Strategic Workforce Planning: A Silent Architect of Ageism?
McKinsey recently released a report advocating the importance of strategic workforce planning (SWP) to business performance in the emerging AI era. They note the future of work will include shifts in demand for occupations, skills upgrades, automation increases, and productivity challenges, further emphasizing the need to proactively manage talent. The ‘strategic’ element of this planning system ensures organisations are not merely reacting to events within their operating environment but anticipating multiple scenarios over a three-to-five-year time horizon. The successful operation of SWP sees the company have the right number of people with the right skills at the right time to achieve their strategic objectives.
Should a company’s ‘strategic’ antennae in their workplace planning system be properly working in 2025, we believe, it would be highlighting:
The existence of the fastest growing global ‘emerging market’, that being the ‘silver economy’, represented by people 50 years of age and over.
The potential by 2030 of a global talent shortage of more than 85 million people.
By the end of this decade the risk of not enough humans to take available jobs becoming the biggest future workforce issue rather than issues of automation, AI and robotics.
The progressive rehabilitation of the older worker ‘reputation’ and the increasing employability of this cohort.
A reasonable assumption of a high-performing SWP system in 2025 is the embrace of the ageing demographic phenomenon and its possible impacts on existing business markets, talent acquisition and development, organisation capability development and workforce structure. The expectation is having policies and practices in place recognising the importance of ‘age inclusivity’ as a driver of SWP and people management decisions.
Yet, data is revealing existing business understandings of ‘strategic’ appear narrow and largely technology focused. Many company SWPs appears to be ignoring the ageing demographic phenomenon. There is a growing body of research and data demonstrating that older workers are frequently disadvantaged in SWP.
Strategic Workforce Planning Exclusion
Older workers are often excluded from upskilling, leadership pipelines, or redeployment planning. Examples include:
A 2021 Australian Human Resources Institute (AHRI) and Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) report revealing that less than one-third of businesses included older workers in discussions of skills, succession, or retention.
A 2020 AARP report noting 53% of global executives surveyed do not include age in their corporate diversity and inclusion policy with clear implications for SWP.
Lack of Age Data in Workforce Planning Analytics
There is increasing evidence that age data is often not collected or meaningfully analysed. Examples include:
The UK Centre for Ageing Better noting in 2020 fewer than 1 in 3 HR professionals routinely assess workforce age demographics as part of strategic planning
Deloitte Human Capital Trends observing in 2021 while 74% of organisations prioritised “future workforce skills,” fewer than 10% explicitly included age diversity in these projections.
The Boston Consulting Group reporting fewer than 15% of companies have a specific business strategy for the over-60s.
A 2020 global AARP study finding fewer than 4% of firms committed to putting programmes in place to integrate older workers into their talent system with only a further 27% saying they were “very likely” to explore this path in the future.
Hiring and Recruitment Bias in Strategic Workforce Planning
Age discrimination in hiring remains a major obstacle to older worker employability. Examples include:
A 2023 survey by the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) and Australian HR Institute (AHRI) finding 1 in 6 organisations will not consider hiring people aged 65+, and only 25% being open to hiring them “to a large extent”.
US based research finding that nearly half of recruiters believe that applicants are too old to consider for a job by age 57. Moreover, two in five recruiters reported being pressured by their bosses to hire younger candidates, while nearly two-thirds of HR professionals admitted to making assumptions about candidates based on their age.
Field experiments and resume studies show consistent age discrimination. A 2020 OECD review of age discrimination in hiring across 9 countries revealed older applicants (50+) had to submit significantly more applications than younger applicants to receive callbacks.
Training & Development Investment Bias
There is little strategic appetite to continually invest in older worker development. A mindset pervades that there will be a limited return on investment as older workers are not seen as long-term employees. Examples demonstrating this issue include:
A 2018 AHRI report revealing managers as less likely to support training for employees aged over 55, despite similar performance levels to other younger employees.
The 2020 OECD report exploring issues impacting on the creation of age inclusive workforces observing participation in training decreases sharply after age 50 in most member countries.
The European Commission in a 2012 analysis of the issues surrounding European ageing populations noting workers aged 55-64 were 3x less likely to receive job-related training than those aged 25-34.
So, What Does This All Mean?
