Performance reviews & calibration
How this is scored
The review cycle itself: configurable templates and rating scales, self, manager and 360° input, calibration across teams, and whether each rating can be traced back to criteria fixed before the cycle began.
0 — No structured reviews; at most a free-text form with no cycle, no scale and no record of who wrote what.
3 — Fixed review templates with self and manager input, but no configurable criteria, no calibration and no statement of what the employee sees.
5 — Configurable cycles, questions and rating scales, self, manager and peer input, employee sign-off or acknowledgement, and the review history kept per employee.
8 — 360° feedback with configurable reviewer selection, calibration views across teams with rating distributions, review criteria per role or level, reminders and deadlines per cycle, and a documented rule for what the employee, the manager and HR can each see.
10 — Reviews are an auditable process: criteria and competency models versioned and fixed before the cycle, every rating change during calibration attributed and reasoned, bias checks or distribution analysis described, and the full review history exportable per employee.
The Skeptic
Calibration is real here, not a tagline: cycles track the pre-calibrated manager submission and the final calibrated rating, distributions can be cut by department, location and gender, and the role matrix documents who may read review content, with the calibrated status tag kept from the employee. I found no public information on criteria fixed before the cycle begins, on attribution and reasoning for rating changes, or on review criteria per role or level, which is what separates calibration from an auditable process. 5 6 10 1