In many universities, notably in North America but most likely around the world, there are five-year reviews of professors throughout the careers. The reviews can take the form of assembling pretty well everything they have done in the previous five-year period, including providing vast documentary evidence of satisfactory (or even outstanding) performance in teaching, research and scholarship, and service (and, if applicable, in administration). This is generally an extremely time-consuming, intense and potentially stressful experience, and, equally, it is not always clear what the value of this exercise is. In addition to the potential for (conscious and unconscious) bias throughout the process as well as a number of forms and sometimes quantitative configurations, there is also the normative consideration of ensuring that full weight of given to the contributions that are presented for review. Although the broader public may not be aware of the working conditions within academia, it is important to note that, generally speaking, there are a number of regular evaluation-points that professors routinely must face, including: annual reviews, tenure and promotion reviews, grant proposals, conference presentations, articles and other publications, sabbaticals, teaching evaluations by students, some positions and committees, research chairs, etc.. My question seeks to understand—if there is already robust, intense, high-stakes, regular and relatively comprehensive evaluation of academic performance—is there (significant) added value to these five-year reviews? I am aware of some universities that have eliminated them, and others that have re-negotiated the requirements, but they do remain for the most part intact. Do they support and cultivate more enhanced engagement and performance? How? Would the time and resources required for this process be better spent in cultivating more enhanced engagement and performance?