There’s a dangerous disconnect in performance management. Leaders and HR see performance management through a rosy lens. For them,  manager conversations, peer feedback, reviews, goals management, and career/skills development are overwhelmingly working.

For employees and their managers — not so much.

This gap has a real impact on outcomes. Individual contributors are 17% less likely to say they are very productive, 37% less performance-enabled, and 3x less likely to feel supported in their skills development. Managers also rate these factors lower than leaders —  especially when it comes to productivity, where they dip even lower than individual contributors.

Manager conversations and peer feedback are game-changers for retention and productivity — but more than 1 in 5 employees are still not getting either. This has a manifest impact on outcomes, at a time when top talent is in demand and skill gaps are a big concern.

Fissures between the “haves” and “have nots” directly map to shortfalls in how supported employees feel in their performance, their ability to build their skills, and whether they see a path for growth in their organization.

Middle managers serve as the bridge between leadership's vision and strategic direction, and the execution of these by employees. They support teams relationally and help employees remain on track and engaged. Yet, underinvestment in managers coupled with high expectations from all sides threatens to undermine the foundational support they provide.

Our data shows them squeezed from all sides — struggling to stay effective and productive. There is a troubling disconnect between the level of assistance people managers say they receive and the level of support that higher-level managers, HR, and leaders feel. Only about 1 in 3 middle managers said they have the clarity, organizational support, and resources to succeed and to coach employees effectively on skills and career development.

When it comes to managing performance, the data shows that  HCMs perform no better than manual spreadsheets — and in a few cases, they are worse. Yet, two-thirds of respondents use an HCM or ERP system precisely for performance-related activities.

Clearly, a majority of employees and organizations are missing out on the multiplier effect of modern performance management by relying solely on large, one-size-fits-all systems. Combining an HCM with a purpose-built, best-of-breed platform for performance management boosts outcomes across the board for engagement, belonging, enablement, goals relevance, career development, and opportunities for advancement.

Organizations are hyper-focused on building skills to make the best use of their talent while fortifying their ability to address constantly changing conditions. And employees desire similar security and promise. Employees at all levels told us they want skill and career development — but only 54% rate these programs as a success.

The addition of purpose-built solutions yields dividends. Employees with software specifically designed for performance management were nearly 3x more likely to feel they always receive the support they needed to develop their skills and nearly 2x more likely to say they see a clear pathway for advancement in their company than those relying on only an HCM for skill development.

Organizational impact goes hand in hand with goal alignment. Employees say they are more productive when they are able to set and accomplish goals in sync with their company’s goals. And they are 3.6x more likely to feel those goals align when they have frequent manager conversations, coaching, and feedback.

Here, again, purposeful technology matters. The combination of an HCM plus a purpose-built solution was a winner for 92% of respondents. And sometimes, the wrong technology can be worse than having none at all — HCMs without the addition of a purpose-built solution produced even less alignment than manual solutions.