I like the underlying idea here, Skip. And it's certainly an improvement over the "let's-wait-a-year and see what we remember" method, with all its halos and horns. But I think the practice you describe only goes part of the way to improving things. Yes, it steps up the frequency of review, which is good, but we're still talking about a process that's formal and scheduled. Performance review should be mostly informal and organic to the process of supervision. It should happen several times a day, in conversation, not once a week or (GAD) once a year in a formal sit-down session. If you don't do the informal, organic part, the formal part becomes an organizational game.
Commenting by HaloScan
