PwC: trust in management fell 7 points in a year, and only 40% of the core workforce trust their manager. 5 ways to keep year-end reviews credible for a two-speed workforce.

A Wednesday question for People leaders, CPOs and COOs in Dublin, London, Amsterdam, Stockholm and Tallinn: when this year’s ratings land, who will believe them? The people who already feel the company is moving in their direction, or everyone else as well?

PwC’s new survey puts numbers on that question. Its Global Workforce Hopes and Fears Survey 2026 describes a “diverging workforce”: a small group of AI-enabled front-runners racing ahead, and a much larger core workforce that PwC calls “the engine room of delivery”, which feels “unsettled by change” and “poorly led by their managers”. PwC calls it “a crisis of trust”. The figures below come from PwC’s global results page and its Ireland and UK pages.

1. What the data actually says

• Trust in management is falling. Across nearly 50,000 workers, trust in management fell by seven percentage points year-on-year, and less than half the global workforce now trust top management.
• Two very different workforces. PwC sorts workers into four cohorts. Front-runners are 14% of the workforce; the engine room is 56%. In the UK, PwC puts 13% of workers in the front-runner cohort and 62% in the core workforce.
• The trust gap is about the manager, not only the board. 82% of front-runners trust their immediate manager and 75% trust top management. In the engine room, those figures are 40% and 33%.
• The core workforce still cares about the work. Two-thirds of the engine room say they take pride in their work and are willing to go above and beyond, yet only a third believe they are fairly paid.
• The front-runners are not locked in either. 29% say they are very or extremely likely to change employer in the next year, and they are nearly twice as likely as average to work somewhere that rewards effective AI use.
• Managers and learning are under strain. 24% of managers find it difficult to manage change, and their confidence in their own job security is down six points. Access to learning and development resources fell from 59% to 51%.
• Ireland looks better, with caveats. In PwC Ireland’s survey of more than 1,000 workers, seven in ten trust their manager, 89% are proud of their work, and around a third saw a significant increase in workload or had to learn new skills or tools. Poor management ethics affected 46% of Irish respondents.

Honest caveats. This is a weighted survey of what workers say, not a measurement of what managers do, and “trust” here is self-reported. The four cohorts are PwC’s own model, built from AI advantage and labour market demand. The global results are not split by company size or by sector on the page, and the global, Irish and UK figures come from different samples, so they shouldn’t be compared like for like. PwC also publishes Netherlands, Belgium and Sweden pages, which aren’t used here. It is a strong signal to check against your own data, not a benchmark for your company.

2. The mid-market hurdle: one review cycle, two workforces

In a 200–2,000 person company, especially an engineering-led one, the two groups PwC describes often sit in the same team. A few engineers have rebuilt how they work around AI tools, ship visibly and get noticed. Most of the team keeps the platform running, closes tickets and covers on-call, and much of that work is only noticed when it stops.

Review season is where those two experiences meet. If the criteria are vague, ratings tend to follow whatever is most visible to the manager, and calibration becomes a debate about stories rather than evidence. For the 40% of the engine room who trust their manager, that might be fine. For the rest, a surprise rating confirms what they already suspected. For a COO, the cost shows up as quiet disengagement in the teams that do most of the delivery. For a CPO, it shows up as an appeals queue and a calibration meeting nobody can explain afterwards. PwC’s own recommendation is blunt: change “performance measures that reinforce old ways of working”, reward experimentation “rather than just expecting workers to avoid mistakes”, and “protect time for learning rather than adding it on top of daily tasks”.

