Posted by denised in 
According to UCLA business professor Samuel Culbert, annual reviews are “dishonest, fraudulent…and just plain bad management.” In an interview with NPR, Culbert says the entire process is falsehood since the boss has most likely already been told by higher ups what, if any, promotion or advancement is going to take place. The entire review process becomes, in essence, a charade. Instead of outdated performance reviews, Culbert suggests bosses just tell employees what they need to do to become more effective.
In every performance review I’ve ever received the boss had already, in fact, come to conclusions about my performance and any related increase in salary long before I’d ever sat down with them. My opinions and suggestions were rarely taken into place. It now seems that performance reviews in large part, exist to cover the employer from a liability standpoint. With written reviews, they’ve got documentation on file, accurate or not, on issues they’ve discussed with the employee.
What’s your feeling about performance reviews – worthwhile, or a waste of time? Share your thoughts in the comment section. You can read the full interview with Culbert on npr.or.
