Well sounds like they are broken then. Also various does not mean all as there are orgs out there poorly setup and poorly run.

If you go over to some of the workplace subs you will see plenty of companies that are run terribly.

In my career this has always been a standard I have run across and I work in tech. Heck where I started my career they only did company wide reviews of Sr Director and up otherwise how teams were run were left up to that specific manager/director decision.

It is to encourage individuals to put their true feelings. Regarding context it should be provided to allow free text comments as well as enough variation on questions to piece together a possible issue. If that is not provided then the data collection is flawed not the format of it being anonymous.

As a good leader its your job to be able to have the trust of those working with you to gather that information. Also just because you are rated poorly doesn't mean you are bad at your job its possible that you are not the right fit for your specific team.

That's when you report it and get a paper trail if you can ahead of time saving it to a personal device.

Very well could be they are not approachable and encourage open communication.

Could as well be the current review format specific to their position is not correctly done.

Having it so it's not a trackable to the employee allows for a more open line of feedback.

Actually in various companies they do. There is reviews of managers, your managers direct superior, and those above them.