IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormnsc/v72y2026i6p4610-4632.html

Should Human Capital Development Programs be Mandatory or Voluntary? Evidence from a Field Experiment on Mentorship

Author

Listed:
  • Jason Sandvik

    (Eller College of Management, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona 85721)

  • Richard Saouma

    (Eli Broad College of Business, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan 48824)

  • Nathan Seegert

    (D’Amore-McKim School of Business, Northeastern University, Boston, Massachusetts 02115)

  • Christopher Stanton

    (Harvard Business School, NBER, and CEPR, Boston, Massachusetts 02163)

Abstract

In a field experiment, we find that a mandatory mentorship program raises worker productivity, whereas a voluntary version of the program does not. A significant reason why the mandatory program results in larger gains is that the lowest-productivity employees do not participate when the program is voluntary despite their having the greatest treatment benefits. A nationally representative survey of U.S. workers shows wide variation in human capital development program participation, suggesting that understanding self-selection is important for firms’ returns on these programs across a variety of settings. Our findings have implications for resource allocation, experimental design, productivity dispersion, and inequality.

Suggested Citation

  • Jason Sandvik & Richard Saouma & Nathan Seegert & Christopher Stanton, 2026. "Should Human Capital Development Programs be Mandatory or Voluntary? Evidence from a Field Experiment on Mentorship," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 72(6), pages 4610-4632, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:72:y:2026:i:6:p:4610-4632
    DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.2024.07524
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2024.07524
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/mnsc.2024.07524?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:72:y:2026:i:6:p:4610-4632. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.