Performance Reviews: Is the pendulum shifting again?

I've been doing research on the historical evolution of performance reviews. The origins are traced back to World War I with the U.S. military's use of merit ratings to identify poor performers that would be either discharged or transferred. U.S. companies began adopting this approach and by World War II, it was prevalent throughout the business world.

Then in the 1950's, there was a shift from the traditional accountability and focusing on past performance to development and goal setting. In the 1960's, General Electric took a hybrid approach with splitting performance reviews into separate discussions about accountability and growth.

The last 60 years has seen multiple shifts and approaches to performance appraisals moving through some type of continuum and focus on evaluating the past and development. The place many organizations have currently landed seems to be the hybrid, a mix of looking at the results an individual has achieved in the past, combined with focusing on their learning and growth for the future. I have been a part of designing and implementing these types of performance appraisals for companies, so I have seen the pros and cons of the approach.

Historically, performance appraisal shifts have been caused by organizational response and needs to economic forces (recession, labor shortage, etc.). For example, in the 1970's with inflation rates sky high, organizations felt pressured to be more objective with how they awarded merit pay, so accountability became the focus. With our current economy in decline with high inflation and labor flux with the "great resignation," I'm wondering if we are moving towards another shift with the pendulum.