model of the reciprocal relations between trust and perceived justice. Journal of Management, 39(7), 1891–1923. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206312471392
10.
KampkötterP.SliwkaD. (2016). The complementary use of experiments and field data to evaluate management practices: The case of subjective performance evaluations. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 172(2), 364–389. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43956768
11.
KwakW. J.ChoiS. B. (2015). Effect of rating discrepancy on turnover intention and leader-member exchange. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 32(3), 801–824. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-015-9414-3
12.
LeventhalG. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study of fairness in social relationships. In Social exchange: Advances in theory and research (pp. 27–55). Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-3087-5_2
13.
MoonS. H.ScullenS. E.LathamG. P. (2016). Precarious curve ahead: The effects of forced distribution rating systems on job performance. Human Resource Management Review, 26(2), 166–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2015.12.002
14.
MurphyK. J. (1992). Performance measurement and appraisal: Motivating managers to identify and reward performance. In BrunsW. J. (Ed.), Performance measurement, evaluation, and incentives (pp. 37–62). Harvard Business School Press.
15.
PhillipsK. W.NorthcraftG. B.NealeM. A. (2006). Surface-level diversity and decision-making in groups: When does deep-level similarity help?Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 9(4), 467–482. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430206067557
SchleicherD. J.BullR. A.GreenS. G. (2009). Rater reactions to forced distribution rating systems. Journal of Management, 35(4), 899–927. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206307312514
20.
SholihinM.PikeR. (2009). Fairness in performance evaluation and its behavioural consequences. Accounting and Business Research, 39(4), 397–413. https://doi.org/10.1080/00014788.2009.9663374
21.
SommersS. R. (2006). On racial diversity and group decision making: Identifying multiple effects of racial composition on jury deliberations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(4), 597–612. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.4.597
22.
StrandbergK.HimmelroosS.GrönlundK. (2019). Do discussions in like-minded groups necessarily lead to more extreme opinions? Deliberative democracy and group polarization. International Political Science Review, 40(1), 41–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192512117692136
WijayantiA.SholihinM.NahartyoE.Supriyadi. (2025). What do we know about the forced distribution system: A systematic literature review and opportunities for future research. Management Review Quarterly, 75(1), 747–788. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-023-00396-8
