A common practice in some of the more dynamic organizations is called the 360-degree performance review, where an employee's performance is evaluated by all those who have a stake in the results of that person's job.

This means the bosses who depend on them, the employees who are subordinate to them, and (if possible) the clients and key movers in other departments who interact with them and who depend on the results that they produce. It may also include other co-workers at the same level of the hierarchy. So, full feedback, all around.

Seems like a great idea and I agree with it in principle, but of course it can be corrupted by politics. If you're an employee and you rate your manager harshly, the next day you are still the employee and they are still the manager. And if they know their people well enough it is not difficult for them to get enough of an idea about who the dissidents are that they can make bad things happen.

Also, the organizations that do care enough to implement a 360 degree review also the same ones that care enough to put the right people in management and avoid redundancy in the first place. So they need it less.