[brianwillis]

My employer tried and failed using a similar system with Salesforce Work.com. It all seemed a bit pointless and forced to me. In the early days of using it while it was still a novelty, managers were giving feedback to people so that they could demonstrate to HR that they were being good little soldiers by using the tool, rather than because they wanted to praise good performance. This insincere praise was worse than no feedback at all.

In the end, it never really went anywhere because it became another inbox to check, and we already have too many of those. A chicken-and-egg problem also presented itself, where people only checked the site when they got a notification saying they'd received feedback, which led to no-one visiting the site to give feedback.

[davidlee1435]

If you don't mind me asking, what did you guys fall back to, and were you guys satisfied with it?

[mythrwy]

It's a terrible idea. Please don't even think about building it.

As another poster mentioned real time feedback between team members and leaders happens organically (if the people are any good). The HR annual or bi-annual review is a formalization and documentation step but I can't imagine usually leads to better performance.

[brianwillis]

We didn't replace it with anything. We still do formal performance reviews every six months.