Over my years of teaching I often ask the class, "How many of you think organizations should conduct performance reviews?" Typically, about 80% think we should. However, I follow by asking "How many of you agree that your organization accurately measures your performance?" This time, only 20% agree. Thus, why do we do performance reviews if so few people agree with them? A common answer is "Because we have to do something to review workers." My reply is, "Is it better to have a bad review system than no review at all? Furthermore if you had the chance of either being inaccurately reviewed or skipping it, what would you choose?" Likewise, consider that a full time employee is working over 2,000 hours per year. Meanwhile, most employee reviews are a mere two to three pages. Doesn't this seem incongruent? Other organizations have very long, thorough reviews but evidence suggests that a worker's performance increases for (roughly) ten days before and after the review. Meanwhile, managers are often faced with the directive "Your department can have a 3% raise overall, you decide who gets it. And make sure you document the reasons why." For this discussion I would like for you to discuss any/all of the following: 1) Items listed above 2) Performance reviews that you have been involved with, either as a manager or as a subordinate 3) Advice for what organizations should do 4) Further evidence of what shouldn't be done 5) Pros and cons of ranking systems 6) Whether or not annual reviews have a positive or negative effect on a) the individual b) the organization 7) Other comments related to this topic/chapter that you agree or disagree with