I got an alert on my phone last week from the Nextdoor app. It was a post by a man in his early forties who believed that in the field of photography he was discriminated against for his age. He said that less qualified people got jobs he applied for. The only advantage he could see that these people had was their relative youth. They were in their twenties instead of their forties.
This was a scary post for a person in her late forties to see. If someone about 10 years younger believed he was the victim of ageism, what hope was there for a woman who would soon be in her fifties?
Ageism vs. Opportunity to Pay Less
Nine years ago, I experienced the heartbreak of having a job I got extremely close to attaining become available again only to have it be turned into an entry-level position and given to a woman about 20 years younger than me.
I didn’t see this as a case of ageism as much as a case of “let’s pick the person we can pay the least.”
Was I being naïve? The position was at a fashion/style-oriented publication, and that industry has a reputation for favoring youth, especially among women employees.
Ageism vs. Preference for More Physical and Mental Energy
If a person in their position can do everything they did when they were younger—including working long days and running around a trade show floor, all the while remembering tiny details about most people they meet—then if they were encouraged to resign, they could point to ageism.
However, often a veteran employee who is past the traditional age of retirement, i.e., older than 65, doesn’t have the same physical and mental energy. Is it discriminatory to note that fact, and encourage them to pass the reins to an employee who does have the physical and mental stamina needed for the job?
The requirements of the job are the requirements of the job. A person can either meet the requirements of the job or they can’t. And if they can’t, whether older or younger or the exact same age as whoever they are being compared to, it’s time for them to leave or be transitioned into a different role.
Is It Ageism to Ask a Veteran Employee to Take on a Protégé?
Let’s say an employee is in their late sixties. They still do a great job, with roughly the same level of mental and physical energy they displayed decades earlier.
Given that their work performance is still superior, it would be ageism to push them out. By doing so, you would be asking them to leave solely because of their age.
Now, what if, knowing it was likely they would want to retire within the next 10 to 15 years, you asked them to take on a protégé? Could you openly discuss with the veteran employee how many more years they expected to work? And could you candidly express a desire for a potential successor to capture their knowledge?
I think you could do that as part of your succession planning efforts. It reminds me of when a doctor has a practice they know they eventually will need to exit. So they hire an associate doctor, who eventually buys into the practice to become a partner, and then, when the original doctor is ready to retire, they purchase the remaining shares of the practice to become the new sole owner.
In a corporation, something similar could happen. Years before a veteran employee is ready to retire, the company could bring on a person they could work with as a protégé. The idea would be that eventually, if the protégé proves worthy, they will step into the veteran employee’s job.
Lack of a Succession Bench
I have experienced being in a company where everyone in leadership was in their mid-to-late sixties. Some of us employees had noticed this problem for a long time, so it was funny when, suddenly, the decision-makers noticed, too, that they had a problem and began scrambling for a plan.
They finally promoted an employee who had been with the company for 20 years to a mid-level leadership position. He was in his late forties. They also quickly hired a new employee into another mid-level leadership role. It was easy to see the wheels spinning in their heads. Obviously, the newly promoted middle-aged man and the newly hired man, nearing middle age, were their emergency succession plan.
Pretending Age Doesn’t Matter Doesn’t Make It So
Many organizations make career-planning conversations with entry- and mid-level employees a standard practice. Yet they have little-to-no conversation about career planning with veteran employees. Don’t be afraid to have that career planning conversation with your oldest, most veteran employees.
You could argue that not having those same conversations with your most veteran employees is the greatest form of ageism of all. It sends the message that there is nothing ahead for these employees. A career plan for a veteran employee can acknowledge their remaining workplace goals and openly plan for when they most likely will want to scale back their hours and retire altogether.
You can have a successor in place who is already inside the process of their jobs, with little additional training or learning curve required. The graceful beginning for the successor also makes for a graceful exit for the veteran employee.
Do you watch for signs of ageism in your organization while, at the same time, acknowledging the role that age plays in career and succession planning?