I try to make the case like this in my organization (and have in my previous one as well): we can easily quantify the enormous amount of money - particularly bu

I try to make the case like this in my organization (and have in my previous one as well): we can easily quantify the enormous amount of money - particularly but far from exclusively the financial value of time - we spend on our performance review process. But what we don't really know, and what very few organizations really know (because "performance" is usually a very troublesome criterion) is what value that process is delivering back to the organization. One of the problems is that most organizations want their process to "Do It All." They want it to be development for the employee while also being the primary determinant of administrative decisions. Further, they want it to support all administrative decisions: who's great at their current job, who is most capable of succeeding in their next job (i.e., who should we promote?), how should we distribute our pay raises, what do we do with this year's STI and LTI, etc. It's broken, and expensive. Maybe it can't truly be fixed, but at least we can save some money, time, and frustration. That doesn't mean nobody gets feedback, or that we don't set and track goals. But it doesn't have to be the way we make it. If we put half as much effort into making managers better at leading people I have no doubt the impact would be much more clear.