Overcoming Ageism in Recruiting: More than Tweaking the Job Ads

Advocates pushing for improving older worker employability opportunities correctly identify the need for HR professionals to revise existing company recruiting practices.

What is identified is an inherent ageism built into recruitment language and imagery. Advice is provided to avoid such words as ’dynamic’, ‘energetic’, ‘ambitious’ or ‘innovative’ and phrases like ‘digital native’ or ‘early career professional’ in job advertising as these are code that only younger people need to apply for the role. Encouraging a use of age-inclusive imagery in job advertising and corporate websites is believed vital to communicating the diversity sought and a message to prospective older employees they are welcome.

A downloadable poster developed by the Australian Department of Employment and Workplace Relations to encourage applicants of all ages.

These same advocates are also suggesting older job candidates no longer be ashamed of their age or experience when applying for job roles. The advocates acknowledge, although this behaviour takes some ‘guts’, by not fudging appearance to present as younger or leaving early accomplishments off CVs, such actions challenge existing discriminatory attitudes displayed within the recruitment industry. Holding a mirror to recruiter bias becomes an important source of agency protecting personal emotional and psychological self-esteem.

All this advice is spot-on and will make a difference. The challenge as always is in changing organisation behaviour in a way that normalises new recruitment thinking. Implementing organisation behaviour change is often more difficult than assumed. If it only were as simple as waving a magic wand to cast a new organisation spell.

EncourAGEEQUALITY identifies four recruitment behaviours that exist to differing extents within organisations needing to be changed, so the older worker as an attractive job candidate becomes accepted as a ‘business as usual’ practice. The four behaviours include:

1. Recruiting “Friends”
   Research indicates Managers favour people with whom they can establish a social connection within the recruitment process, irrespective of the candidate’s perceived productivity. A US professional services firm case study identifies recruiters hiring in a manner more closely resembling the choice of friends or romantic partners than how sociologists typically portray employers selecting new workers. The study found that potential job candidate skills were less important than a personal connection between recruiters and a candidate. Such an approach to talent identification has been being found as not only of little strategic value but also inadequate and reckless.

2. Homophily reigns
   Research shows talent evaluators see themselves as representative of the company and its personality and use themselves as a proxy to ascertain organisation fit. The extent to which the talent evaluator perceives a candidate fit with themselves (homophily bias), their perception is that the candidate’s fit must then meet all organisation fit requirements.

3. “Get out of my way!”
   Australian research reveals many younger workers are not thrilled to entertain age diversity within the workplace.  Younger people want older workers to get out of their way as they are perceived as career blockers who have already had ‘their turn’ in the corporate space. This phenomenon is now labelled as ‘succession based’ ageism.  In the USA, DEI professionals have been found to strongly advocate for women and racial minorities but significantly less enthusiastically for the older worker who is viewed as an obstruction preventing more deserving groups ‘getting a break’. Changing recruiting language to become more age-friendly presents as ‘tokenism’ if an organisation manifests an antipathy towards the existence of older workers.

4. Less screening evaluation and more technology use
   Researchers estimate there are now more than 250 commercial AI recruitment tools being used in Australia with one in three Australian organisations in 2022 reporting they had utilised AI tools while filling positions. Whilst AI is neutral, the attitudes of the humans writing the algorithms governing the screening language criteria may not be. Recent research has revealed that AI-assessed job applications reinforce biases against women and cultural minorities. The IT industry, not known for its age tolerance, already seems to be ignoring the involvement of older adults within technology design, potentially increasing a risk of an ageism bias within recruitment AI.

Evidence reveals older adults are often excluded from the research and design of digital technologies contributing to unfriendly user experiences. Unless job recruiting language and imagery matches AI candidate screening ‘key words or phrases’, there are likely to be many disillusioned older job applicant candidates. The risk is a reliance on AI in the recruitment process might increase workplace ageism by ignoring applicants with more years of experience.

The extent to which these behaviours impact on recruitment outcomes for older workers, irrespective of how the language and imagery in a job advertisement might be presented, we contend may well be a function of the age diversity, or lack of, within the HR recruiting team in the first instance.

Studies have found younger people, particularly men to be more ageist than older people, hold greater age stereotypes and be more likely biased in their evaluations and expectations of those who they consider social outsiders. Older managers are more likely to have more positive views about older workers than young managers. The biggest positive change in attitudes is witnessed among managers around the age of 50 years old when they start understanding themselves belonging to the older worker group. So, if your business has a recruitment team staffed by primarily young people, the probability significantly increases of potentially ageist recruitment outcomes.

How does this insight play out in practical terms with the above identified behaviours? Two situations present themselves:

• younger job candidates might find it easier to establish the critical ‘social connection’ with the young recruiter and be prioritised for recruitment.

• should a younger recruiter see themselves as emblematic of the company culture, then a potential job candidate reminding the recruiter of themselves is likely to be equally young and therefore preferred.

We are big supporters of removing ageist language and images from recruitment advertising and company websites. However, until actions are taken to shake up the demographic composition of recruitment teams the risks of organisation behaviours perpetuating ageism continue. This makes the recruitment of older workers more problematic no matter what job advertising language or imagery may be used.

If this has made you reflect on your existing recruiting dynamics, please contact us and let us help you take practical steps to transform your workplace into an inclusive age-neutral one that embraces the longevity revolution allowing your company to develop its competitive and performance capability in a rapidly changing demographic world.

---

References

Ayoub, S. (2023). ‘Recruitment by robot: how AI is changing the way Australians get jobs’. The Guardian (Oct 23).

Butler, S. (2019). Manage the Gap: Achieving success with intergenerational teams. Rethink Press.

Calo, T. J., Patterson, M. M., & Decker, W. H. (2013). Employee perceptions of older workers’ motivation in business, academia, and government. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 4(2).

Mannheim, I., Weiss, D., van Zaalen, Y., & Wouters, E.J.M. (2023). An “ultimate partnership”: Older persons’ perspectives on age-stereotypes and intergenerational interaction in co-designing digital technologies. Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics. 1-11.

Martin, A.E. & North, M.S. (2021). Equality for (Almost) All: Egalitarian Advocacy Predicts Lower Endorsement of Sexism and Racism, but Not Ageism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology: Interpersonal Relations and Group Processes. 1-26

Posthuma, L. (2023). AI and ageism in the workplace. Welcome to the Jungle (Dec 28) https://www.welcometothejungle.com/en/articles/ai-and-ageism-in-the-workplace

Rivera, L. N. (2012). Hiring as cultural matching: The case of elite Professional Service Firms. American Sociological Review, 77(6), 999-1022.

Zheltoukhova, K., & Baczor, L. (2016). Attitudes to employability and talent.   Retrieved from https://www.cipd.co.uk/Images/attitudes-to-employability-and-talent_2016_tcm18-14261.pdf