Does Culture Eat Strategy for Breakfast When it Comes to Tackling Ageism?
How often have you heard the Peter Drucker attributed statement ‘culture eats strategy for breakfast’? As an HR professional and leadership development consultant, this quote has been part of my ‘rhetorical kitbag’ for years to influence business thinking and leadership impact. A recent conference I attended on addressing ageism within the workplace got me thinking about this preconception. The foundational principle to tackling ageism in this conference was the assumption the best way to address it was through a diversity and inclusion culture management prism. The more I listened, the more I wondered is relying on culture as the primary change-agent the most effective way to tackle the current ageism problem? Might eliminating workplace ageism be better positioned as a critical business strategy opportunity?
What triggered my reflection on the ying and yang of culture and strategy as applied to dealing with workplace ageism was a recent Harvard Business Review (HBR) study summarising an 18-month global research project involving organisations from across the private, public and non-profit sectors on how they manage workplace culture.
The research found that across companies that had launched culture initiatives since 2022:
Those who used a ‘marketing-oriented’ approach to culture change found 72% of these initiatives showed no meaningful improvement in employee trust, engagement, or retention one year later.
Those culture change programmes where leaders actually changed how they led ie: how they ran meetings, gave feedback, made decisions and responded to challenge, saw employee trust scores rise by an average of 26%.
The authors noted the problem with changing culture isn’t in the intention but rather its framing. Culture is still too often treated like a project: something to roll out, to brand, or assign to HR. The authors noted a consistent pattern emerging with many leaders treating culture as a communication strategy. These leaders believe organisation culture lives in messaging, in the articulation of purpose, the rollout of values and the tone of internal campaigns. Meanwhile, underlying power dynamics, communication habits, and decision-making norms go untouched, and the deeper operating system stays intact.
HBR observes culture doesn’t shift because a new narrative is introduced, it shifts when systems change, when leaders take personal risks and when norms are not just declared but demonstrated. HBR concludes attempts to change culture fail because culture is misunderstood and treated more as a branding exercise than a behavioural change program, becoming an output rather than part of the organisation infrastructure. Culture change fails because power doesn’t shift. Leaders talk about trust but make decisions in back rooms. They champion inclusion but reward conformity. They promote empathy but penalise dissent. As HBR states these aren’t communications problems, they are credibility problems.
This research got me thinking to the extent a company chooses adoption of a ‘marketing’ approach to addressing ageism through a DEI culture management approach, then the odds of changing behaviour in this space appear relatively low. Overcoming ageism requires a deliberate willingness of leaders to change not only their own attitudes but also the operating systems acting as a barrier to creating ‘age friendly’ workplaces. This then led to the question of whether positioning the elimination of work-based ageism as a major business strategy opportunity presents as the most powerful reason for corporate leaders to change their thinking and behaviours around workplace age management?
Addressing ageism as business strategy: external adaption not slogans
A compelling business case already exists for eliminating ageism and creating age-friendly workforces - and it is only getting stronger. Demographically we know world populations are ageing – the over 60’s age group is growing five times faster than the population as a whole. This population transformation is seeing the development of the ‘longevity economy’ conservatively worth more than $22 trillion as cashed-up older people look to spend. The older population is now identified as the world's largest and fastest growing ‘emerging market’.
We are already seeing disconnects appearing in company business and marketing plans as this new economic opportunity continues to be ignored. The Boston Consulting Group highlights less than 15% of companies have formal business strategies for the 60 year and over person. The Economic Intelligence Unit revealed only 31% of companies factored ageing into their marketing and sales plans. While the younger generation accounts for less than 3% of all consumer spending, companies still allocate most of their marketing resources towards them. If we were Board members of a company and were presented with these facts, we’d be asking whether we were correctly investing our marketing and sales funds to get the best return on investment.
Companies are also currently experiencing talent shortages. Korn Ferry predicts this problem will intensify in the years ahead, so that by 2030 there will be a global human talent shortage of more than 85 million people (roughly the population of Germany!). McKinsey have already analysed that a sole reliance on Artificial Intelligence to compensate for labour shortages will not, in itself, be the engine driver of future economic growth and productivity. McKinsey identifies increasing older worker participation in the labour force will also be a vital requirement to improve business growth and performance. McKinsey understands eliminating work-based ageism as a strategic imperative.
McKinsey recognises that for companies to remain relevant into the future they will have to revisit their existing strategies and adapt their current mindsets. Those that understand how shifting demographics will affect their customers and employees and adjust accordingly will gain a competitive advantage in the rest of this century. Again, if we were Board members with a responsibility for good corporate governance, faced with this information we would be challenging our senior management team for their business strategy to ensure ongoing competitiveness within a demographically changing world.
