Training Participation and the Role of Reciprocal Attitudes

Abstract

Using data from the German Socio-Economic Panel, I examine the relation between workers’ reciprocal attitudes, as measured in 2005 and 2010, and participation in work-related training courses in 2007 and 2013, respectively. Theory predicts that employers find it more profitable to invest in human capital of workers who have positively reciprocal attitudes, because they are more likely to return their employer’s kindness with higher effort and/or loyalty. The findings are mixed, depending on the survey year. I find that positively reciprocal workers are more likely to participate in employer-financed training in 2007, in particular when training is general. Also, consistent with theoretical expectations, I do not find a relation between workers’ reciprocal attitudes and participation in training that is not financed by the employer. However, workers’ reciprocal attitudes are not related to training participation in 2013. A possible explanation is that employers use training to induce reciprocal feelings in a slack labour market only. (JEL codes: M53 and D91).

Affective commitment through further training: the roles of firm provision and employee participation

“…Indeed, Sauermann (2015) measures the degree of worker reciprocity and shows that the positive relation of firm-sponsored training and employee performance is relevant for reciprocal employees in particular. Accordingly, Non (2020) shows some evidence for a positive link between employees' degree of reciprocity and likelihood of participation in training. It is an important task for future research to investigate the interdependencies in more detail including possible selection effects of reciprocal employees to corresponding firms.…”

Worker reciprocity and the returns to training: Evidence from a field experiment

“…Using cross‐sectional data for the Netherlands, Leuven et al (2005) provide evidence that positive reciprocal individuals are more likely to participate in employer‐financed training courses than individuals with low reciprocal inclinations. For Germany, Non (2020) provides corroborative evidence that reciprocal individuals are more likely to participate in training. Although this correlation could reflect unintended sorting of reciprocal individuals into training firms, the sorting pattern is also in line with the idea of strategic selection by firms to induce reciprocal incentives (Englmaier & Leider, 2012).…”

“…Why firms invest in training despite the risk of poaching is often explained by market imperfections, such as compressed wages (Acemoglu & Pischke, 1998, 1999). An alternative argument is based on reciprocity, which may induce employees to reciprocate employer investments by, for example, reducing turnover, providing greater effort, or reducing wage demands (Leuven et al, 2005; Non, 2020). Reciprocating training investment thereby serves as a behavioral explanation for why firms invest in training.…”

Worker Reciprocity and the Returns to Training: Evidence from a Field Experiment

“…Why firms invest in training despite the risk of poaching is often explained by market imperfections, such as compressed wages Pischke, 1998, 1999). An alternative argument is based on reciprocity, which may induce employees to reciprocate employer investments by, for example, reducing turnover, providing greater effort, or reducing wage demands (Leuven et al, 2005;Non, 2020). Reciprocating training investment thereby serves as a behavioral explanation for why firms invest in training.…”

“…Indeed, Englmaier et al (2016) show that firms using personality tests when hiring are more likely to offer, among other benefits, on-the-job training. Non (2020) This not only helps to explain the positive correlation between training incidence and reciprocal attitudes (Leuven et al, 2005;Non, 2020), but also contributes to the general understanding of firm investments in employee human capital by offering an alternative rationale for firm investments in training even if there is risk of poaching (Acemoglu and Pischke, 1999;Leuven and Oosterbeek, 1999;Caliendo et al, 2015;Hoffman and Burks, 2017). This Finally, this study also contributes to the literature on the returns to workplace training, the literature on personality in the labor market, and the role of personality in the heterogeneity of estimated returns to training.…”