Recruitment by Routine, Discrimination by Default
How Talent Identification Habits Can Harden into Ageism
How easy is it to automatically assume that ageism is solely a reflection of individual belief and attitude? What tends to get lost, particularly when it comes to organisation behaviour, is the contribution established systems and routines can make to the delivery of ageist practices. Often employees wear a ‘bum rap’ for perpetuating ageism merely by using their agency to follow prescribed routines in everyday business activity. We maintain the corporate talent identification/ recruitment routine represents an excellent case in point.
The nature of ‘routines’
Recent times have seen academic conjecture around the nature of routines. One school of thought sees them as a critical organisation capability creating stable, learned patterns of behaviour that allow organisations to perform tasks efficiently and reliably thereby enhancing competitiveness. In this view routines are functional and instrumental, refined over time through learning and experience.
Another school, that of institutionalism, argues routines are socially constructed, culturally embedded patterns of behaviour reflecting institutional norms, legitimacy, and social expectations. This approach is anchored in the core belief organisations have a primal instinct for continuity and assumes people prefer certainty, predictability and survivability. Routines, rules and norms are understood as fundamental organisation processes establishing guidelines for behaviour.
There are some major differences between the organisation capability and institutional view of ‘routines’. The organisation capability view understands ‘routines’ are directly connected to improving performance and competitiveness whereas that is not necessarily a primary goal of the institutional view of ‘routines’. In the latter, ‘routines’ projecting social legitimacy are understood as vital even if they are decoupled from delivering actual performance outcomes. An example is corporate commitment to Diversity and Inclusion initiatives.
Most large companies, for some time thought it necessary, if they were to be socially legitimate, to have Diversity and Inclusion ‘routines’ whether they were committed to the idea or otherwise. What was observed was companies copying each other’s approaches across business sectors under the guise of adopting ‘best practice’. Now, under a new and different US political reality, many of these same companies are now deciding it can be socially legitimate to drop their Diversity & Inclusion commitment. The point is that many companies might have pursued social legitimacy in the DEI space merely as an exercise in commercial expedience rather than an approach to improving productivity. When continuity is a primary organisation goal, legitimacy becomes linked to creating a positive corporate reputation with stakeholders, necessary to attract critical resources to the company to underpin sustainability.
A further difference is the organisation capability school understanding behaviour as an enabler of ‘routines’, capable of adapting as learning and experience develop, whereas the institutional view has a very different perspective, with ‘routines’ regulating the behaviour of individuals. Personal conformance to maintaining an existing ‘routine’ is the organisational requirement. Behaviour becomes more habitual than considered. Finally, the organisation capability view allows for ‘routines’ to adapt to external change or new information/technology whereas the institutional outlook understands ‘routines’ as static.
This does not mean the preference within organisations for certainty and predictability within the institutional perspective equates to a sense of organisational inertia. We all understand companies continually experience change. Yet, institutionalists experience the prevailing nature of change as one of constant reproduction and reinforcement of existing modes of thought and organisation.
In interviewing a multitude of senior HR executives across a variety of industries and evaluating HR practitioner applied writings on the nature of talent and its hiring, our PhD research formed the view the nature of the routine underpinning talent identification reflected an institutional view rather than organisational capability view of ‘routines’. And this contributed to the perpetuation of ageism within the operation of the talent identification routine. Before we provide our rationale for this conclusion, we need to quickly dive into a little more insight into the nature ‘routines’ in an institutional setting.
The power of ‘routines’ in an institutional setting
Routines are fundamental to accomplishing organisational work often representing the primary means through which regular tasks are accomplished. Yet the foundations of existing routines are often deep and complex capturing much of the history of an organisation’s operation. Institutionally, routines represent:
Sources of procedural memory reflecting historical practice and precedent which provide direction on the work to be done and how it is to be performed.
Sources of comfort and familiarity as people understand both their operation and their role within them, establishing organisation rhythms that act as frameworks for compliant behaviour and thinking.
A reassurance function to decision-makers that their contemporary actions are consistent with prior experience. Personal accountability for making decisions has been recognised as a major contributor to anxiety and encourages more risk averse decision making. Personal accountability makes decision makers feel compelled to be able to justify and legitimate their actions
A barrier to new thinking. Historical business success reduces the inclination to innovate leading to a preference to maintain existing routines irrespective of their ongoing effectiveness in changing environmental conditions. As a result, organisations prefer committing to search activities that build on the existing knowledge bases supporting routines rather than embracing more experimental or radical knowledge that may challenge existing routines.
’Talent’ identification as an institutional ‘routine’ promoting ageism
Our research reinforced talent identification as a ‘routine’ decoupled from driving performance and focused on promoting organisation legitimacy. As HR professionals raised on the mantra of ‘talent’ as a source of competitive advantage this proved both a shock and eye-opener. Our surprise at this finding also wasn’t helped by the existence of research involving a 2014 KPMG global survey of HR professionals who conceded there was little evidence linking exclusive talent practices to improved business performance. The decoupling of talent identification from performance in our research was evidenced through:
The prioritisation of organisation fit and individual potential over personal experience in hiring and promotion decisions.
