Introduction
Age discrimination in the workplace remains a persistent problem, despite legislation aimed at curbing unfair treatment based on age. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) was passed to protect workers aged 40 and older from discrimination related to hiring, firing, compensation and other terms and conditions of employment. Research continues to find evidence that older workers face biases and stereotyping that negatively impact their career opportunities and success. This paper will examine research on the nature and prevalence of age discrimination, how it manifests in hiring, promotions, terminations and other employment decisions, and the factors that influence ageist attitudes among employers and coworkers. Potential solutions and policies to reduce age discrimination will also be discussed.
Literature Review
A wealth of empirical studies provide evidence that age discrimination continues to be an ongoing issue facing older workers. Surveys have found age to be one of the top reasons people report for unfair treatment at work. One study analyzing data from the General Social Survey between 1977-2014 found that while racial discrimination declined significantly over that period, perceptions of age discrimination showed no improvement and were equally common among younger and older respondents (MacEwen et al., 2018). Experimental audit studies, where identical fictional resumes are submitted for actual job postings with the only difference being applicant age, routinely find younger applicants receive more favorable treatment such as being more likely to get interviews (Bendick et al., 1999; Lahey, 2008).
Research has shown age discrimination impacts several facets of the employment relationship. Older workers are less likely to be hired compared to equally qualified younger applicants (MacEwen et al., 2018; Lahey, 2008). Those who are hired often face salary inequities, with a significant wage penalty associated with each additional year of age (Hirsch et al., 2016). As workers age, they are also more likely to experience stagnant wages and limited career advancement opportunities due to ageist assumptions about their potential, motivation and ability to learn new skills compared to younger employees (Taylor & Walker, 1998; Neumark et al., 2019). Older managers may be overlooked for promotions in favor of younger candidates perceived as having more room for future growth (Perry et al., 1996). Termination and layoff decisions also disproportionately impact older employees, who are more likely to be included in downsizings and RIFs or nudged into early retirement due to higher salaries (Lahey, 2008; Bendick et al., 1999).
Several cognitive and social psychological factors help explain persistent age discrimination. First, people naturally tend to hold more negative stereotypes of social groups that are not their own, and ageism fits this pattern of in-group favoritism (Nelson, 2005). Common stereotypes portray older workers as less productive, resistant to change, inflexible, having outdated skills and higher Medical costs (Posthuma & Campion, 2009). Studies find these stereotypes predicted hiring preferences even when applicants’ objective qualifications were held constant (Finkelstein et al., 1995). Related to this is implicit or unconscious age bias, where people associate older age with more negative attributes on an automatic, non-conscious level (Park & Gutchess, 2019). Social norms and workplace cultures that value youth and fast-paced change can also subtly disadvantage older employees over time (Chiu et al., 2001). Finally, anxiety about the insignificance of aging and one’s mortality may provoke defensive ageism towards those who remind us of our own aging process (Nelson, 2005).
Potential Solutions
Given the complex cognitive and social reasons age discrimination persists, combating it will require multi-faceted solutions. First, stronger enforcement of anti-discrimination laws like the ADEA is needed. Research suggests many potential instances of age bias go unreported, so reducing barriers to filing claims and increasing penalties for violators could help deter unlawful behavior (McCann & Giles, 2002). Mandating “ban the box” policies, where employers cannot inquire about applicant age on initial application materials, may reduce the potential for unconscious bias to influence early hiring decisions (Quillian et al., 2017).
Additional legislative options include raising the ADEA’s protected class age from 40 to 50 to match other anti-discrimination statutes; requiring employers to demonstrate performance-based justifications for any age-related disparities in compensation, promotions or layoffs; and expanding age discrimination protections to a wider range of employment actions like harassment (MacEwen et al., 2018). Laws alone may not shift deep-seated prejudices, so cultural and organizational changes are also needed.
Promoting intergenerational contact and collaboration in workplaces has been shown to reduce age stereotyping when different age groups get to know one another as individuals rather than representatives of an age cohort (Nelson, 2005). Implementing structured mentoring programs pairs older and younger employees to transfer knowledge, while also challenging assumptions on both sides about what each group has to contribute. Training managers to recognize their own conscious or unconscious biases regarding age can make evaluation and decision-making processes less susceptible to discriminatory influences (Rupp et al., 2006). Adopting objective, skills-based selection criteria and performance metrics rather than more subjective measures that allow age biases to influence ratings may also curb unfair treatment.
Conclusion
Despite the passage of anti-discrimination laws over 50 years ago, ageism continues to negatively impact the careers and livelihoods of older workers. Both overt and subtle forms of discrimination occur at multiple stages of employment from hiring to terminations. Cognitive and social psychological factors maintain age stereotypes that promote in-group favoritism towards younger workers. While legal remedies offer some recourse, fully overcoming age bias will require cultural evolutions within workplaces and society. A multipronged approach integrating stronger legislation, diversity and inclusion initiatives, intergenerational contact, implicit bias training, and objective employment practices shows promise in addressing this ongoing workplace equity issue. Further research monitoring ongoing age discrimination and evaluating the effectiveness of various interventions can help guide continued progress on this important social and economic problem.
Andrew Stroud