Fair Access to Employer-Sponsored Learning in IT Teams: A Procedural Justice Perspective
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31305/rrijm.2026.v11.n10.002Keywords:
employee development, information technology, learning opportunities, procedural justice, training allocationAbstract
Limited opportunities for employer-sponsored learning can leave IT teams choosing between immediate project demands and employees' longer-term development. Yet selection does not settle access: an employee offered a place may still be unable to attend. This focused conceptual review brings research on organisational justice, employee development, training allocation and managerial credibility to these decisions. It develops four propositions concerning the fit between selection criteria and purpose, the accuracy of explanations, usable reconsideration and fulfilment of commitments after deferral. The argument follows what happens to a request beyond the initial decision, including cases in which an employee trusts a manager to review it again but doubts that attendance will become possible. This separates confidence in future consideration from confidence in usable access. Identical treatment is not necessarily fair, and an adequate explanation does not establish that a decision is justified. The propositions offer a basis for examining the allocation of learning opportunities in information technology teams; their relationships and application to this setting require empirical investigation.
References
[1] Aguinis H, Kraiger K. Benefits of training and development for individuals and teams, organizations, and society. Annual Review of Psychology. 2009;60:451–474. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163505 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163505
[2] Uraon RS. The relationship between training justice and employee retention: The mediating role of work engagement. European Journal of Training and Development. 2026 Jul 13. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJTD-01-2026-0017 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/EJTD-01-2026-0017
[3] OECD. Training in enterprises: New evidence from 100 case studies. Getting Skills Right. Paris: OECD Publishing; 2021. https://doi.org/10.1787/7d63d210-en DOI: https://doi.org/10.1787/7d63d210-en
[4] Jaakkola E. Designing conceptual articles: Four approaches. AMS Review. 2020;10:18–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13162-020-00161-0 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13162-020-00161-0
[5] Colquitt JA. On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2001;86(3):386–400. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.386 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.386
[6] Leventhal GS. What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study of fairness in social relationships. In: Gergen KJ, Greenberg MS, Willis RH, editors. Social exchange: Advances in theory and research. New York: Plenum Press; 1980. p. 27–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-3087-5_2 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-3087-5_2
[7] Crawshaw JR, van Dick R, Brodbeck FC. Opportunity, fair process and relationship value: Career development as a driver of proactive work behaviour. Human Resource Management Journal. 2012;22(1):4–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-8583.2011.00169.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-8583.2011.00169.x
[8] Chan EW, Feinberg MK, Wiernsperger M. When is it fairer to allocate resources for training to lower performing versus higher performing employees? Journal of Accounting Research. 2026 Sep 20. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-679x.70085 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-679x.70085
[9] Müller C. Technological change, training, and within-firm wage inequality in Germany. European Sociological Review. 2024;40(3):450–463. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcad051 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcad051
[10] Hamori M. Self-directed learning in massive open online courses and its application at the workplace: Does employer support matter? Journal of Business Research. 2023;157:113590. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.113590 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.113590
[11] de Kruijf BJ, Edzes A, van Dijk J, Waslander S. Learning climate and financial incentives: A study on training participation in Dutch organizations. Journal of Adult and Continuing Education. 2025;31(3):734–751. https://doi.org/10.1177/14779714241278108 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/14779714241278108
[12] Baum M. Tasks as a link between technology introduction and continuing training: Evidence of a mediating mechanism in firms. International Journal of Training and Development. 2026 Feb 20. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijtd.70029 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ijtd.70029
[13] Caliendo M, Cobb-Clark DA, Pfeifer H, Uhlendorff A, Wehner C. Managers’ risk preferences and firm training investments. European Economic Review. 2024;161:104616. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroecorev.2023.104616 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroecorev.2023.104616
[14] Scott BA, Colquitt JA, Paddock EL. An actor-focused model of justice rule adherence and violation: The role of managerial motives and discretion. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2009;94(3):756–769. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015712 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015712
[15] Haegele I. Talent hoarding in organizations. American Economic Review. 2026;116(8):3110–3151. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20220264 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20220264
[16] Sandvik J, Saouma R, Seegert N, Stanton C. Should human capital development programs be mandatory or voluntary? Evidence from a field experiment on mentorship. Management Science. 2026;72(6):4610–4632. First published online 2025 Sep 15. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2024.07524 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2024.07524
[17] de Jong B, Jansen in de Wal J, Cornelissen F. The effects of voluntary and mandatory training participation on the dynamics of transfer of training for different training types. International Journal of Training and Development. 2025;29(4):419–432. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijtd.12371 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ijtd.12371
[18] Shapiro DL, Buttner EH, Barry B. Explanations: What factors enhance their perceived adequacy? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 1994;58(3):346–368. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1994.1041 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1994.1041
[19] Shaw JC, Wild E, Colquitt JA. To justify or excuse?: A meta-analytic review of the effects of explanations. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2003;88(3):444–458. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.3.444 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.3.444
[20] Gachayeva S, Murphy S, Aldossari M. Through the lens of fairness: A qualitative investigation into co-workers’ perceptions of i-deals. Journal of Management Studies. 2025;62(7):3005–3043. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.13151 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.13151
[21] Simons T. Behavioral integrity: The perceived alignment between managers’ words and deeds as a research focus. Organization Science. 2002;13(1):18–35. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.13.1.18.543 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.13.1.18.543
[22] Hausknecht JP, Sturman MC, Roberson QM. Justice as a dynamic construct: Effects of individual trajectories on distal work outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2011;96(4):872–880. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022991 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022991
