Dr. Gleb Tsipursky – The Office Whisperer
Nirit Cohen – WorkFutures
Angela Howard – Culture Expert
Drew Jones – Design & Innovation
Jonathan Price – CRE & Flex Expert
- Outdated approaches — infrequent training sessions and annual performance reviews — can’t keep up with today’s pace of change.
- The choice for managers is clear: stay focused on tasks, or become champions of growth.
- Leaders need to move beyond the one-size-fits-all review toward continuous growth conversations.
Skills have become the new currency of the workplace. Yet we continue to measure and reward employees and managers for short-term results, not for developing the capabilities that ensure long-term relevance.
No wonder the skills gap is widening.
Despite heavy investments in innovation and hitting quarterly goals, many organizations overlook a key lever of long-term success: continuous workforce development.
Outdated approaches — infrequent training sessions and annual performance reviews — can’t keep up with today’s pace of change. It’s time to integrate learning directly into day-to-day work.
This shift isn’t about offering more online courses. It’s about building a workplace culture where growth is ongoing, personalized, and embedded in everyday activity. And where it counts: in how we evaluate performance.
Managers must be seen not just as project overseers, but as enablers of development.
At the moment, they’re not.
There’s a stark disconnect between how companies perceive their development efforts and how employees experience them. A Deloitte survey found that while 77% of executives agree they should help employees stay employable, only 5% feel they’re doing enough.
Similarly, the Betterworks 2024 Skills Fitness Report found that although 70% of employers say they assess skills in performance reviews, most do it only once or twice annually — far too rarely in a world of constant disruption.
Why the gap? Because what gets measured gets managed.
The Skills Gap: Performance Management Must Evolve
Performance management remains focused on output: targets hit, projects delivered, satisfaction scores met. But what about learning? What about growth?
If we want to prioritize skills, we must treat them as a performance indicator.
As Doug Dennerline, CEO of Betterworks, noted, “A skills-focused approach values employees based on what they bring to meet current challenges rather than just their roles and goals.”
Skills aren’t optional extras — they’re foundational to organizational agility. Companies that invest in growth capabilities see gains in retention, adaptability, and innovation.
With many skills now having a half-life of just a few years, ignoring development means operating with a rapidly aging skillset. The absence of regular conversations between managers and employees about skills also hinders a company’s ability to assess its capabilities and align people with the right work.
According to Betterworks, 98% of HR leaders and managers believe that embedding verified skills data into performance processes would improve internal mobility. And yet, Deloitte reports that while 89% of executives emphasize skills in talent deployment, 59% of workers still say their company prioritizes past experience and education over skill potential.
The missing link? Meaningful, ongoing conversations between managers and their people.
To truly support skill-building, performance tracking must include not just outcomes but development progress — toward current roles, future goals, and lifelong learning. LinkedIn 2024 Workplace Learning Report found that employees with clear career goals are four times more engaged with learning.
But that engagement only thrives when managers are empowered and incentivized to support growth alongside delivery.
Can We Expect Managers To Do Both?
Managers today are expected to drive performance, motivate teams, and nurture growth. That’s a heavy lift. And often, the immediate needs of delivery win out over long-term development.
The Betterworks report underscores this tension: while 75% of employees believe their manager is key to their growth, only 56% feel genuinely supported.
So maybe it’s time to ask a tougher question: Are we asking too much of managers?
Maybe the answer lies in redefining their role entirely. What if we created dedicated “development managers” whose sole responsibility is to coach, map skills, and co-create growth plans with employees?
A New Framework: Development as Strategy
Development managers could work in tandem with business managers, allowing the latter to focus on operational results while the former ensures that employees are gaining the skills they need to succeed.
This model not only reduces pressure on line managers but elevates learning and development to a strategic function.
Such a setup could also help fix the persistent problem of poor skills data. Development managers would be tasked with maintaining a clear, validated view of organizational capabilities — crucial for workforce planning and agility.
Some may argue that creating new roles adds unnecessary complexity. But we already dedicate functions to strategy, finance, and customer experience. We even create matrix structures for product, market, or regional views. If developing talent is key to success, shouldn’t it have dedicated ownership?
This isn’t just about tweaking org charts. These development leaders would ensure that skill-building is visible, valued, and measured. Traditional managers, no longer burdened with conflicting responsibilities, could double down on meeting business objectives.
The result? A new kind of partnership where operational performance and human growth align.
Success today demands a workforce that can keep evolving. That means moving beyond the “one-size-fits-all” review toward continuous growth conversations — and redefining how we support the people doing the work.
Skills are reshaping the future of work. The organizations that invest in them now will lead tomorrow. And the choice for managers is clear: stay focused on tasks, or become champions of growth.
The future of work depends on what we choose to value — and how we measure it.
