Example data Twelve fictional employees across three example managers. Ratings start as the managers submitted them.
Drag a person to a new box. Or tap a person, then tap Move here. With a keyboard: Tab to a person, then use the arrow keys.
Example data Twenty-five fictional employees in two teams. Scores are illustrative.
Calibration mode
How ranking-score mode works
Revolut People’s Ranking Grade recommendation gives each employee a score between −100 and 100 from weighted components, ranks people from highest to lowest within the calibration scope, then maps them to grade brackets. The simulator uses the weights and brackets from that docs page:
| Component | Weight |
|---|---|
| Manager recommendation | 60% |
| Goals (deliverables) | 10% |
| WNIPS (bar raiser questions) | 10% |
| Skills | 5% |
| Values | 5% |
| KPIs (goal completion %) | 5% |
| Past cycle average grade | 5% |
Brackets: bottom 5% Unsatisfactory, next 28% Developing, next 40% Performing, top 25% Exceeding and top 2% Exceptional. Per the docs, skills and values are redistributed when they aren’t available; the docs don’t say how, so this simulator spreads the weight proportionally. Recommendations apply within each calibration unit, which is why Structured mode’s team stage and department stage can suggest different grades for the same person.
- Calibration modes: Admin, Manual (delegated calibrators) and Structured (up to 5 primary stages plus unlimited custom stages) are described in Calibration methods and Structured calibration.
- Comments: the docs advise always leaving a comment when you change a grade, so the simulator won’t confirm a change without one.
- Flags: the two flags shown are named after documented calibration flags. Here they are simulated: they appear when you grade someone up despite negative deliverables or bar raiser scores. In the product, flags are generated overnight from performance data, manager inputs and history.
A recommendation is a starting point for the conversation, not a verdict. The calibrators still decide the final grade.
What the flags mean
Heuristics, not verdicts
- Central tendency: 60% or more of ratings at 3, or very little spread. Raters may be avoiding hard calls.
- Leniency or strictness: 70% or more of ratings at the top (4–5) or bottom (1–2), or an average of 4+ or 2 and under.
- Clustering by one manager: one manager’s average is a full point away from everyone else’s, or they gave every person the same rating. It might be a genuinely stronger or weaker team, so ask for evidence.
- Recency hint: the evidence note mentions a strong or weak finish, and the rating follows that recent event rather than the whole period.
- Grid mismatch: the 1–5 rating and the 9-box performance column disagree (1–2 low, 3 moderate, 4–5 high).
The hub’s calibration guide recommends calibrating against scorecard evidence rather than a 9-box. The 9-box is here because many teams still use one, and moving people on both boards shows how two opinions on one grid can disagree.
The thresholds match the rule-of-thumb ratings check on the tools page. Real calibration needs real evidence: goals, feedback and examples from the whole cycle.
Before your real calibration meeting
- How to run a performance calibration meeting
- Calibration meeting template
- How to reduce manager rating bias
- Why some teams are moving away from the 9-box grid
Want a quick read on your own process first? Try the performance review diagnostics.