Dear Editor,
I wish to draw attention to the age factor in employment relationships. Let me clarify at the outset that there is absolutely no self-interest here. Admittedly I am advanced chronologically but at the same time I am blessed with many opportunities for satisfying employment. My current interest is piqued by occurrences like our own Shivnarine Chanderpaul being adjudged the ‘Best Player‘ of the recently concluded Australia-West Indies series while being the oldest player. On top of that he joined the elite 10,000 runs club followed by another icing on his multi-layered cake, ie, returning to the top spot on the ICC’s list of World-rated batsmen. I am sure that readers can recall their own lists of examples of relatively older (or younger!) persons outshining their older or younger colleagues in every field of human activity, including employment as technicians, professionals, managers, labourers and clerks, etc.
What do we mean when we refer to someone as being old? Today’s multiplying centurions belie the old adage of people living to the ripe age of ‘three score years and ten,’ yet healthy able and productive people are being forced to retire at ages less than 70, in most cases 60 or 55 and sometimes less. We go to extremes to actively recruit “the best person for the job” but then we passively allow the calendar and a date in the CV to determine when the said person must retire.
Many publications have drawn attention to major demographic changes in world population. Of particular note are the lengthening trends in life expectancy concomitant with low fertility rates or birth-control interventions. In less than a decade from now it is estimated that the number of Europeans in the 20-29 age group will fall by 20% while the number in the 50-64 age group will increase by 25% and the number aged 80 and above will increase by 50%. Guyana is not insulated from similar demographic trends, plus we suffer from migration and skills deficits.
Against such a background it behoves employers to seriously consider a non-ageist/age-neutral employment practice. Age affects all of us as we move in and out of various ‘advantaged’ and ‘dis-advantaged’ age groups in the course of our lifetime. A classic case is the hackneyed preference for young women as secretaries, receptionists and airline attendants, who soon become ‘disfavoured’ as they age; similarly, there is the traditional preference for the ‘older, mature, stable person’ for certain supervisory/managerial jobs against the young, bright, progressive, productive, upwardly mobile but perhaps petulant aspirant.
Besides intuition and common sense which should not be discounted, there is considerable objective evidence showing that such stereotypes are mistaken; their irrationality has been challenged by research showing that in general age is a poor proxy for productive performance. Moreover, “negative stereotypes are commercially damaging when acted upon, producing poor returns on investments in human capital, an unduly narrowed recruitment pool, loss of competencies and corporate memories with sub-optimal balance between youth and maturity” (Taylor & Walker).This is as good a basis as any for arguing a business case against ‘ageism’. However, it must also be noted that the notion of an ideal or ‘prime age’ for labour might be too imprecise to provide an operational benchmark because of contextual differences such as the manual/non-manual divide and industrial specificities, although the advent of the ‘knowledge worker’ might be a leveller. Having said that , we are still befuddled by occurrences such as the survey conducted by the UK’s Employers’ Forum on Age among IT employees where the majority thought that the term “older worker” applied to those as young as 35.
In addition to the moral, ethical, and social imperatives, the demographic changes and persistent skills shortage justify the business case for more effective use of available competences. This certainly resonates with the individualized and strategic perspectives of an effective HR mandate in which greater emphasis should be placed on changing underlying beliefs and anachronistic attitudes, as opposed to constraining and restraining progressive behaviour and imaginative, creative potential solutions. “Organisations need to adapt to differences rather than expect employees to fit into pre-existing structures and cultures that invariably favour the skills and styles of dominant groups which preclude a full contribution from others” (Colin Duncan).
Older workers are often enticed into early exits from employment with golden handshakes and dreams of less stressful, happier lives of leisure. Unfortunately, many who are not blessed with social protection, especially lower-level manual workers, suffer from ‘push factors.’ Among the stereotyped push factors are controversial arguments that older workers cost more, are less productive, have less relevant skills, etc. The cost of seniority in the context of current compensation policies calls attention to the age-old debate over the basic premise on which pay and reward systems are based: is it the rate for the job or the rate for the person in (but not necessarily ‘performing’) the job?
An age/service-neutral compensation system based on the rate for the job and/or performance-related pay can significantly dilute, if not negate the cost-of-seniority argument. Adherents to the rate-for-the-job theory lean towards a fixed rate irrespective of length of service of the job-holder, eg, the cane-cutters in GuySuCo; the ‘personal rate’ theory on the other hand implies payment for personal criteria such as qualifications, experience, and annual increments given by and large automatically within salary scales, some as wide as doubling the differentials for people doing essentially identical jobs and in some cases performing significantly less than others, younger or older than their colleagues (with all the attendant morale implications). A uniform rate-for-the-job compensation system will obviate the temptation to get rid of the older worker first whenever the economic disequilibrium dictates staff reduction. If seniority equates to greater proficiency then common sense suggests that the older/longer serving employee will naturally win the higher-paying jobs.
Employers interested in increased staff commitment, motivation, stability and sustainable high performance should resist the temptation to get rid of staff at the first signs of slowdown in business activity and profitability. The boomerang effect can be disastrous. The labour market scene does not include a ready, steady stream of young, able, competent staff when conditions might favour effective hiring after the ‘recession.’ At this juncture one is encouraged to reinforce the argument for a new, more creative compensation model. Industrial psychologists like Maslow, McGreggor and Herzberg have convincingly discounted the relative value of pay packets for employees whose sense of self-worth, self-respect and personal dignity are assaulted by unemployment. The HR challenge is to find ways of flexing the organisation without actually losing staff so that essential skills are retained and staff commitment held intact.
Given its embeddedness, it would be naïve not to expect contra-arguments against the age/service-neutral compensation proposal. Trade unions might ‘naturally’ be indifferent or resentful until they are genuinely consulted with a view to gaining their understanding and involvement. Even supervisory/managerial cadres might be resistant unless they are emotionally and intellectually brought on board. It is foolhardy to be dismissive of any objections or rationalizations.
By promoting an organisation ethos that is seen to be fair and democratic rather than one that reinforces a dominant, anachronistic value system, the organization may still become ‘an employer of choice.’
In a dynamic environment we need to be flexible; stereotypes of older and younger workers do not swim well in the predictable socio-economic maelstroms. This is even more relevant in the challenges of globalization, the most prominent of which is the realization that domestic habits might have to be adapted or at least tweaked in recognition of global imperatives.
Yours faithfully,
Nowrang Persaud
