Content area
Full text
In October 2008, Professor Samuel Culbert's article, "Get rid of the performance review", appeared in the Wall Street Journal . The piece went viral, sparking debate around what he termed the "ill-advised and bogus" practice of performance measurement, propelling Culbert into the media spotlight.
His earlier work, Beyond Bullsh*t: Straight Talk at Work , was a finalist for the National Best Book Award, exposing the counter-productive and obfuscatory language that had become prevalent in the corporate world. It was out of this notion that his WSJ article and subsequent book, Get Rid of the Performance Review! How Companies Can Stop Intimidating, Start Managing - and Focus on What Really Matters , seemingly grew, with his conception of the performance preview being based on a straight-talking, collaborative relationship between boss and subordinate.
Culbert has received numerous accolades for his written work, including a McKinsey award for his 1970 Harvard Business Review article, "An anatomy of activism for executives". He holds a PhD in Clinical Psychology, and is a full-time, tenured professor at UCLA's Anderson School of Management. For more information about Samuel Culbert and his work, visit www.perfromancepreview.com
It has been almost four years since your polemic entitled "Get rid of the performance review!" appeared in the Wall Street Journal . Were you surprised by the out-pouring of feeling, and the debate that ensued?
Surprised? Not at all. I think we all know how much everybody hates performance reviews - whether you're the one who is giving the review or getting the review. So the fact that so many employees came forward to tell their own horror stories, and how they find the performance reviews intimidating, demoralizing and totally useless, was far from a surprise.
At the same time, I'm well aware that the performance review is the key tool that HR uses to keep their seat at the big executive table. So I'm also not surprised that most in HR insist upon their companies using it. They like to say that the tool isn't flawed, it's the way managers use the tool. But that's because if the tool is flawed, they lose a lot of their power. And believe me, all evidence suggests the tool is fatally flawed. I couldn't find a single study that...