5 minBusiness
Cornell Study Finds High Performers Resent Being Passed Over for Training in Meritocratic Workplaces
New research from Cornell University shows that in meritocratic workplaces, top employees react poorly when training opportunities go to lower performers, while egalitarian settings produce less resentment. Managers, however, overwhelmingly direct training to low performers regardless of culture.
Companies that automatically steer training budgets toward lower-performing employees risk alienating their top talent, especially in workplaces that prize autonomy and individual achievement, according to new research from Cornell University.
The study, led by accounting professor Martin Wiernsperger at Cornell's business school, examined how employees react when professional development opportunities are allocated to low performers rather than high performers. The findings suggest that workplace culture plays a decisive role in whether top employees feel slighted by such decisions.
In meritocratic settings — where workers have more control over their tasks and can choose their own projects — high performers tend to believe they have earned the right to additional training. When they are overlooked, they react more negatively. By contrast, in more egalitarian workplaces, where employees have less autonomy and are treated more equally, even top performers view performance differences as more arbitrary and are less resentful when colleagues receive extra support.
«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.
In a meritocratic environment, however, the logic shifts. Wiernsperger points to 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 that were mostly in English or mostly in German. In the egalitarian condition, students were randomly assigned to one of the two quizzes, regardless of whether they spoke German. In the meritocratic condition, they could choose which quiz to take. Participants acting as managers then decided whether to offer additional training to high or low performers.
The results largely confirmed the researchers' expectations: high performers in the meritocratic setting were more likely to object to being passed over for training. But one finding surprised Wiernsperger. Regardless of workplace culture, managers were far more likely to assign training to lower performers — two-thirds did 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 research arrives at a moment when employers are pouring billions into artificial intelligence adoption while training budgets contract. Companies are being forced to make tough choices about which employees deserve additional support. With finite resources for upskilling, the question of who gets trained — and who feels slighted — carries real consequences for retention and morale.
As AI reshapes the workforce and major companies continue layoffs, employees may be seeking a competitive edge. Many have noticed that employers are demanding more from them without investing as much in their success. In a low-hire, low-fire market, some workers are looking for ways to advance within their current workplace or position themselves for when hiring picks up again.
«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.»
The study suggests that companies could risk alienating high performers if they automatically grant training opportunities to lower performers, particularly when workers are hungry for professional development. The findings highlight a tension between managers' instinct to fix underperformance and the expectations of top talent in meritocratic cultures.
For employers navigating tight training budgets, the research offers a caution: how training is allocated can send a powerful signal about what a company values, and overlooking high performers in competitive environments may carry a cost that goes beyond the training room.
2