The onus SWP puts on a very narrow view of ‘talent’ meaning see most large businesses or government organisations ignoring the global demographic reality. McKinsey notes that whilst SWPs are overwhelmingly future oriented they still often assume that future talent comes from younger cohorts, not current older employees. A view of ‘talent’ prevails which was formed in a very different demographic time, a time when the population of younger people far exceeded that of older people. This is no longer the reality. Now, countries are experiencing a combination of increasing longevity and decades-long declining birth rates. These trends challenge every company's SWP assumptions and ‘talent’ sustainability strategy.
This raises serious questions for those leaders relying on their SWP practices to anticipate the likely future and prepare their company to adapt to the new challenges and opportunities. Questions that need to be asked include:
Is it ‘strategic’ to continue to reinforce an historical paradigm of ‘talent’ when the future, demographically, will bear little resemblance to the past?
Is our association of corporate sustainability with younger workers and their promotability ‘potential’ too narrow a view of employee ‘potential’? When the ageing research shows our brains continuing to grow and develop in our older years, why is the value of individual ‘potential’ purely limited to considerations of younger workers?
Is our preoccupation with the possibilities of specialised digital knowledge distorting our thinking when identifying the organisation capabilities for future success? We think it important that the narrow specialty thinking associated in the creating of a workforce of younger ‘digital natives’ be balanced with an ability to ‘see the bigger picture’, a cognitive strength associated with older workers. We see value in harnessing technology application with wisdom in generating future competitive advantage.
What Actions Can Be Taken to Remove Age Bias from Your Strategic Workforce Planning?
To offset the inherent age bias within SWP and the current impact this has on decreasing your ‘talent’ pipeline, we recommend leaders pivoting to policies, procedures and a workplace culture facilitating a new whole-life career model to benefit from the emerging demographic longevity advantage. This means acceptance of the reality that the future workplace requires talent from across the age spectrum and that employees of all ages are eager to be developed, reskilled and upskilled to remain relevant.
Specific age inclusive actions we recommend include:
Embedding age inclusion in DEI and workforce analytics and actively using the data when forecasting age -diversity requirements for future planning purposes.
Reviewing recruitment processes to prevent age-biased exclusion of candidates (either younger or older). Focus on the design of age-neutral hiring tools.
Hiring age experts who understand the nuances of ageism across the age spectrum to educate all levels of the workplace. Make training a prerequisite for any employee with hiring and management responsibilities.
Ensuring older workers have equal access to training and development opportunities that continue to upskill, reskill their technical abilities and grow their leadership capabilities.
Implementing structured retention management policies that allow for flexible work options, mentoring roles, an ability to explore new career pathways and phased retirement.
Proactively creating opportunities for intergenerational collaboration through mutual mentoring, business resource groups and the strategic design for new teams.
Not sure how to get started?
We’re happy to speak to your organisation on how to identify any potential ageist bias in your SWP or other people related management policies. We understand the nuances of ageism across the age spectrum within the workplace and can work with your business to educate all levels of the workplace on the benefits of an age inclusive workforce. It's a winning proposition for your organisation.
References
AARP. (2020). Global Insights on the Multigenerational Workforce. https://www.aarpinternational.org/file%20library/future%20of%20work/2020-global-insights-multigenerational-workforce-issuebrief.doi.10.26419-2fres.00399.001.pdf
AHRI. (2018). Employing Older Workers Research Report. https://www.ahri.com.au/wpcontent/uploads/AHRI_EmployingOlderWorkersReport_2018.pdf
AHRI. (2021). Employing older workers report. https://www.ahri.com.au/employing-older-workers-report-2021
AHRC. (2023). Ageism keeping older people out of the workforce. https://humanrights.gov.au/about/news/media-releases/ageism-keeping-older-people-out-workforce
Centre for Ageing. (2021). Good Recruitment for Older Workers: A toolkit for employers. (Updated Sept 2023).
European Commission. (2012). The 2012 Ageing Report. https://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/publications/european_economy/2012/pdf/ee-2012-2_en.pdf
Forbes. (2025). Talent Sustainability: 10 Leadership Moves To Build A Workforce That Lasts (June 27). https://www.forbes.com/sites/sheilacallaham/2025/06/27/talent-sustainability-10-leadership-moves-to-build-a-workforce-that-lasts/
Korn Ferry. (2022). The $8.5 Trillion Talent Shortage
Honore, C. (2018). Bolder: making the most of our longer lives. Simon & Schuster.
McKinsey (2025). The critical role of strategic workforce planning in the age of AI
OECD. (2020). Promoting an Age‑Inclusive Workforce
Scott, J, A. (2024). The Longevity Imperative: Building a better Society for Healthier, Longer Lives. Basic Books. UK.
