It is a common trope among managers that their employees are their greatest assets. Another common trope is that companies ‘invest’ in their employees by offering internal training and development opportunities. Every large company now has internal training programs. Why are some companies so much worse in training and developing their employees than others? And what are the consequences of a poor internal training program?
A thorough study by A team at Harvard University One important factor identified: middle managers. They gained access to three American companies, including one car manufacturer, one retailer and a fast restaurant chain. They checked how different mid-managers worked with their teams and how they encouraged their team members to record on-the-job and internal training opportunities.
These middle managers appear to be a crucial engine for the implementation of internal training programs. In the Quick-Service Restaurant Chain, the attitude of the Middle Manager compared to training was good for more than half of the variation in training recording among employees. They were good for about fifteen minutes in the car manufacturer and the retail company.
This suggests that the introduction of an internal training and development program does not in itself yield significant results with the help of HR. If the company does not live the program, there will be no impact because there is no or only minimal admission. And as is often the case in companies, the most important thing is for the successful implementation of a business initiative De Buy-in of management.
The individual differences in the inclusion of training programs between different teams, run by different middle managers, also enabled the researchers to study how internal training and development influenced team performance. Moreover, it will enable us to identify which properties of medium managers lead to higher involvement.
Let me quote directly from the study: “High training managers-that means, those who are above the business media in the added value of being training in their focus on team development and employee involvement, compared to (LT) managers (LT), who emphasize individual high-performe.
How much does the performance run between teams that are run by high-training managers and managers with low training? The first graph illustrates the increase in the output in the restaurant Quick Service and the retail company after an external shock that led them to work more without extra compensation.
Effect of question shock on performance
Source: Diaz et al. (2025)
For managers with a low training tool, the output rose by 0.7% after the demand shock in the first eight weeks and then dropped to an increase of 0.4% in the long term. Compare this with the teams of high-training managers, who increased the output by 1% in the first eight weeks and then even more to 1.4% afterwards. And all without getting a few cents more. Likewise, teams of managers with low training managers in the Retail company increase by 0.9%in the long term, but teams of high-training managers increase production by 4%.
In the meantime, sickness absence increased on average after the demand shock, but not for teams of high-training managers. Although teams of high-training managers did indeed see no or only minimal increase in absenteeism, the teams of managers with low training experienced a considerable jump in their absent figures. I don’t think there is better evidence that involvement matters. And bad bosses make bad teams, which causes poor performance.
Effect of demand on sickness absence
Source: Diaz et al. (2025)
#Train #employees