According to Forbes, most promotion decisions are finalized during calibration conversations before employees ever receive their formal year-end reviews, making even stellar performance reviews “too little, too late.” Research cited shows only 22% of employees believe their review process is fair and transparent, with managers exhibiting strong recency bias that favors recent performance. This disconnect leaves many professionals advocating for advancement after key decisions have already been made.
Table of Contents
The Hidden Calibration Process
What most employees don’t realize is that performance calibration isn’t just a meeting—it’s a sophisticated organizational process designed to normalize ratings across departments and managers. Calibration in this context functions as a quality control mechanism, but it often creates unintended consequences for career progression. Companies implement these systems to ensure consistency, yet they frequently fail to communicate how the process actually works, leaving employees in the dark about when and how decisions are made about their careers.
The Structural Flaws in Performance Management
The fundamental problem extends beyond timing—it’s rooted in how organizations structure their performance management systems. Gallup’s research revealing low confidence in review fairness points to deeper systemic issues. Most companies design these processes for administrative convenience rather than employee development, creating a mismatch between when work is done and when it’s evaluated. The annual review cycle, a relic from industrial-era management, fails to accommodate the pace of modern knowledge work where contributions happen continuously throughout the year.
The Psychology Behind Promotion Decisions
Recency bias is just one of many cognitive distortions affecting promotion outcomes. Harvard Business School research on recency effects highlights how human memory limitations shape career advancement. Managers naturally remember what happened recently rather than weighing contributions evenly across the evaluation period. This creates an environment where strategic timing of achievements can outweigh their actual impact. The psychology of workplace self-advocacy further complicates matters, as cultural norms often penalize employees—particularly women and minorities—for being too assertive about their accomplishments.
Broader Organizational Consequences
When promotion processes lack transparency, organizations pay a steep price in employee engagement and retention. High performers who feel their advancement depends on navigating opaque systems rather than delivering results often become disillusioned and eventually leave. This creates a talent drain that’s particularly damaging because these are exactly the employees companies can least afford to lose. The calibration process described in Lattice’s performance management guide, while intended to create fairness, can inadvertently reinforce existing power structures and make it difficult for unconventional thinkers and quiet achievers to advance.
The Future of Performance Management
Forward-thinking organizations are already moving toward more transparent, continuous feedback systems that eliminate the “behind closed doors” aspect of traditional reviews. The future lies in real-time performance tracking, clear advancement criteria, and regular calibration conversations that include employee input. As remote and hybrid work becomes standard, the need for transparent promotion pathways becomes even more critical. Companies that fail to adapt risk losing top talent to organizations offering clearer career progression and more equitable advancement opportunities.
Strategic Implications for Career Development
The revelation that promotion decisions happen before formal reviews requires a fundamental shift in career strategy. Professionals can no longer rely on annual accomplishments alone—they must understand their organization’s decision calendar and build advocacy networks throughout the year. This doesn’t mean constant self-promotion, but rather developing strategic relationships with stakeholders who can champion their cause during calibration meetings. The most successful professionals treat career advancement as a continuous process rather than a year-end event, building their case systematically rather than waiting for a single performance discussion.
