If we take this arguement at face value, then it seems that the real problem lies with the unethical managers who use the performance review as a whipping post and not the review in and of itself. The solution is to find better managers. If the arguement, however, is that the problem lies within the review itself, that brings up a question for debate:
Would discontinuing the annual performance review "wimpify" the American worker? I will certainly not try to argue that a review is a pleasent experience. It is clearly a stressful event. I would also say the same is true for many things in life: taxes, mamograms and final exams to name a few. All of these things have something in common; they are more or less necessary, required parts of life. Furthermore, stress is an unavoidable aspect of life. Do we create a workforce full of "soft" employees who are unable to be resilient? When employees cannot face critique from bosses and peers interally, how do they handle criticism from customers or competitors external to the company?
Not all stress is "bad" stress. Consider the fact that it is physical stress that makes our muscles stronger and our reflexes quicker. The same can be said for healthy amounts of mental stress. It can be a motivator which strengthens resolve and self-confidence. Perhaps we should not rush to throw out the performance review, but instead focus on creating ethical management and resilient employees.
