I'm paying attention to this.
I hope employers are, too.
What I am seeing and hearing in the workplace in the U.K and in the U.S. shows a potential for conflict, a recipe for discrimination, or is just a lot of talk based on fear and a too-small body of concrete evidence.
But a pretty good rule of thumb is: "If people are talking about it, there is something going on." That something appears to be "ageism."
I've lived or worked on five different continents over the years. Within those, each country had its own cultural predisposition toward age. Until recently, I would have said that they all valued-- and even honored-- the wisdom of advanced years. I no longer believe that to be universally true. The huge number of maturing workers who want to or must continue working makes this a workplace issue.
Why did this show up on my radar screen?
I recently participated in a client meeting attended by HR professionals. The topic was reorganization and succession planning. The newest HR manager made a comment that floored me. She said, "If we can replace about half of the people who have simply been here too long, we can get the right kind of thinking in this place."
This is one of the companies I consult with often and know well. She is correct about the fact that some people don't "get" the new marketplace demands. To proclaim that it is a full "half" of the people--and that that "half" is based on age--would hopefully indicate that some valid diagnostic of the workforce had taken place. Not so. Instead, this firm is now having employee-related decisions influenced by an HR manager who has:
- shown open disdain for the capabilities of "longer-term" employees
- indicated a presumption that those employees can't--or won't--make needed changes with the right amount of information or training
Maybe what really bothered me was that, even if she was thinking those things, she showed a lack of discernment by making the statement. Observation shows that lack of good judgment combined with uncontrolled bias is a volatile combination.
What's happening in the U.K? Plenty.
A broad anti-age discrimination law goes into effect on October 1. One reaction to that is described by Arpita Dutt, a specialist in discrimination law at the London solicitors Russell Jones & Walker in an interview with the Times of London:
"We are seeing an increase in the number of employees aged 55-60 being dismissed in the run-up to October 1.We can find no legitimate conduct, performance or redundancy reason for their dismissal, so there is a strong inference that it is likely to be on grounds of age." You can read more about it on Employers Dump Older Staff . And in Bosses dig their heels over older workers, a survey shows that seven out of 10 bosses say they see no benefit in employing older workers.
What do older workers think? According to research carried out for HSBC bank, most people want to spend their later years involved in a mix of work, leisure and education rather than in passive retirement. Which is amazingly consistent with the current generation of incoming workers who want to spend their time in a mix of work, leisure and education rather than an 80-hour work week with no balance in their lives.
This tells me that, aside from the age difference, the oldest-working generation is unbeliebably similar to the youngest in what it now wants from work. If that's true, companies and their consultants ought to start looking at how to capitalize on that. Both groups are saying "Yes, we want to work!" How they want to do it in the context of a full life is the issue.
The studies above were from the U.K.; tomorrow we'll look at the U.S. and see what the similarities and differences might be.
What do you think? Let me know by a quick click on the Comments link below.
'til tomorrow...
Photo source: Florida Career Link
Comments