Specifically, we would be asking the following questions:
What share of our customers are over and under 50 years of age and how are they trending?
What is the purchasing power in our sector of the over and under 50 years of age markets?
Have we analysed the needs, expectations and satisfaction levels of our 50+ age group versus other customers?
What share of our employees and managers are over and under 50 years of age?
What percentage of our talent is less than a decade from retirement?
What share of our development training budget is spent on the over and under 50 years of age employees?
Where is the defined business strategy for the over 50’s age group?
Our view is should business leaders come to understand the major opportunities and risks associated with adapting to shifting demographics, this will compel them to act. And differently. Ageism will become positioned as a business growth inhibitor, thus putting pressure on leaders to align their behaviours, priorities and decision-making to the new business requirements. We anticipate the display of leadership behaviours modelling age-inclusivity thinking. This is a compelling approach.
Addressing ageism through DEI: less culture management as ‘spin’
Originally, increasing workforce diversity and inclusion was understood as a business strategy linked to improving business performance and competitive advantage. Diversity would benefit the organisation as discrimination made no economic sense. Employing those who were best qualified, regardless of their background, was in the best interests of productivity and profit. This view still holds true today.
However, Australian diversity research indicates DEI is no longer positioned strategically and although companies promote their commitment to equal opportunity and produce company policy to that effect, this may be more for legislative compliance and an insurance against litigation. Consistent with the HBR research, many senior leaders in Australia, appear to have been adopting a ‘marketing’ or ‘brand orientation’ cultural management approach to DEI rather than any real intention to change their business behaviours. In essence, Australian senior leaders appear to have “off-loaded” diversity, equity and inclusion opportunities to their internal DEI teams, without taking ownership for bringing about this important business outcome.
Unfortunately, as a result, diversity management currently is not reflective of a ‘first amongst equals approach’. The research reveals this is driven by a combination of internal resource constraint and company assessment of the perceived impact on the business of external social and power influences creating potentially ‘bad publicity’ if community expectations are not met. This can lead to the establishment of de-facto prioritised risk management diversity management portfolios where some social subgroups get more attention than others. The DEI professional often finds themselves in a ‘no-win’ situation juggling their commitment to inclusivity against senior leadership directives and entrenched organisation practices.
As the issue of ageism has yet to attract intensive media or political attention, organisations perceive there is a low risk of any reputational damage to them by placing a low priority on tackling ageism. When companies elect to use a ‘marketing’ element to their culture of managing diversity then as it stands, the potential of positively embracing the older worker seems remote. This is a wasted opportunity.
Certainly, DEI professionals will be important in bringing about more age-inclusive work environments. However, this will only be achieved when business leaders at all levels see the benefits to age-inclusivity. Such awareness incentivises leaders to actively change their own behaviours to become age-inclusive role models. This will encourage the promotion of organisation behaviours, policies and systems to stamp out ageism.
Some final thoughts
Eliminating ageism makes good business sense. We believe approaching ageism elimination from a business strategy perspective provides the most compelling business case for change. Simplistically, strategy change is an exercise in action not just communication, branding or internal marketing. As we see it, acceptance of changes in the external operating environment dictates business strategy adjustment. Strategy change requires explicit leadership action. Strategy change drives business change. Business change promotes behaviour change. Behaviour change underpins culture change. Culture change sustains business strategy.
The reverse of culture change driving strategy change is less true unless power dynamics, deep operating structures and decision-making practices are directly impacted. Change from within the organisation that might downplay or ignore external macro environmental operating factors risks being time-consuming, highly political, incrementally focused and potentially counterproductive by encouraging workforce division or trust reduction in leadership. Successfully overcoming work-based ageism sees it not as a branding or internal communication project but rather an evidence-based business development initiative.
What do you think?
Which approach do you believe offers the most compelling approach to driving real leadership behaviour change to eliminate work-based ageism? Will overcoming workplace ageism be best achieved through a DEI culture management approach or a standalone business strategy focus? Or is there another way?
References
D'Netto, B., Shen, J., Chelliah, J., & Monga, M. (2014). Human resource diversity management practices in the Australian manufacturing sector. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25(9), 1233-1266.
Laker, B. et al. (2025). To Change Company Culture, Focus on Systems—Not Communication. HBR (August) https://hbr.org/2025/08/to-change-company-culture-focus-on-systems-not-communication
Kramar, R. (2012). Diversity management in Australia: a mosaic of concepts, practice and rhetoric. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 50, 245-261.
McKinsey Global Institute. (2025). Dependency and depopulation? Confronting the consequences of a new demographic reality. (January)
Riach, K. (2009). Managing "difference": understanding age diversity in practice. Human Resource Management Journal, 19(3), 319-335.
