We do not discuss age-based discrimination or 'ageism', even though very much present in workplaces, as much as (say) discrimination based on gender.

• Biases based on age eventually sway crucial decisions in hiring, allocation of responsibilities, autonomy in decision making, career progression, distribution of rewards, and engagement/retention plans.
• This ostensible lack of adequate focus is not only unwelcome but also worrying – given the recent findings that at least one in every three employees in India have faced or face age-based discrimination.
• Particularly during the crunch time like workforce rationalization, it is almost always employees with longer tenure who are the first choices for the separation process.
• At a crucial juncture when four generations of professionals (baby boomers, generation X, generation Y/millennial, and generation Z/post-millennial) are active parts of the workforce, policies should be targeted to reap the benefits from the unique competencies that each one brings to work.

At a time when organizations are striving to incorporate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) practices with their people management processes, one key aspect hardly gets its worthy attention. We do not discuss age-based discrimination or 'ageism', even though very much present in workplaces, as much as (say) discrimination based on gender. This ostensible lack of adequate focus is not only unwelcome but also worrying – given the recent findings that at least one in every three employees in India have faced or face age-based discrimination.

Let us not deny that as individuals, most of us are conditioned to certain stereotypes and prejudices based on age that is reflected in our behaviour as well. We categorize people as “old”, “young”, and also “same age group” compared to ourselves quite commonly. However, when an organization endorses the same categories and labels in managing its workforce, the results are unlikely to be productive. Biases based on age eventually sway crucial decisions in hiring, allocation of responsibilities, autonomy in decision making, career progression, distribution of rewards, and engagement/retention plans.

It is perhaps not surprising that most of the evidence points toward the so-called “older” people as victims or sufferers, being at the receiving end of the biases. It is convenient (and also quite common) to typecast people above a certain age bracket in so many unsavoury superficial clusters – less productive, slow learners, low on new ideas, lacking energy, resistant to change – to name a few. Even though there is hardly any undeniable evidence supporting the credibility of such perceptions, the biases exist and so do their consequences.

Particularly during the crunch time like workforce rationalization, it is almost always employees with longer tenure who are the first choices for the separation process. Organizations often follow a similar bias in hiring for executive positions, assigning critical responsibilities, evaluating performance, distributing rewards, and promoting people for leadership roles. The absence of any employment-specific statutory provision in this matter, apart from defined retirement age – makes the plight of concerned employees even more vulnerable.

Are we suggesting that “younger” people are immune to the threat of ageism? It is indeed human nature to celebrate the vigour of youth everywhere, in every acceptable manner. It is no wonder that organizations normally associate merits like energy, dynamism, enthusiasm, creativity, excellence, and very importantly, eagerness to learn new skills – with the cohort of their workforce which they consider young enough. Once again, assumptions rule over evidence and the positive bias by far gets reflected in the people management decisions. That, however, does not entirely rule out the possibility of unfavourable correlations drawn sometimes – between young age and features like ignorance, inefficiency, high sense of entitlement, indifference, lack of loyalty, and plain old laziness!

We have plenty of evidence from surveys, personal interviews, and academic research studies from across the world that categorically establishes the pervasive nature of ageist policies across organizations and their serious implications on individuals. A global report published by the World Health Organization (WHO) in 2021 placed India among the several middle and low-income countries with the highest prevalence of ageism. Are we comfortable with millions of people in our workforce above 50 (or 40, as the case may be) years of age being exposed to a conscious and dangerous bias? Are we able to evaluate socio-economic cost of continuing this bias? Are we not compromising on the essential principles of DEI by doing so?

Questions like this will continue to bother us unless and until we first accept the existence of ageism and its malignant influence on individuals and organizations. Combined with sexism, ageism can be a cruel assault on the career prospects of any competent professional – an uncomfortably large number of 40 plus women would vouch for that, regrettably.

To completely embrace the inclusion principles, organizations can hardly overlook the negative repercussions of ageism on their workforce and overall performance. They should find ways to formulate human resource policies that integrate the wealth of experience that the older generation has with the new age capabilities of the younger. At a crucial juncture when four generations of professionals (baby boomers, generation X, generation Y/millennial, and generation Z/post-millennial) are active parts of the workforce, policies should be targeted to reap the benefits from the unique competencies that each one brings to work.

Conclusion

As the post-pandemic environment calls for a significant realignment of people management strategies in the radically changed environment, it is time to reset hiring, performance management, rewards, L&D, employee mobility, and employee experience. It is also time for organizations to have an inclusive and progressive outlook towards their human capital, notwithstanding the diverse decades they were born. It is time to say goodbye to ageism, hopefully.

-Prof. Diganta Chakrabarti, Associate Professor, Department of Human Resource Management.