This reminds me of Ricardo Semlar and his book Maverick. For it to work, there needs to be crystal clear clarity about the purpose of the organisation (and how this needs to evolve) and how each and every person contributes to its realisation. The old NASA story of the floor-sweep and the President resonates. Or, from my own experience, quoted from "It's Behaviour Stupid, What really drives the performance of your organisation":

Keeping it clean:

Slightly more down to earth (sic), a colleague describes a cleaner in Liverpool who was in her fifties and had had a hip replacement operation. She asked her manager if she could return to work because she thought it the best means of convalescing from her operation. In terms of Clarity, however, her decision was influenced by her understanding of the business’ determination to deliver superb service to its customers. In her mind, delivering good service to external customers meant that the quality of service within the business had to be top-notch, too. And, she considered this included keeping the toilets and washrooms spic-and-span, which was a key part of her cleaning responsibility. She considered herself to be “the best loo cleaner in the business” so she had to get back to work to prevent standards falling and staff becoming unhappy. In her mind, if this happened, external customers would be served less well because staff would think the organisation didn’t care about them and the facilities in which they worked.

I like the basis of the idea, particularly when you have project-based teams. I am fully supportive of performance coaching, putting managers and supervisors in the role of helping people capitalize on their strengths, but any revision of the perf mgmt process has to address the role perf mgmt plays in determining compensation. It would be interesting to put this into play beside tradition perf mgmt, perhaps using the peer ratings to determine distribution of bonus payments or some other monetary recognition as a result.

Micha, I worked for some years in an organisation that had peer review as the core of the performance process. There was scoring, but it was not secret. There was also a coached peer review meeting (I was a coach). In the early days we had to work through people not being honest, people choosing to use the process to score points, collusion. Sounds like a failure doesn't it?
On the contrary, the fact that we had to surface and address these behaviors through the process, brought them into the light. The teams would co-create their own behaviors and boundaries as a result. There was conflict, but there was also trust & respect-building. I remember the best performing teams also being the most mature in their use of peer-review. I also remember that many of the best performing teams were on the manufacturing lines and not in the support/professional areas.
It took courage and resilience to implement and lead such a process, but it did work.