I have no problem with the IDEA of performance reviews. In my company, here’s how it’s supposed to work:

• At the beginning of the year, you write some goals. These goals are supposed to be specific and measurable. (i.e. “ I will sign at least four accounts worth $250k each.”) Boss approves goals.
• At the end of the year, you write up your results, they are measured against your goals, and your rating is assigned accordingly. (Oh, SirWired only signed TWO $250k accounts! “Did not meet expecations”.)

What actually happens:

• At the beginning of the year, my boss sends an e-mail listing the goals HIS boss said all his/her employees are supposed to have this year. These are neither specific nor measurable (since identical goals are applied to something like 100 quite specialized professionals, this is not a surprise) They include such gems like “collaborate effectively in a cross-organizational manner” and “expand skills to enhance abilities in relation to corporate and division strategic initiatives”. These are dutifully cut-and-pasted into the performance review tool by each employee.
• At the end of the year, the employee attempts to shoehorn all the things he/she did this past year into something that vaguely fits the goals he/she barely remembers reading a year ago (much less using the goals as a guide to concentrate work effort.)
• Boss assigns the rating he (and his boss) were always planning on assigning, no matter what you wrote, as long as you did not make a complete mockery of the process. If they are planning on laying you off in the coming year, they will have no problem finding out a way you did not meet “expectations” on the goals nobody, including you, your boss, or his boss, actually understand.

Supposedly, it has finally been admitted by corporate that this is a big waste of time, and will be replaced by something new. (At least this was better than the previous iteration, which involved asking the co-workers you liked most to give you “anonymous feedback” on your performance.)