Developing lower-performing employees may annoy the go-getters
When Martin Wiernsperger was a graduate student, he and fellow student Mackenzie Feinberg realized they both had family members in the health care field—and both had heard relatives complain about lower-performing employees getting more opportunities for training and professional development than their higher-performing peers.
When Martin Wiernsperger and Mackenzie Feinberg were graduate students, they discovered that lower-performing employees often received more training opportunities than their higher-performing colleagues. This observation led them to explore the fairness dilemma faced by managers who must allocate limited training funds, weighing the benefits of improving lower-performing workers' skills against the productivity gains from developing higher-achieving employees.
The researchers discovered that workplace fairness norms play a significant role in determining how employees react to training allocations. Under an egalitarian system, lower-performing workers expect to receive additional training, but may feel less enthusiastic about it compared to higher performers. In a meritocratic environment, higher performers tend to react negatively when they are not selected for training, while both groups respond similarly when they do receive it.
By conducting an experiment with 186 participants divided into three-person groups, the researchers found that managers typically allocate training resources to lower-performing employees, as they believe it provides a higher return on investment. This finding highlights the challenge managers face in balancing productivity with perceived fairness, as prioritizing training for lower performers can negatively impact the overall productivity of the team.
Written by urgent.news from Phys.org's reporting — not their text. Machine-written — may contain errors; check the original before relying on it.
