What’s UP (Weekly, Hot, Applicable Topic Summary - Unbiased Perspective) July 12, 2009

The Changing of the Guard – Part II

From 1989 to the present, several studies have been conducted on age discrimination in the workplace. Manufacturing and construction workers were most often subject to workplace age bias. However, other industries such as information technology, business consulting, and marketing (white collar professions) are also victims of this phenomena. This week’s blog will address the concept and practices of age bias. This is Part II of a three-part series on workplace diversity, aging, and the corporate workforce.

Age Discrimination Practices

Research studies have found that workers at the age of 50 years old and older experience varied degrees of age discrimination. Some of the types of discrimination identified were termination (yes, employees have been fired merely because of their age); harassment from other workers not in their age range (as of yet); and exclusion from even being considered for hiring. Some of the reasons used to exclude older workers were: inability to fit the company profile; not having the required skills to do the job; lack of drive; not a self-starter; set in their ways and not willing to learn new things; too intimidating to younger workers, and financial costs (insurance and medical benefits would be too expensive for the company to incur).

In some reported cases, women were subjected to further discrimination. Companies viewed married women over 50 years old as secondary family earners. The concept of interviewing, selecting, developing, and promoting candidates based on their competence and potential benefits to the organization has been summarily discarded.

Age Bias in the Workplace – A Perplexing Concept

Selecting, or more prominently in today’s work environment, not selecting a viable employee based on their age is a difficult, perplexing concept to grasp for four reasons. First, the basic premise of the recruiting, interviewing, and selecting process is to gather a pool of talented, knowledgeable, and competent candidates and select the best candidate(s) from this pool. If competent workers are omitted because of their age, the talent pool (and the organization’s talent pipeline) may be incomplete. Second, the crucial knowledge transfer process cannot be effectively executed if the personnel involved in the process do not have the knowledge. This is not to say that employees under the age of 50 years old are not knowledgeable. However, there is something to be said for the proverbial “voice of experience” which can readily be identified in employees with 20 – 30 years of work expertise. Further, when the details of workplace discrimination spread through the workforce, team productivity and employee morale suffers. There is more effort put into gathering information and opinions about this activity than actual work being done.

Third, age discrimination in the workplace is extremely short-sighted. Workplace diversity in all forms is sound business savvy. Do corporations really want to omit and discourage the age group with the most discretionary income from purchasing their products and services? Given the existing economic business environment, American corporations are best served by catering to all customers and including them in the workforce - regardless of demographic background. Finally, the practice of age discrimination defies the golden rule (do unto others…). Regardless of one’s other demographics, EVERYONE will age and eventually become a member of the 50 and over age group.

I have received confirmation from a number of executive search firms, staffing agencies, and consulting companies that their corporate clients do not want employment candidates over the age of 45. The agencies are being instructed (implicitly and explicitly) to only present candidates in a certain age group. I have not conducted any research to identify who in the organization’s leadership ranks have made this demand. However, research has shown that the average age of corporate board members (which typically includes the CEO) is over 50 years old. It would be interesting to know what level of corporate leadership has initiated and supported this demand. It would also be interesting to know what their current age is.
“To Be Continued”

There is a significant impact on corporate stakeholders and society based on how corporations manage workplace diversity. The next bi-monthly entry (Part III – Changing of the Guard) will address a viable means for preventing age discrimination in the workplace, and how adapting and embracing a diverse workforce which includes knowledgeable, competent workers over 50 is successful. More information on corporate leadership can be found in Corporate Leadership Selection: Impact on American Business, Employees, and Society (Authorhouse Publishing). Feedback to the bi-monthly blog entry is always welcome.