Steven Tadlock, MSc, MBA

Ageism In The Workplace

White Paper

Ageism as a concept is something that has been baked into society on a global scale. What was once viewed as a harmless stereotype is fundamentally the same as discrimination on the basis of race or gender. Nearly every country, especially those who conform to United Nations labor standards, has some form of legal framework to encourage antidiscrimination in the workplace. Even with such standards in place, age discrimination is something that can be easily disguised as a candidate’s overqualification when one is looking for employment (Kellaway, 2022).

Justyna Stypińska and Konrad Turek (2017) define age-based discrimination as hard or soft. Hard ageist behaviors are those behaviors which are expressly prohibited by law and are more often to be experienced by women, residence of urban areas – i.e., people of color – and those with more dangerous or precarious jobs (Stypinska & Turek, 2017; World Health Organization, 2021). Soft ageist behaviors tend to occur more on an interpersonal level and often fall under categories such as “microaggressions” and have a higher rate of occurrence. Education, however, does not appear to have an influence on such behaviors (Stypinska & Turek, 2017).

The World is Ageing

One might ask if an ageist mindset is as damaging as one which is more blatantly harmful, such as racism. The answer to such an inquiry would be yes if for no other reason than the global population is getting older and with it, so too, is the typical worker. As shown in Figure 1, the populate age gap is narrowing in more developed countries and nearly half of countries have declining fertility rates (Statista, 2021).

In the most basic terms, this means that in the developed world the available workforce has no option but to get older as more and more individuals are working to later stages in life (Kellaway, 2022; OECD, 2017). An OECD (2019) report found average employment rates of member countries in 2018 to be just over 72% in 2018, with nearly 50% employment for the 60-64 age group and 22% for the 65-69 age group. Ageism also exacerbates other preexisting biases in the workforce as well. This will continue to be a growing problem as the average age of the working population increases, see Picture 1 (OECD, 2022). Women in the workforce have long fought for pay equality and equal treatment, but ageist mentalities reinforce those older biases. Women over 50 are more likely to experience ageism, and more specifically hard ageist behaviors, in the workplace than their male counterparts (Marcus, 2021; Stypinska & Turek, 2017; Ajunwat, 2019).

Stereotypes and Expectations

Soft ageist behaviors are rooted in the stereotypes different generations hold for each other. As a result, younger workers are also likely to be discounted on account of inexperience by their older counterparts (Smith, 2022). Older generations often see younger coworkers as being too temperamental and unable to commit while younger generations see their elders being unrelenting and unwilling to learn new methods and technologies (Kellaway, 2022; Marcus, 2021). There is a breakdown in communication that occurs between these two disparate groups that is not dissimilar to international cultural differences. Ultimately, it is a cultural difference, though it’s a difference in generational culture rather than heritage culture.

In my previous work experience I was a technician for a regional cinema chain in the southeastern United States. I was employed by the corporate office and would rotate between several individual cinema locations. The individual locations each had very different cultures from one another given the differences between the management and employees. Those locations where ages between managers and employees were closer maintained a much more genial and casual atmosphere. In those locations with a greater age disparity, there was a more formal and rigid structure. Older managers would often treat younger employees, regardless of employee tenure, as new hires. Additionally, one older manager in particular would often refuse to ask younger employees for assistance with IT matters, further reinforcing stereotypes of stubbornness and technological ignorance.

Job recruiters do not help in this scenario either. I have seen multiple job postings seeking candidates for an entry level position with at least one advanced degree and 7 years of experience in the field while using phrases such as “new ideas” and “fresh perspectives” (Smith, 2022). This hypothetical candidate would need to have begun working and graduate level studies at the age of 15 in most cases to meet these requirements. It is of no wonder that younger workers find it difficult to match the expectations set by recruiters and that youth unemployment remains high (Zandt, 2022).

