A fundamental principle of equal rights is the belief that staffing decisions should not be based on non-job relevant factors related to gender, race, age, or disability. Although we have more to do, tremendous strides have been made to decrease bias against women, minorities, and neuro-diverse individuals since the equal rights movement started in the second half of the 20th century. There is one notable exception to this generally positive trend: ageism.
Ageism has been increasing in recent years. Specifically, ageism biased against older workers. Ageism toward younger workers also exists, but in a youth-oriented culture like the United States most ageism favors younger employees.
Unlike other forms of diversity which are often discussed at the highest levels of business leadership, ageism is rarely acknowledged as a concern in companies. In many ways, ageism is even a socially accepted form of discrimination. An argument can be made that this is largely a result of activities by the HR and recruiting community. It may seem paradoxical that a community that has led the charge in advocating for gender, racial, and disability equality also engages in behavior that encourages and tolerates ageist stereotypes.
Nevertheless, here are two examples:
Encouraging candidates to misrepresent their age. Many people would be offended if someone encouraged female candidates to act more masculine or suggested that minority candidates hide their ethnicity. Telling women or minorities to act like white men in order to advance their careers might have been considered “good advice” at some point in the past, but certainly not now. Asking people to misrepresent their true identity is considered both unhealthy and antithetical to the very concept of inclusive, diverse cultures. Yet scores of articles have recently been published by HR and recruiting professionals recommending that older candidates “age proof” their resumes to appear younger. To be clear, I do not fault candidates for doing what it takes to overcome ageist recruiting practices. Nor do I take issue with people helping older candidates compete in an unfair world. What is striking is the seeming social acceptance of a practice that recommends candidates misrepresent their identities to get a job. If we believe in equal rights, then why is the HR and recruiting community not calling this out as a clear symptom that shows how prevalent and problematic ageism has become in staffing?
Designing recruiting programs built around ageist stereotypes. How would you react if someone told you people born in San Francisco and Seattle tend to be more “digital savvy, purpose-driven, change-oriented, creative problem solvers” than people born in other cities?* Even if you were born in those cities, you probably find this statement to be questionable at best, and condescending and socially divisive at worst. Even if it was partially true, it seems risky to apply sweeping generalizations to such a large and highly diverse population. But people in the HR profession do this constantly when talking about what makes millennials and Gen Y employees different from older workers.
One does not need a PhD in psychology to understand the dangers that come from placing people into broad groups based on demographic categories and labeling them as sharing certain traits that make them different from other groups. Yet a micro-industry of “generational experts” has arisen in HR that encourages making broad generalizations about employees based on age. This industry plays to people’s natural tendency to apply stereotypes to groups of people as a way to explain their behavior.
I do not think the people in this industry meant to be ageist. But ageism is an inevitable result of this industry given what we know about implicit biases and how they are formed and maintained.
History shows the damage done when societies create false beliefs about people based on demographic labels. But research also shows that false and often implicit beliefs can be changed. A good example is progress on eliminating the myth that women are worse at mathematics than men. It is time to begin similar efforts to combat ageist beliefs.
The following are a few suggestions toward this goal:
Ageism is a form of discrimination that almost everyone will encounter at some point in their career. And it is not limited to people we necessarily think of as old. Ageism can affect people in their late thirties and forties who are not even halfway through their career. The tragedy of the current wave of ageism is that it is something we largely brought upon ourselves with our obsession on categorizing people using generational labels. The good news is many of us will be working into our seventies and beyond, so we have a lot of motivation and time to address it.
We can start by ending the discussion about generations and how they are different from one another. Avoid using inherently ageist terms like millennial, Gen X, and baby boomer, and instead use actual ages to describe people whether they are in their teens, twenties, thirties, forties, fifties, sixties, or beyond. Instead of generational differences, focus the conversation around what unites us regardless of age. And remember that the year we were born rarely matters. What matters is what we have done during the years since we were born and what we strive to do with the years we have left.
*I strongly doubt this is true, as I simply made it up for illustration. But one could make an argument that people born in these cities have been exposed to environmental and economic conditions that might increase their likelihood of having these traits. It is easy to make such theories sound plausible even if they are false, which I contend characterizes a lot of the stuff written about generational differences. The words used in the example to describe people from the two cities are words that have been used to describe “millennial” employees.
If you’re interested in this topic, check out this panel this fall in October.
