That might indicate that more than 1 in 10 managers are giving workers good feedback, except that some of those employees who say they know exactly how they’re doing might not have gained a keen understanding of their performance because of a manager. They might just know, or at least think they know.

One of the barriers to effective feedback is that many managers believe their employees will not respond well to constructive criticism, or that the process of communicating the issues might be too time-consuming. That problem is perpetuated, argued Murphy, by an emphasis on annual or monthly assessments, rather than on-the-go feedback.

“If every leader gave constructive feedback within hours of a problem, each conversation would be pretty small and easy. But when we let issues pile up, leaders get angrier and that translates into a bigger, and more uncomfortable, conversation with the employee,” he wrote.

In an analysis of Murphy’s argument, Tess Taylor of HR Dive agree that the annual performance review was “antiquated,” and that the type of frequent feedback that Murphy is recommending might be best delivered by middle managers, “who are generally the most well-received level of the team.”

In a 2014 article for the Harvard Business Review, Ron Ashkenas made similar points, writing that while “everybody knows that performance feedback should be more candid,” employers regularly “hide behind performance management checklists” or hold back on their criticism for fear of offending.

Luckily, he wrote, giving feedback is a skill that can be taught:

“Honest performance feedback is not easy. But learning how to do it well can make a huge difference both for you and for your organization.”