3. 5 ways to keep year-end reviews credible for a two-speed workforce

1. Write the bar down before anyone is rated. Publish the scorecard before the cycle opens: what was delivered against goals, skills for the person’s level and values. Say how AI-assisted work is judged: by the outcome and its quality, not by how new the method looks. People who trust their manager less need the criteria in writing more. The rating scales guide has examples.
2. Check calibration by group, not only by person. Before the calibration meeting, look at the rating distribution by team, role type and tenure. If dependable-delivery roles cluster lower than the teams that ship visibly, ask whether that reflects performance or access to tools, learning and interesting projects. The calibration meeting template and the review bias checker help.
3. Reward experiments, including the ones that didn’t work. Add a line to the review for trying a better way of working, and make clear that a well-run experiment that failed counts. That is PwC’s advice, and it gives the core workforce a route to recognition that doesn’t depend on already being a front-runner.
4. Make learning a goal with time attached. With access to learning resources down from 59% to 51% in PwC’s data, a development goal with no protected time is a promise people learn not to believe. Put one learning goal per person into next cycle’s goals, with the hours agreed in a 1:1.
5. Measure trust in managers by team, and read it next to ratings. Add a “my manager assesses my work fairly” question to your next engagement pulse. Read the results by team next to the review outcomes, and follow up in 1:1s where both are low. No rating in the review should be the first time someone hears about a concern.

For the PDF, use your work email. The call is a free 15-minute discovery call: bring your review template and last cycle’s rating distribution.

4. Where Revolut People fits, and where it doesn’t

Revolut People started as the system Revolut built to run performance as it scaled to 20,000 people across 60+ countries. The parts that map to this report are the ones that make a review cycle easier to explain. Reviews use one scorecard (goals, skills by seniority and values), so the bar is written down and the same across teams, and each review opens with the person’s goals and previous-cycle data already filled in. Calibration brings multi-dimensional performance data into one place, so a committee can compare ratings across teams and see the evidence behind them, not just a single number. Goals cascade from company to team to person and can be updated during the year, including learning goals. 1:1s come with AI-powered summaries, so concerns and agreed actions are on record before review time, and engagement surveys can be compared with performance data by team. Core HRIS records, including reporting lines, sit on the same platform.

To be straight about the limits: software won’t make anyone trust their manager, set fair pay or give people the AI tools and training budget PwC describes. Those are leadership choices. What one shared record does is make the criteria, the evidence and the calibration decisions visible, so the conversation about fairness starts from the same data. Related reads: reviewing the job people actually did this year, Gallup on manager engagement and coaching, and feedback that never sticks.

Bottom Line

PwC’s survey of 49,364 workers says trust in management fell seven points in a year, and that only 40% of the core workforce trust their immediate manager, against 82% of AI-enabled front-runners. For a mid-market People team or COO in the UK, Ireland, Benelux, the Nordics or the Baltics, the year-end takeaway is simple: a rating is only as credible as the criteria and the evidence behind it. Write the bar down, check calibration by group, reward experiments, give learning real time and measure trust by team. Try it with one department this cycle.

FAQ

What did PwC’s Hopes and Fears Survey 2026 find?

PwC surveyed 49,364 workers across 48 countries and regions and 29 sectors in May and June 2026, and published the global results on 29 September 2026. Trust in management fell by seven percentage points year-on-year, and less than half the global workforce now trust top management. PwC splits workers into four cohorts: AI-enabled front-runners (14%), the engine room (56%), AI insurgents and the indispensables.

How big is the trust gap between front-runners and the core workforce?

In PwC’s global data, 82% of front-runners trust their immediate manager and 75% trust top management. In the engine room, the majority cohort relied on for dependable delivery, 40% trust their immediate manager and 33% trust top management, even though two-thirds of them take pride in their work and are willing to go above and beyond.

Why does this matter for year-end performance reviews?

A review cycle is one of the few moments when every employee sees how their manager and the company judge their work. If the people doing most of the dependable delivery already trust their manager less, unclear criteria, surprise ratings or a calibration nobody can explain will be read through that lens. PwC’s own advice includes changing performance measures that reinforce old ways of working, rewarding experimentation and protecting time for learning.

How reliable is the data for a European mid-market company?

It is a large, weighted survey of what workers say, not a measurement of behaviour, and the cohorts are PwC’s own model. The global figures are not split by company size. PwC publishes separate national pages: in Ireland (more than 1,000 workers) seven in ten workers trust their manager, and in the UK 62% of workers fall into the core workforce cohort and 13% are front-runners. Treat it as a strong signal to check against your own engagement and review data.

Is Revolut People available in the UK, Ireland, Benelux, the Nordics and the Baltics?

Yes. Revolut People is available to businesses with a registered entity in the UK, the EEA or the US, which covers Ireland, the Benelux, Nordic and Baltic countries.