Companies that automatically direct training budgets toward lower-performing employees risk alienating their top talent, according to new research from Cornell University. The study, which examined how workers react when professional development opportunities are allocated, found that high performers in meritocratic workplaces feel particularly slighted when they are passed over in favor of colleagues who have not performed as well.
The research comes at a moment when employers are pouring billions of dollars into artificial intelligence adoption while workforce development budgets contract. With finite resources for upskilling, companies face a difficult choice: invest in struggling employees or reward their best and brightest. The Cornell study suggests that decision carries significant cultural consequences.
Martin Wiernsperger, an accounting professor at Cornell's business school and a co-author of the study, explained that workplace culture shapes how employees interpret training decisions. In egalitarian settings, where workers have less control over their tasks and are treated more equally, low performers tend to feel entitled to extra training and often take it for granted. In meritocratic environments, where employees have more autonomy and can choose their own projects, high performers react more negatively when overlooked.
«People might say, well, everyone should get the chance to improve because performance differences might simply reflect bad luck,» Wiernsperger said, describing the egalitarian mindset. But in a meritocratic workplace, he noted, high performers are more likely to feel they deserve rewards for their efforts. He cited the example of a consulting firm that lets employees choose their projects rather than assigning them based on expertise. «We all had the same chance to start at the same level, essentially, because we could all choose what we think we're good at,» he said. «So if I perform better, then I've invested more effort, and I essentially deserve it.»
To test these dynamics, Wiernsperger and his team designed an experiment with college and graduate students. Participants took a quiz testing knowledge of idioms mostly in English or German. In the egalitarian version, students were randomly assigned to one of the two quizzes regardless of whether they spoke German. In the meritocratic version, they could choose which quiz to take. Participants playing managers then decided whether to offer additional training to high or low performers.
The results largely confirmed Wiernsperger's suspicions: high performers objected to being excluded from development opportunities in competitive environments. But one finding surprised him. Regardless of workplace culture, managers were far more likely to assign training to lower performers, with two-thirds doing so in the experiment, hoping to improve their productivity and output.
«At least in our setting, managers thought training should go to the lower performers—and they didn't fully think through the fairness implications this might have for the higher performers,» Wiernsperger said.
The study's implications extend beyond the laboratory. As AI reshapes the workforce and major companies conduct recurring layoffs, employees are seeking competitive advantages. Many have noticed that employers are demanding more from them without investing as much in their success. In a low-hire, low-fire market, workers may look for ways to advance within their current workplace or position themselves for success when hiring rebounds.
«This reaction to the training allocation is most salient when employees feel they are in a competitive setting,» Wiernsperger said. «I guess that also speaks to the labor market that we are in. Employees compete for a limited number of promotions, compete for pay raises, and even compete to stay in the company—since lower performers might be kicked out.»
For employers, the research suggests that automatically granting training opportunities to lower performers could backfire, particularly when high performers are hungry for upskilling and professional development. Companies may need to weigh not only who needs training most, but also how their allocation decisions signal value to their most productive employees.