Calibrate Call Reviews Before Using Scores for Coaching

When sellers challenge every call score, the scorecard may be less useful than the discussion around it. Reviewers can interpret a label such as “strong discovery” in different ways, especially if they have never scored the same conversation together. An enablement consultant can create a calibration session that turns disagreement into clearer evidence.

Choose two recordings that include both strong and incomplete moments. Have reviewers score them independently, then compare the exact language or behavior each person used. The goal is a shared interpretation that can support coaching. Compensation leaders may use scores elsewhere, so they should understand how the quality team governs the rubric.

In a fictional meeting, quality director Ana says, “Can you make scoring completely objective?” Consultant Theo says, “We can make the criteria more observable. Let’s test whether reviewers can point to the same moment when they mark a question as useful.” Ana replies, “Our recognition program uses these scores.” Theo asks, “Who decides that policy? We should show what calibration improves before changing how scores are used.” A reviewer says, “I gave a low mark because the seller interrupted.” Theo responds, “Where does the rubric describe that effect on discovery? Let’s decide whether it belongs there.”

The conversation creates a record of how the team reached each interpretation. That record helps managers explain feedback with confidence.

Run a monthly calibration with one selected call. Save the examples that define each criterion and invite reviewers to propose a revision when the rubric misses a meaningful behavior. After the session, have a manager deliver feedback from the calibrated call and check that the seller can identify a specific retry.