Manager training and performance calibration
Gallup attributes about 70% of the variance in team engagement to managers, yet only 44% have received formal management training. Coaching, feedback, and clear expectations are skills managers can develop. Performance calibration helps them apply consistent standards when evaluating employees.
About this note
Published Reviewed
Help managers develop their skills and make more consistent performance decisions.
At a glance
Gallup attributes about 70% of the variance in team engagement to managers. Its research also finds that 44% of managers have received formal management training. Calibration helps managers apply the same performance standards before reviews are shared with employees.
Research: Gallup, State of the Global Workplace 2026.
- 44%
- Managers who report receiving formal management training.
- 70%
- Approximate share of variance in team engagement Gallup attributes to managers.
Build stronger management skills
Doing the work well and leading a team take different skills. New managers need to learn how to coach employees, give feedback, set expectations, and evaluate performance. Gallup also finds that managers with training are about half as likely to be actively disengaged.
Manager engagement fell from 31% in 2022 to 22% in 2025. Gallup reports that managers experienced the largest decline among workforce groups, with the sharpest annual drop between 2024 and 2025. By 2025, manager engagement was close to the level reported by the employees they led. Make time for coaching and performance conversations during regular manager meetings throughout the year, not just annual reviews.
The New Manager Kit, $69
A practical guide to the first 90 days of management, including team routines, feedback, and important conversations.
Help managers make fair performance decisions
Performance ratings often inform pay increases, promotions, and development decisions. Before reviews begin, agree on what each rating means and what evidence managers should use.
- Recency bias
- A recent success or mistake outweighs performance across the full review period.
- Halo or horns effect
- One strength or weakness influences ratings in other areas of performance.
- Leniency or severity
- A manager consistently rates employees above or below the agreed standard.
- Central tendency
- Employees receive middle ratings despite meaningful differences in performance.
- Similar-to-me bias
- A manager favors someone who shares similar traits or experiences.
Review ratings together before finalizing them
In a calibration meeting, managers compare proposed ratings for employees doing comparable work. HR or a neutral facilitator guides the discussion before reviews are shared with employees. A rating of 4 should mean the same thing across teams. SHRM describes a process in which managers present their proposed ratings, discuss performance evidence, and agree on adjustments before finalizing reviews.
Comparing examples helps managers spot differences in how departments apply the rating scale. If one team consistently receives higher ratings, look at the performance examples behind those scores. Performance management specialist Dick Grote has described how shared standards can help managers deliver candid feedback. Calibration can also help senior leaders recognize strong performers across teams.
Use performance examples to support ratings
Start with a shared rating scale and examples of performance at each level. Ask managers to bring their proposed ratings and specific examples of each employee's work. Ask each manager to explain the evidence, then compare how similar performance was rated across teams.
The facilitator keeps the conversation focused on performance examples and gives each manager time to explain their ratings. Record the final ratings and the reasons for any changes before preparing employee reviews.
Research and sources
5 sources. Last checked 24 June 2026.
- Gallup, State of the Global Workplace 2026. Research on management training and employee engagement. Includes the 44% training figure, the roughly 70% variance finding, the lower active disengagement among trained managers, and the decline in manager engagement from 31% in 2022 to 22% in 2025. gallup.com. .
- SHRM, Improving Performance Evaluations Using Calibration. Describes how managers compare proposed ratings, discuss performance evidence, and make adjustments. Includes Dick Grote's guidance on candid feedback, facilitation, and evidence-based discussions. shrm.org. .
- SHRM Labs, Fixing Performance Reviews. Describes how calibration can defer to the loudest or highest-ranking manager and end up comparing biased ratings with other biased ratings. shrm.org. .
- SHRM Certified Professional, rater errors in performance measurement. Reference material covering recency, halo and horns, leniency and severity, central tendency, and similar-to-me bias. SHRM-CP study reference, hosted by Trusted Institute. trustedinstitute.com. .
- Dartmouth College HR, Common Rater Errors. Definitions and examples of common performance-rating biases. dartmouth.edu. .
Common questions
What percentage of managers receive training?
Gallup reports that 44% of managers have received formal management training. Its research also attributes about 70% of the variance in team engagement to managers. These findings show why regular manager training and coaching deserve attention.
What happens in a performance calibration meeting?
Managers compare proposed employee ratings before finalizing performance reviews. HR or a neutral facilitator guides the discussion using shared standards and specific performance examples. A rating of 4 should represent the same level of performance across teams.
What are the most common rating errors?
Five common errors are recency bias, the halo or horns effect, leniency or severity, central tendency, and similar-to-me bias. They occur when recent events, individual traits, scoring habits, or personal similarities influence an evaluation. Shared standards and specific evidence help managers recognize and address these biases.
Is calibration the same as a forced rating distribution?
Calibration evaluates proposed ratings against shared standards and performance evidence. Forced distribution assigns ratings according to predetermined proportions. In calibration, the employee's performance determines the rating.
Tools for the next step
A practical guide to the first 90 days of management, including team routines, feedback, and important conversations.
$69The New Manager Kit, People Manager Toolkit, and Manager Script Library in one system. The readiness assessment shows which skills to focus on first, with tools to help managers practice them.
$149Templates for one-on-one meetings, feedback, and recurring people decisions.
$79Ready-to-use conversation openings for feedback, accountability, and other important manager discussions.
$69Conversation tools for dental and medical practices, including clinical team members who supervise employees.
$79Practical tools for supervisors managing people and production during the same shift. Includes feedback and accountability conversations that happen during daily operations.
$79
See something that needs correcting? Send us a note.