Photo by Yasmine Elsayed
In workplace dynamics, biases rooted in gender, race, and culture have long been acknowledged as influential factors that can significantly impact performance and hinder overall efficiency. However, amidst the spotlight cast on these well-recognized biases, age bias is another often-overlooked yet equally consequential force.
The workplace is a complex ecosystem where various forms of bias can shape interpersonal relationships, decision-making processes, and organizational culture. Gender bias, for instance, manifests in unequal treatment based on one’s gender, affecting opportunities, promotions, and the overall work environment. Similarly, racial and cultural biases can create disparities, fostering an environment that may not be inclusive or supportive of diverse perspectives.
While these biases have gained considerable attention in workplace equality discussions, age bias remains a less-explored facet of the broader issue. Ageism, or discrimination based on age, can manifest in various forms, impacting both younger and older individuals. For instance, older workers may face stereotypes that hinder their professional growth, while younger employees may encounter challenges in being taken seriously or securing positions that require experience.
Age bias can profoundly affect individual careers, team dynamics, and organizational culture. It can lead to missed opportunities for collaboration, hinder innovation by disregarding the value of diverse experiences, and contribute to a less inclusive workplace overall.
The term ageism was coined by Robert Butler in 1969. In Butler’s journal article – Ageism: Another Form of Bigotry – he described ageism as the “subjective experience implied in the popular notion of the generation gap.” Drawing on the lack of connection between age and work experience. Further elaborating that ageism creates intergenerational hostility. However, in 1975, Butler redefined the term ageism to be only exclusive to the “old.” Explaining that ageism is directed towards the older generation, just as sexism excludes women, or how racism excludes BIPOC. Assuming that the world is always actively looking at utilizing the younger generation to keep the economy going. Though realistically speaking, ageism does affect the younger and the older generations equally. Both sides might not relate to each other; however, they do experience ageism in their respective manner.
Other scholars, such as Thomas N. Iversen, Lars Larsen, and Per Erik Solem, visited and revised the definition in 2009 in their article A Conceptual Analysis of Ageism. They criticized Butler’s definition, explaining that the definition within itself is ageist—their attempt to collect all previous definitions made by other researchers from the 1960s to the 2010s shows their effort to redefine ageism. They concluded, “Ageism is defined as negative or positive stereotypes, prejudice and/or discrimination against (or to the advantage of) elderly people.” However, regardless of their redefinition or revision, the work was still concentrated on discrimination towards the older generation.
According to the World Health Organization (WHO) on Ageism, “the stereotypes (how we think), prejudice (how we feel), and discrimination (how we act) towards others or oneself based on age.” WHO further focuses on who can experience ageism and where. Stating “practices that limit younger people’s opportunities to contribute to decision-making in the workplace” and “patronizing behavior used in interactions with older and younger people.” Affirming that ageism affects both sides of the spectrum.
In an opinion piece for the Harvard Business Review, Nicole D. Smith wrote about her experience working with an ageist manager. She found that older employees disliked working with younger employees simply because they did not want to. However, as a counter-argument, Smith noted that the “younger employees often disparaged older colleagues’ technical skills and willingness to learn.” This stereotype seems to have stuck in most workplaces, making it difficult to eliminate ageism. Smith concluded that by creating age-diverse teams, “We challenged the status quo, and in some ways we became the personification of the adage “As iron sharpens iron, so one person sharpens another.” Our differences helped us learn, and we made each other better.” Like any other new environment, the employees adapted, and work continued.
Moreover, according to a Forbes article, contributor Sheila Callaham claims that age bias directed at younger workers is often neglected, “Age bias against younger workers is often overlooked because of the pervasive belief that some element of experience is required to warrant respect, status, and resources.” Further explaining that being young can often be perceived as naive or inexperienced.
Each example provided insight into possible definitions of ageism. This introduces the question: Which definition did the governments draw upon to create a protection law?
The United States’ Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) prohibits age discrimination against individuals aged 40 or older. However, it does not protect workers under the age of 40. According to AEDA, it is not against the law for an employer to prefer an older worker over a younger one since it may be the employer’s preference. If one has enough qualifications to secure a job based on the number of years listed, the employer could reject the candidate. Although there is no way of telling whether ageism played a part in these situations. In contrast to the United States, Canada touches on the uncertainty of the hiring process; Canadian human rights legislation generally prohibits age discrimination against individuals over 18 or 19, depending on the province. Despite legal prohibitions, proving age discrimination, especially during the hiring phase, is nonexistent. While age and experience are often connected, employers may cite factors beyond age influencing their decision on whether to interview an applicant. Overcoming the hurdle of probable lack of experience is an issue for younger workers. Additionally, employers might reject younger candidates based on alleged deficiencies in professionalism, salary history, or other characteristics closely linked to age. The United States remained within the premise of Butler’s definition in 1975; however, Canada may have taken a slightly progressive route to include people under 40. Whether this makes a difference in real life will remain unknown.
Emma Waldman conducted opinion-based research for the Harvard Business Review to understand why there are so many articles and case studies regarding ageism towards the older rather than the younger generation. Waldman came across a study conducted by the American Psychological Association in 2020 that states that while there are many protections for only one side of ageism – 40 plus – it also deprioritizes the concerns of those who are under 40. Further explaining, “the presence of structural support for older people is reflected in lower frequency of age discrimination experienced by this age group but seems to contribute to increased experiences of age discrimination among younger people.” In a separate study done in 2018 by Christopher Bratt et al., their findings show that the younger generation compared to the older generation “report experiencing the highest levels of age discrimination.” In other words, this is reverse ageism.
To conclude, ageism in the workplace is a complex challenge that extends to biases against younger and older individuals. While legal protections often center on those aged 40 and above, the concept of reverse ageism highlights the discrimination faced by younger workers. Achieving true workplace equality demands a more inclusive approach, comprehensively recognizing and addressing age-related bias. It calls for environments that value age diversity, challenge stereotypes, and ensure fairness for individuals across the entire age spectrum.
Leave a Reply