And how is "the computer says you suck" helpful in any way. Unless you can communicate what sorts of behavior are wrong and how to improve...

My real problem with this approach is that since it is an objective measurement, it implies that it is meaningful. But if it is useful as you said, it is merely a blunt instrument used to force employees to shut up and sit down without relaying how they fail.

I expect more from management, and yes, I have written my fair share of performance reviews.

Here is a novel concept, how about telling the bad employee how they under perform? One of the hallmarks of lazy manager is when one polls the employees who didn't get excellent performance review marks and they all fail for exactly the same reason.

If it were a good metric of performance, it would not require the right hands to determine who gets the beating.

So basically, you are saying you want a club to beat people with. That way you can choose who gets the beating.

Most of the discussion here is about determining whether the metric is actually valuable.

Given the widespread deployment of technology to filter resumes, HR is ripe to accept any new technology that is thrown its way.

Surfacing "thought leaders" over others amounts to rewarding a personality type. I don't think companies have a problem rewarding the people who influence others. The people who do the heavy lifting are rarely recognized.