This month, a story calling the performance review process into question got readers talking. Plus, one reader negated the benefits of overdraft fees.

"Performance Reviews Need Fixing: Towers Watson," Dec. 15

When I started out in my career with Deloitte back in the 1990s, we employed a performance review process that was cutting edge then and is cutting edge now. It is called a personal development assessment, not a review. The quarterly assessment is initiated by staff, not management. This eliminated the "box checking" and "what did I say last time" that was cited in the article. There was a five-point scale with a three indicating "meets expectations." No commentary was required for a score of three. A score of one, two, four or five had to be backed up with specific evidence or examples of why the score was appropriate. Once the self assessment was complete, all the manager had to do was review the assessment and agree or disagree with each rating. The criteria evaluated was partially based on job requirements and partially on career development. The formal review was normally done over lunch with a discussion about how the firm was meeting my professional objectives and what development items I needed to work on for advancement. When it came time for merit adjustments, the reviews were used as evidentiary data points for raises, promotions, etc. The assessment process was voluntary too – if I did not want a promotion or raise, then I did not have to complete the assessment. It's such a simple process; turn the traditional approach upside down. Candidly, I'm surprised more organizations have yet to figure it out.