The old idea was to do an annual review. The boss compiled the data, called int the staff members and discussed what went well and badly. Based on that review, staff members were promoted or something else.
There are lots of problems with this. One of them is the distance between the reviewer (a boss) and the thing reviewed (tasks and attitude).
So how to do it better? Peer review? This Forbes article thinks so. Check out the article. Do all companies need such a complex system? No. But >I do think the basic idea of the system — that it grows out of trust is critical.