This is what your highest performers really want

In a time when businesses are allocating vast sums to AI integration, workforce growth has taken a backseat. Training allocations have dwindled, compelling firms to grapple with which personnel deserve the additional backing they're still prepared to provide. With restricted resources for employee training and skill enhancement, the pressing question is: should they invest in low achievers or their top talent?

A novel study from Cornell University delves into the complexities of these decisions, emphasizing how a company's culture can significantly influence the perception of employees regarding additional training opportunities.

On average, workers appreciate being selected for training sessions. However, in a workplace that is more egalitarian—where employees have limited control over their job roles and are treated more uniformly—low performers may feel more entitled to additional training, virtually taking it for granted. In contrast, a more meritocratic environment—where workers have greater autonomy and agency, able to select their own projects—tends to provoke less resentment among high achievers if they are excluded from training opportunities.

The researchers, led by Martin Wiernsperger, an accounting professor at Cornell's business school, suggest that in an egalitarian setting, even top performers may perceive performance disparities as arbitrary. This perception can diminish their resentment if fellow employees receive extra training.

Wiernsperger cites the example of a consulting firm that grants its employees the freedom to pick their projects, rather than automatically assigning them based on expertise. He posits, "We all started at the same level, essentially, because we could all choose what we believed we were good at. So if I perform better, I've invested more effort, and I essentially deserve it."

To validate their theories, the researchers designed an experiment involving college and graduate students taking a quiz on idioms primarily in English or German. In the egalitarian scenario, students were randomly assigned to one of the two quizzes, irrespective of their German proficiency. In the meritocratic setting, participants could select between a quiz predominantly in English or one mostly in German.

Following this, managers decided whether to offer additional training to individuals who excelled on the quiz or those who struggled. The study largely validated Wiernsperger's assumptions—that high performers would object to being excluded from professional development opportunities in a more competitive setting. However, an unexpected discovery was that regardless of workplace culture, managers were more inclined to allocate training to lower performers, with two-thirds opting for this approach in the experiment, aiming to boost productivity and output.

Wiernsperger notes, "In our setting, managers believed training should be directed towards lower performers—and they didn't fully consider the fairness implications this might have for the higher performers."

This research implies that organizations might risk alienating high achievers if they routinely provide training opportunities to lower performers, especially in competitive environments. As AI continues to reshape the workforce and major companies grapple with recurring layoffs, employees may seek a competitive edge and are likely aware that employers are increasingly demanding more from them while investing less in their development.

In a tight job market, some workers might strive to advance within their current workplace or prepare for future success when companies resume hiring. Wiernsperger emphasizes that this reaction to training allocation becomes most pronounced when employees perceive their environment as competitive. "This may also reflect the labor market we are in," he suggests.

"Employees compete for limited promotions, wage increases, and even strive to retain their positions—given that lower performers may be let go."