My girlfriend is a Ph.D. student in industrial organizational psychology. She had this to say: I think this view is unnecessarily extreme. I think the correct

My girlfriend is a Ph.D. student in industrial organizational psychology. She had this to say: I think this view is unnecessarily extreme. I think the correct way it should have been presented is that performance reviews should be done in a more useful way. Not all performance reviews are for the purpose of rationalizing bonuses. I think feedback on one's performance accompanied with goal setting of specific behaviors is fundamental in sustaining good work and motivation in employees. I do think that ranking employees doesn't work most of the time because it not only creates competition but discourages those who have been performing well, but just not so much as others who could potentially be ass-kissers as what the article says. The bottom line is that , w/o a review/feedback on your on-going performance, you wouldn't have an idea of what you should work towards to and u cant assume that all employees are intrinsically motivated to do better. Heuristically, people lose their sense of engagement about 5 months after they are hired and this can keep deteriorating if immediate supervisors don't provide the support/encouragement/feedback. One last thing, research has repeatedly shown that regular performance feedback increases motivation and performance in the long-run. what's important really is how the feedback is given.