On the reverse, candidates who are over the age of 35 and meet those criteria will not want to be in an entry level position. A 2017 study published by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco found callback rates for low-skilled jobs to drop from 30-40% for older candidates depending on gender and job type (Ajunwat, 2019). Further investigations have found Facebook allowed various firms to advertise specific positions to only select age groups (Ajunwat, 2019). Such behavior is damaging not only to the available workforce but also to the overall success of an organization. Firms are actively engaging in behaviors that are expressly forbidden in countries such as the United States under antidiscrimination labor laws.

In addition to new job postings, firms have been found to offer lower rates of promotion and training to older employees (Yeung, Zhou, & Chong, 2021; World Health Organization, 2021). Microaggressions are at the heart of these stereotype-centric behaviors. Such behaviors often have adverse effects on the work environments and morale of employees. As microaggressions build and ageist discrimination is not addressed, it is more likely for workers to become dissatisfied with their employment (Ajunwat, 2019; Yeung, Zhou, & Chong, 2021). This is particularly true of older employees. Older workers will begin to feel more isolated in the presence of ageist behavior, particularly when that behavior is implicit (Yeung, Zhou, & Chong, 2021; Stypinska & Turek, 2017).

Apart from the traditional setbacks of ageist behaviors, studies have also shown ageism and ageist behavior to have a negative effect on general health and longevity (Levy, Slade, Kunkel, & Kasl, 2002; World Health Organization, 2021). As a result, there is an excess annual cost of $63 billion USD as a result of negative ageist stereotypes (World Health Organization, 2021). Such a cost can be detrimental to an organization.

Combatting Ageism

Many strategies have been purposed to lessen and eliminate ageist mindsets and behaviors in the workplace. Firms can change the way in which they present themselves publicly (Ajunwat, 2019) and eliminate references to age entirely from the workers everyday parlance (Smith, 2022). A simpler approach could be applied by adapting the strategies employed by Billy Beane, executive vice president of baseball operations of the Major League Baseball team, the Oakland Athletics.

Beane needed to adapt a recruitment strategy for players on a budget that was a fraction of that of other Major League teams. To accomplish this task, Beane applied sabermetrics (economics) to analyze players. Several of the players recruited were seen by other teams as “too old” but these players brought more to the team than a good on-base percentage. Older players bring experience and leadership to a team that can only be learned by doing. Older employees bring the same experiences and insights to the firms in which they work (Smith, 2022). New skills can be learned, but experience is only gained by doing. “Fresh insights” and “new perspectives” are not exclusive to the young (Kellaway, 2022; Smith, 2022). Likewise, young workers cannot gain the insights needed to be more productive in the workplace if they are not given that opportunity.

Conclusion

It is much easier for us as individuals to dismiss ageist behaviors as a fleeting joke or harmless activity than other forms of discrimination. This is largely because of the lack of attention ageism receives in modern human resource practices and in the ways in which age is portrayed in modern society. Numerous reasons have been addressed in this paper as to the effects of ageist behaviors in the workplace. Such behaviors have been shown to not only have an adverse effect on the work environment and to damage productivity and creativity but also to be damaging to the health and wellbeing of workers (Yeung, Zhou, & Chong, 2021; Smith, 2022; Marcus, 2021; Kellaway, 2022; Ajunwat, 2019; World Health Organization, 2021).

Companies should engage in the same practices that are used to address the more visible microaggressions which deal with racial diversity. Empathy training programs should be used to help address those areas which are the most obvious. I agree with Smith (2022) and Marcus (2021) in that cross-generational mentorship programs would allow for both the younger and older employees to learn from each other and develop a more cohesive working environment. For example, my direct supervisor when I began my previous position with the cinema was 72 years old and had been working in the industry for 50 years. He witnessed almost every major change in the industry firsthand. The relationship I had with him was, without doubt, one of the most productive working relationships I have ever experienced. The modern workforce would do well to temper youthful enthusiasm in the kilns of experience.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top