At a moment when employers are sinking billions of dollars into AI adoption, workforce development has become less of a priority. Training budgets have contracted, forcing companies to make tough choices about which employees deserve the additional support that they’re still willing to offer. 

With finite resources for training and upskilling their employees, who should they invest in: low performers, or their best and brightest? 

That’s the question behind new research out of Cornell University, which found that decisions about which employees are selected for additional training can prove fraught, depending on the culture of a workplace. On the whole, workers tend to be grateful when they are chosen for training sessions. But at a company that is more egalitarian—where employees have less control over their job tasks and are treated more equally—low performers feel more entitled to extra training and almost take it for granted. In a setting that is more meritocratic—where workers have more autonomy and agency and can choose their own projects—high-performing employees usually react more poorly if they are overlooked for training opportunities.  

When their workplace is relatively egalitarian, even top employees seem to perceive performance differences as more arbitrary, making them less resentful if their colleagues receive additional training. “People might say, well, everyone should get the chance to improve because performance differences might simply reflect bad luck,” says Martin Wiernsperger, an accounting professor at Cornell’s business school and a co-author of the study. 

In a meritocratic workplace, however, high performers are more likely to feel like they should be rewarded for their efforts.

Source link