Were the performance reviews you are speaking of conducted in private between you and your supervisor or at least a select commitee of individuals interested in you doing a good job and continuing in the position? I assume the reviewers would not include peers who would obviously be favored by you getting an unfavorable review. Were the results made public, companywide, including any reprimands and criticism of your performance?

I certainly think it is appropriate for selected members of the government and/or congress to make such reviews of the president or members of his administration in some instances. It might even be appropriate to report the findings to the public depending on what came out of the review.

You know as well as anyone that there is always political motivation to make these things a public spectacle with little interest in achieving the goals you mention.

This is a representative democracy and I don't feel that our government should be conducted like a Reality TV show for the benefit of petty politics by either party.