I find this article incredibly frustrating, and likely written by a person who hasn't run any org, much less a large one -- I believe they said they were called in as a senior IC into calibration, if I understood correctly

Calibrations are typically not a race to the bottom with every manager trying to bring down their own (or others') people. In fact, the game theory / incentive structure promotes inflation, which is precisely why we need constructive feedback / negatives from peers and upward

0] Managers generally like their people and want to see them succeed 1] If you're cynical enough to believe that 0 isn't true, fine (though I'm sorry for your struggle)... Managers look good when their people look good & are promoted. 2] Managers don't want to bring other people's managers down because it prevents retaliation (see 0 and 1) 3] This leads to grade inflation 4] The curve exists to avoid this 5] Peer feedback exists to open discussions on patterns, not on individual occurrences. If enough people notice X or variations of X, X is probably true 6] Not sharing X means that the person most likely will never get the feedback and never improve (rarely do people care enough to have the uncomfortable convo F2F)