My staff received this plus or minus.
But I do agree that the eFeedback process and that the overall review process are deeply flawed. The EDs along with the VPs in my department go into a closed door discussion and decide everyone's rating without benefit of the performance review even written. Our performance reviews are not written on whether goals were reached or not (oh maybe loosely) but are written to match the rating. My contribution to this process is to send my supervisor an email on what rating my staff should get and why, but it is often overruled and hotly debated as the EDs all work to argue each other down so they can give their staff the highest ratings. It's all based on perception, relationship, and debating skills. eFeedback is just a cover to make the process look valid. Goals are pointless as they aren't used to provide direction, assess staff or the organization, and gamed at the end of the day so the VP can get the rating wanted. It is a horrible process that contributes to the negatively politic company. One bad manager can reign supreme if that one bad manager has the VPs ear or great showmanship. The VPs ear can be bought by showing data that supports the goals, though the data is easily displayed to do so. The process lacks integrity through and through. No one really speaks up because the environment is so political, to actually say something against the grain would be a faux pas used against that person later.
The emperor is not wearing any clothes and no one speaks up for they will be shot. The one who speaks up becomes the target to keep the attention off themselves. It's a great advantage to find someone to shoot at so leadership can continue to ride under the radar.