New research challenges the simplicity of how organisations interpret age at work:
-
When managers look at an employee, what are they actually seeing?
-
Their chronological age?
-
Their generation?
-
The number of years they have spent inside the organisation?
-
Or the professional experience they have accumulated throughout their career?
The distinction matters because these characteristics are frequently intertwined. A long-serving employee may also be older, a recent recruit may be younger, and an experienced professional may have spent decades within the same organisation. That makes it easy to attribute a behaviour or characteristic to age when something quite different may be responsible.
Recent research published in the European Management Journal provides an important lens through which to examine this problem.
Anne Skevik Grødem and Hege Sofie Hesselberg interviewed 20 managers across three large Norwegian organisations in finance, technology and facility services. Rather than finding managers interpreting employees simply through chronological age, the researchers found that judgements drew upon overlapping ideas about generation, age, tenure and experience.
The researchers use the GATE framework, developed by Michael North in 2019, which argues that organisational research needs to distinguish between Generation, Age, Tenure and Experience when attempting to understand ageing and work, and the implications extend well beyond academic terminology.
When different things look like age
Consider two employees…one is 28 and has worked within an organisation for seven years, the other is 55 and joined six months ago following more than 30 years of professional experience elsewhere.
-
Who is the experienced employee?
-
Who is the organisational newcomer?
-
Who understands the internal culture?
-
Who is likely to have the strongest networks?
-
Who needs onboarding?
-
Who is likely to bring an external perspective?
And which of those characteristics can reasonably be inferred from age? The answer, of course, is very few.
Yet organisational narratives frequently use age or generation as an explanation for characteristics that may arise from entirely different circumstances.
The Norwegian research illustrates this complexity. Managers associated tenure with deep organisational knowledge, credibility and continuity, but also sometimes with established practices and resistance to change. Experience could signal professional judgement, composure and client credibility, while simultaneously being interpreted as knowledge that might no longer reflect current demands. Generational narratives were used to explain assumptions about technological familiarity, mobility, loyalty and expectations of work.
None of those characteristics maps neatly onto chronological age.
The danger of apparently positive stereotypes
This also reminds us why stereotyping remains problematic even when the stereotype appears complimentary. Describing older employees as loyal, experienced and dependable may sound positive. Describing younger employees as technologically confident, adaptable and ambitious may sound equally positive. But both reduce individuals to assumptions about groups.
More importantly, those assumptions can influence organisational opportunity. The Norwegian researchers found that managerial interpretations could affect who was supported, who was given opportunities and who was overlooked. They identified both passive responses, such as waiting for turnover or reducing responsibility, and proactive responses including development, role adjustment and mentorship.
A stereotype therefore does not remain an opinion, it can become a decision…and decisions accumulated across recruitment, development, progression and retention can eventually become organisational patterns.
Moving beyond generational shorthand
This is particularly relevant to the continuing popularity of generational explanations for workplace behaviour. Terms such as Baby Boomer, Generation X, Millennial and Generation Z provide convenient labels, but convenience should not be confused with explanation.
-
If an employee approaches technology differently, is that because of their generation, their previous role, their access to training, their professional experience or the systems they have encountered?
-
If someone appears deeply attached to an organisation, is that generational loyalty or the consequence of 25 years of organisational tenure?
-
If a younger colleague challenges established practices, is that a generational characteristic or simply what happens when someone enters an organisation without having absorbed its existing assumptions?