By Lee Flanagan
Imagine you’ve got one funded training place and two reasonable claims on it. One colleague is delivering excellent results and wants to develop further. Another is struggling with a skill the team needs. Helping either person could make sense. Choosing between them is the awkward part.
Research reported by HR Dive suggests that the reaction to that choice depends partly on a workplace’s fairness norms. In some settings, higher performers felt more slighted when they missed out; in others, lower performers did.
The useful lesson for managers is to decide what this particular training is for before deciding who deserves it. Otherwise, you risk asking one opportunity to serve two different purposes: closing a skills gap and recognising strong performance.
Fair to whom?
Published in the Journal of Accounting Research, the study used three-person groups and quizzes on English and German idioms. Assistance with German idioms stood in for workplace training, and a participant designated as the manager allocated it based on quiz results.
In the meritocratic groups, participants could choose their quiz, reflecting workplaces where people have more freedom to choose their tasks. Higher performers felt more slighted when passed over for training and reacted more negatively. In the egalitarian groups, quizzes were assigned at random, reflecting workplaces with structured roles. Lower performers in those groups expected training and felt more slighted when they didn’t get it.
That puts managers in a difficult position. Cornell assistant professor Martin Wiernsperger noted: “They might not fully consider fairness, and focus just on productivity.” He suggested overlooking fairness could have “pretty negative implications for further productivity.”
The reported test’s quiz setting matters here. These findings give you a reason to check your team’s expectations, not a formula for predicting each employee’s response. And the person most likely to be upset doesn’t automatically have the strongest case.
Give the opportunity a clear purpose
If training is intended to close a specific capability gap, the strongest claim may come from someone who needs that help. If it prepares someone for more advanced responsibilities, readiness to use the learning may matter more. Both are legitimate aims. They just call for different selection criteria, which shouldn’t change once you see who’s in contention.
For example, imagine there’s one place on a structured-interviewing course. A review of one recruiter’s interview notes reveals a recurring gap in recording evidence against the agreed criteria. If the course directly addresses that gap, they may have a stronger case than a higher-performing colleague who already uses the method well.
Now change the opportunity to an advanced course for people who will train other interviewers. Existing proficiency and a realistic chance to teach others become more relevant. An overall performance rating isn’t enough to make either decision.
Before inviting nominations, write down the course’s purpose and a few observable selection criteria. That gives managers something more useful than a contest between “rewarding excellence” and “helping people catch up”.
Explain the choice without overpromising
A high performer who sees learning as recognition may hear a needs-based decision as: doing well means being overlooked. A colleague who sees training as support to reach the expected standard may find the opposite choice just as frustrating. How have you described these opportunities until now? If you’ve presented development as a reward for results, explain a change of approach before the next selection, not afterwards.
When you explain the decision, share its purpose and criteria, not another employee’s performance record. And acknowledge the development need of the person who missed out. Being good at today’s job isn’t a reason to stop discussing what they want to learn next.
Offer a realistic next step: review a relevant alternative, if one exists, or agree when you’ll revisit the request. “Your turn will come” is tempting reassurance. Without the budget or a plan, it’s a promise you may not be able to keep.
Check who keeps missing out
The report also cites a separate Indeed Hiring Lab finding: workers without a bachelor’s degree were much less likely to have access to employer-provided training than those with one. That’s a wider access issue, and a reason for HR to look beyond any single allocation.
Review who is eligible, nominated and selected across successive rounds, including by degree status where that information is available and appropriate to use. If the same people keep missing out, ask whether the criteria, nomination process or practical ability to attend are unnecessarily limiting access.
You may still have a disappointed colleague after a defensible decision. The aim is to give them a clear explanation and an honest next step, while checking that a series of reasonable-looking choices doesn’t repeatedly shut the same employees out of development.
Original reporting: HR Dive.
Frequently asked questions
Should limited training go to high or lower performers?
Neither group should automatically take priority. Define whether the opportunity is intended to close a specific capability gap or prepare someone for further responsibilities. Then use consistent criteria tied to that purpose, while checking the fairness expectations employees bring to the decision.
What did the study find about fairness expectations?
In the reported quiz exercise, lower performers expected training and felt more slighted when passed over in egalitarian groups, where quizzes were randomly assigned. Higher performers felt more slighted and reacted more negatively in meritocratic groups, where participants chose their quiz. These findings aren’t a prediction of every employee’s response.
How should managers explain a decision to someone who missed out?
Explain the training’s purpose and the selection criteria without disclosing a colleague’s performance information. Acknowledge the employee’s own development needs and agree a realistic next step, such as reviewing a relevant alternative or revisiting the request. Don’t promise a future place unless you can support that promise.