The Unspoken Politics of Training Opportunities
By Bertha Adwoa Twiba Taylor
When there are training opportunities, both management and employees get excited about it. For management, training is often perceived as a solution for skill and knowledge gaps. It’s also seen as an investment that will yield returns in the form of better performance, innovation, and competitive advantage.
For employees, training carries a different meaning. It’s not just about learning new skills; it represents growth, recognition, and a sense of being valued. Employees often view training as a pathway to career advancement, increased confidence, and sometimes even job security. It signals that the organization cares about their development and future.
But the question is; does everyone truly get the chance to be trained or employees may have training opportunities due to their affiliations within the organization? This is where the politics of training lies.
Organizational politics is inevitable. It influences decisions regarding recruitment, project approvals, and training. But what exactly is organizational politics? Simply put, it’s the use of influence and power to achieve personal or organizational interests. Organizational politics can be in the form of perception of favoritism, unfair promotion and lack of transparency in decision-making. Depending on the motive, its impact can be positive or negative.
When it comes to training and development, politics often shows up in subtle ways. In our organizations, wer sometimes notice that some employees are consistently overlooked for training programs, not because they don’t need them, but because they are not considered to be in the circle of their immediate boss or senior leaders. However, employees with good relationship with their leaders or who belong to the circle of their leaders are mostly selected for training. This selective approach creates perceptions of favoritism, leading to skill gaps, resentment, and reduced return on investment for training initiatives.
The African Context: Culture and Politics in L&D
Africa’s workplace culture is deeply rooted in collectivism and high power distance. We value community and naturally form “circles of trust” to support one another. While this is a strength, it can create a problem resulting in unintentional politics in talent development decisions.
In high power distance cultures, those at the top of the hierarchy have power on who gets visibility and who remains invisible. Employees with close ties to leadership, whether through social connections, shared ethnicity, or proximity, often find themselves first in line for prestigious or preferential treatment. Meanwhile, others with equal or greater potential are left behind.
This fosters a “selected‑individuals” syndrome, whereby training opportunities become politicized and access is restricted to a small, favored group of employees. While the L&D department may research and publish a fair-looking training calendar, the selection process behind the scenes can be deeply political. If you’re perceived as being outside the circle, you may be overlooked regardless of merit. This could result in lower morale, limited organizational growth, and wasted potential.
What Can Be Done?
It’s time for Learning and Development professionals to acknowledge these challenges and advocate for transparency and merit-based selection process for training and development opportunities. Here are a few practical steps:
- Implement objective pre-assessment tools to identify genuine training needs.
- Tie training decisions to documented performance reviews, not personal endorsements.
- Partner with line managers to educate them on the importance of fairness and transparency in training allocation.
Politics may be the lifeblood of organizations, but it should never drive learning and development. If organizations want to thrive, training opportunities must be accessible to all, not just those who can navigate the hierarchy.
Featured Blog
The Unspoken Politics of Training Opportunities By Bertha Adwoa Twiba Taylor
Africa Needs to Protect the Intellectual Intellect of its AI Creators By William Jackson
