New evidence suggests workforce pressures can change behaviour, but they do not automatically remove bias.

Skills shortages create an apparently simple economic argument for inclusion. When organisations struggle to find people with the capabilities they need, excluding potential talent because of age should become increasingly difficult to justify…yet organisational behaviour is rarely quite that rational.

New research published in the European Journal of Ageing examines the relationship between age-based stereotypes, recruitment and training among German employers, and asks whether labour shortages and digitalisation alter those decisions, the findings provide an important reminder.

Need does not automatically eliminate bias.

Using representative employer data from the 2024 BIBB Training Panel, researchers Philipp Heyer, Wiebke Schmitz and Kathrin Weis analysed responses from 1,310 organisations.

They found a clear relationship between employers’ age-based stereotypes and decisions affecting older workers. The more negatively organisational decision-makers perceived older employees, the lower the proportion of older workers among both new hires and those receiving further training. A one-point increase on the study’s stereotype measure was associated with a 2.3 percentage-point reduction in the share of older workers hired and a 2.1 percentage-point reduction in the share receiving training. That matters because recruitment and development are two of the principal mechanisms through which organisations determine who gets to participate in the future workforce.

Stereotypes have organisational consequences

Age stereotypes are sometimes dismissed as attitudes, but attitudes matter when they influence decisions.

  • An assumption that an older employee will struggle with technology can affect whether that person receives digital training.

  • An assumption that someone is approaching retirement can influence whether investment in their development appears worthwhile.

  • An assumption that a younger candidate will adapt more readily can influence recruitment even where there is little evidence about the adaptability of either individual.

The result can become self-reinforcing. If an employee receives less development because they are assumed to be less capable of learning, any subsequent skills gap may appear to validate the original assumption.

The problem was never necessarily capability, it may have been opportunity.

What happens when employers cannot find enough people?

The researchers were particularly interested in whether labour shortages would weaken the influence of age stereotypes.

There is a compelling logic, that if employers cannot find enough skilled workers, ignoring experienced candidates becomes expensive. Organisations may be forced to reconsider assumptions about who represents valuable talent.

The research found some evidence that anticipated labour shortages may reduce stereotype-related hiring disadvantage, although the statistical evidence was inconclusive. The same effect was not evident for training decisions, and that distinction is important.

Economic pressure may encourage an organisation to broaden who it recruits without necessarily changing the assumptions through which employees are developed once inside.

Digitalisation produced another interesting result. Greater workplace digitalisation appeared to mitigate some training decisions that disadvantaged older employees. The researchers suggest that where technology makes new skills essential, organisations may have stronger incentives to invest in developing the people they already employ.

Again, necessity may change behaviour, but that is not the same as eliminating the stereotype.

Inclusion by necessity is not the same as inclusion by design

There is a wider lesson here. Demographic change and labour shortages may eventually force organisations to draw upon a wider range of talent, but waiting until economic necessity overwhelms bias is a poor workforce strategy.

Age inclusion should not become something organisations discover only when they run out of alternatives. A more resilient approach is to examine recruitment and development practices before scarcity makes the problem unavoidable.

  • Who gets encouraged to apply?

  • Whose potential is recognised?

  • Who receives development?

  • Who is considered worth investing in?

And what assumptions are influencing those decisions? Those questions matter at every age.

Although this particular study focuses on older workers, the underlying organisational principle is multigenerational, stereotypes can distort how capability and potential are recognised across the workforce.

Younger employees can be assumed to lack commitment or judgement, and older employees can be assumed to lack adaptability or technological confidence. People in the middle of working life can become almost invisible within age-related workforce conversations altogether.

Different stereotype…same underlying problem…an assumption about a group has replaced evidence about an individual.

Talent strategy requires something better

As organisations confront skills shortages, technological transformation and longer working lives simultaneously, the ability to recognise and develop capability across age groups will become increasingly important. The organisations best positioned for that future may not simply be those capable of finding more talent.

They may be those capable of seeing the talent they already have more clearly.

Key Takeaway: Labour shortages and digitalisation may change some employer behaviours, but they do not automatically remove age bias. Sustainable age inclusion requires organisations to challenge the stereotypes influencing who they recruit, develop and invest in.