A bit of a vent/rant on the purpose of performance reviews.
At my company, top-down communication about the approach to employee performance reviews this year was shared that essentially the lion's share of them will not only be directly correlated to the bottom line, but also goals that are shared and weighted the same across all employees –– from C-suite to VPs to junior staff.
I get that that sort of direct-business-impact stuff should be reflected in some capacity for most people, but to me this new performance review / goals approach directly contradicts the intention of performance reviews.
Performance reviews and goals should be just as much as about the individual, their role, their career aspirations, and what will personally challenge them and be the most rewarding to them if accomplished at the end of the performance cycle.
This now comes off as corporate greed, putting a proverbial gun to people's heads to focus solely on what's best for the bottom-line versus what is important for the specific individual.
This also makes no sense based on varying responsibilities, levels, titles, departments, etc. Someone could have the biggest year of their career in terms of accomplishments, but if one of these particular 'bottom-line / shared' goals aren't successful, they'll be marked as unsuccessful and lose the compensation that would have otherwise come with that.
Not only that –– but if everyone has predominantly shared goals, it'll allow the people who truly make the most impact for those goals to do the majority of the work, while others can benefit from their effort/wins/successes.
Just ridiculous.