The emphasis on the need to support a future business state and the maintenance of organisational continuity.
The influence of historical corporate talent meanings on contemporary understandings of its meaning encouraging a relatively inflexible view.
The need for talent to project a desired corporate image emphasising energy and vitality as a symbol of an organisation ability to regenerate.
A reliance on precedent in talent hiring by HR managers as a strategy of individual risk-aversion and hiring decision justification.
The impact of this talent identification ‘routine’ is the association of talent with younger workers. Talent is understood as different to the notion of experience which is linked to older workers. The outcome of the operation of this talent identification routine is the embedding of organisationally based ageism. One of our research conclusions acknowledges whilst there is a possibility of individual ageist attitudes, within the context of organisations, ageism has a stronger institutional foundation than previously understood.
Does our Talent identification and recruitment reflect an ‘organisation capability’ or ‘institutional’ routine?
When you reflect on your own business talent identification and recruitment routine does it lean to an ‘organisation capability’ or ‘institutional’ approach? We have provided a small list of questions (summarising our newsletter content) to help you identify where your existing talent identification/ recruitment routine might lie.
We appreciate the choice in real life is not as black and white as our questions make out. We are also not making a value judgement than one type of routine is better than another. We are pointing out how existing talent management routines can be sources of unwitting ageist practice.
What is your initial reaction to each question? Is it a Yes or a No?
1: Our Talent Policy remains relatively unchanged?
2: Individual potential is a critical element of our talent definition?
3: Individual potential is primarily associated with younger workers?
4: Organisation fit is a critical element of our talent definition?
5: Our use of AI in talent identification is not changing much the age profile of our talent pool?
6: Our job advertising contains boilerplate diversity language?
7: Our talent recruitment reflects precedent and practice in its application?
8: Our talent pool informs our Corporate Succession Plans?
9: Our talent pipeline consists primarily of younger workers?
If your initial reaction has led you to answer primarily ‘Yes’ to the questions, this is suggesting you understand your Talent identification/ recruitment routine to be more of an institutional approach. A series of ‘No’ responses indicate a belief the above routine reflects an ‘organisation capability’ outlook. We hazard a guess if you see your Talent management routine as an institutional one, most of your talent will consist primarily of younger workers ie say from an age perspective mainly under 45 years of age. We would argue this outcome represents an example of how an established organisation routine can be a generator of potentially ageist thinking and practice either consciously or unconsciously.
We are interested in Deloitte’s 2013 contention that existing talent perspectives (and routines) are based on largely traditional models of industry structures, office bound work and clear divisions of labour, which are increasingly out of touch with emerging changes in the global talent landscape. Current approaches to talent are limited to employees within a company, ignoring that emerging business strategies are increasingly integrated components of larger ecosystems, including research communities, freelancers, and third parties that support company core services.
Despite the time lapse of this observation, we are not convinced there has been a material change in how business continue to identify talent. This perhaps reinforces our earlier insight of how historical business success reduces the inclination to innovate leading to a preference to maintain existing routines irrespective of their ongoing effectiveness in changing environmental conditions. There remains both globally and locally a large contingent of skilled older workers seeking opportunity to engage in meaningful work again, potentially thwarted by historically based recruitment routines continuing to act as a barrier to their employment. What a waste.
Not sure how to get started? We can help you understand whether your existing talent management ‘routine/s’ are possibly producing ageist outcomes and ways they can be adapted to establish age-inclusive outcomes that deliver improved performance. As a preliminary step we can help you appreciate the business opportunities the emerging 50 years and over age group could represent and the questions your senior managers should be asking to take advantage of this change. It's a winning proposition for your organisation.
References
Abolafia, M. Y. (2010). Narrative construction as sensemaking: How a Central Bank thinks. Organization Studies, 31(3), 349-367.
Deloitte (2013). ‘The War to Develop Talent’ Report
Greenwood, R., & Hinings, C. R. (1996). Understanding radical organizational change: Bringing together the old and the new institutionalism. Academy of Management Review, 21(4), 1022-1054.
Hessell, T (2021). ‘Talent and Age: How Do Human Resource Manager Meanings of Talent Influence Their Perceptions of Older Workers?’ PhD Thesis. University of Newcastle.
Maguire, S., & Hardy, C. (2013). Organizing processes and the construction of risk: A discursive approach. Academy of Management Journal, 56(1), 231-255.
Swailes, S. (2016). The cultural evolution of talent management: A memetic analysis. Human Resource Development Review, 15(3), 340-358.
Thornton, P. H., Ocasio, W., & Lounsbury, M. (2012). The Institutional Logics Perspective: A New Approach to Culture, Structure, and Process. United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.
