The dreaded annual performance review is officially inching closer to extinction. Annual performance reviews are generally perceived as the worst, and more and more companies are getting rid of them.

IBM is the latest to see the light and now joins a growing group of employers in ditching one of the most-hated practices in the business world. This week the tech company announced it was ditching its traditional review process, in which employees were ranked on a 1-5 scale every December, set goals for the new year in January and “checked in” on those goals six months later.

The tech giant joins a growing list of employers who’ve ditched the antiquated, counterproductive and expensive practice of rating workers and holding them accountable to goals set only once a year. General Electric, Microsoft, Deloitte, Accenture, SAP, The Gap, Cargill, Juniper and Adobe have all tossed the stale formula in recent years. In Yahoo’s case, the ranking system is also drawing a lawsuit, as a former editor filed suit against the company claiming the ratings were manipulated to fire people without cause.

IBM’s chief human resource officer told Fortune magazine that “the review just became an “irrelevant discussion.” The company is replacing its annual system with a new system, called Checkpoint, that will let managers evaluate staff in a more realistic timeframe, not just once a year. That yearly pace makes little to no sense in 2016, when businesses move pretty quickly. The question is: Will a system of more check-ins be better than the old system? Or has IBM just built a more cumbersome bureaucratic mess?

Psychologists say that ranking people essentially makes them feel bad and also pits workers against each other. Microsoft’s old “stack-ranking” system only allowed for a limited number of top performers, which had the effect of turning the tech company’s best people against each other as they positioned themselves for raises.

Putting a number on someone’s performance essentially triggers their threat response, says psychologist and author Josh Davis. Davis is also director at the NeuroLeadership Institute, which consults with businesses on performance issues. “Probably for most people if you say, ‘Hey, it’s time for our performance review conversation,’ you’re going to activate the fight-or-flight response, that’s a safe bet,” Davis said to Fortune magazine. The employee then becomes defensive going into the performance review. What should be a conversation about getting better at your job “becomes an embattled argument,” he said.

For businesses, the process is also shockingly expensive and time-consuming. In a Bloomberg Businessweek interview in 2014, Gap VP Dan Henkle said managers at The Gap were putting in 130,000 hours of worker time into reviews, It cost them $3 million a year. Now the retailer is using a system of “regular ongoing feedback,” said Henkle, who is now the company’s director of sustainability.

Take for instance, a recent study by the Society for Human Resource Management. It found that 95% of employees are dissatisfied with their company’s appraisal process and additionally, 90% don’t believe the process provides accurate information. 65% percent of employees also said that “the current performance appraisal process interferes with their productivity” and that the information communicated isn’t relevant to their work

Making sure workers know where they stand all year round? Of course that makes better sense than waiting every six months to give any meaningful feedback. What makes more sense is the ongoing evolution of employee satisfaction.