This seems to be a screed against a particular type of performance review. As far as it goes I agree with it, but in a larger sense I disagree. Yes, giving peer

This seems to be a screed against a particular type of performance review. As far as it goes I agree with it, but in a larger sense I disagree. Yes, giving peer feedback is hard. Nonetheless it's necessary. Let's be adults and do things that are hard. Peer feedback itself can be continuous or periodic, but even if it's periodic it all needs to be collected and compared at some point ... which brings me to the next point. Besides purposes related to either helping employees grow or covering the company's backside if they need to fire someone, reviews serve another important purpose: they're a way to factor out biases in the award of raises, promotions, and equity. If you don't have performance reviews, these things are guaranteed to be a matter of the managers' subjectivity and bias. If you do have performance reviews, they can be compared to one another both within and across teams to ensure that the results don't favor anyone on the basis of anything except measured merit. That's absolutely essential in any workplace that we could consider modern.