Steve Balmer's performance review, and ours
Larry White argues with the idea that performance reviews are even a good idea. I tend to think that they are useless at best and destructive at worst. Good management involves giving constant feedback all year, not bundling it all up for one incredibly awkward process that takes pace annually.
A performance review is a useless or destructive tool if the only time anyone sees it is once a year.
It is useful as a distillation of a year’s accomplishments and critical feedback as delivered and discussed over that year. My expectation is that my own review should have nothing on it that my boss hasn’t previously discussed with me. I set that goal for the reviews I write. Part of that is consistent, in-depth 1:1 discussions at least bi-weekly. Another is a more formal discussion quarterly, using that same review form, taking the tack of, “if your review was final today, here’s what it would say.” Used properly, there’s ample time for anyone to get a good mark to a great one or make improvements against any recognized skill or practice gaps.