A new discourse for workplace practice concerning ageing and work

From a business perspective, an adequate framework for sustainable competitiveness necessitates ‘taking into account the economic, socio-cultural, and environmental dimensions on the one hand and the consideration of all stakeholders on the other’ (Vrabcova, et al., Reference Vrabcova, Urbancova and Hudakova2022: 174). Such a perspective makes it possible to tie present economic and social imperatives concerning the utilisation of older workers against a backdrop of concerns about a shortfall of labour supply as people retire in ageing populations to environmental notions of the preservation and renewal of finite resources (Vrabcova et al., Reference Vrabcova, Urbancova and Hudakova2022). It also potentially overcomes some of the tensions that might exist between short-term business objectives narrowly focused on maximising shareholder value and human capital notions of treating workers as a long-term investment (Kooij and van de Voorde, Reference Kooij, van de Voorde, Bal, Kooij and Rousseau2015).

We extend this idea by drawing from the Common Good HRM framework (Aust, et al., Reference Aust, Matthews and Muller-Camen2020) which we see as aligning closely with the Economy for the Common Good (ECG) model and its emphasis on socially oriented values and job quality (Ollé-Espluga, et al., Reference Ollé-Espluga, Muckenhuber and Hadler2021). Common Good HRM sets out an approach to managing people that marks a fundamental shift in how the purpose of business is conceived. Its core responsibility contributes to sustainability challenges by treating collective interests as at least equal to those of individuals and organisations. The primary focus of HRM in contributing to economic purpose is replaced by one of supporting organisational leadership in contributing to ecological and social progress. Here, HRM capability is deployed in addressing the ‘grand challenges’ of our time. In a nutshell, it involves four principles: looking beyond an organisation’s boundaries or adopting an ‘outside-in’ perspective in responding to a grand challenge including the SDGs; recognising that equal and fair employment relationships are essential for Common Good HRM to achieve trusting relationships and organisational success; that all stakeholders should be given opportunities for participation and representation to achieve locally adapted solutions to complex challenges; and that the psychological employment contract will be upheld in terms of job security, safety, and meaningful work.

In the following section, we offer some preliminary suggestions as to how these principles might be applied to the issue of managing age in workplaces, to recast debate about issues of age and work, to be used as an advocacy tool that encourages employer engagement, while also providing a framework that might direct the actions of organisational leadership.

The first and primary principle is an outward-oriented organisational perspective and a focus on grand challenges, such as those codified by the UN’s 17 SDGs, for instance SDG 4 Quality education, SDG 8 Decent work and economic growth, SDG 10 Reduced inequalities, and SDG 17 Partnerships for the goals. The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE, 2019) explicitly links the policy agenda of prolonging working lives to the achievement of the SDGs: ‘Tackling ageism in the labour market will help to form age-inclusive and age-diverse workplaces that offer equal opportunities for all generations. This will contribute to enabling longer working lives and ability to work in the region’s ageing societies to make the most of the potential of longevity.’ While this is a long-standing view and one that is shared by many, the principle of an ‘outward-in’ perspective is potentially valuable in defining HRM’s purpose in terms of its role in bringing the organisation’s resources and capabilities to bear in attempting to address societal concerns. This contrasts with a traditional ‘inside-out’ perspective which frames organisational activities in terms of minimising business risk and maximising shareholder value (Aust, et al., Reference Aust, Matthews and Muller-Camen2020: 3), partly reflected in efforts aimed at defining business cases for employing older workers described earlier.

At first glance, persuading an employer of the need to respond to population ageing might seem like a straightforward proposition. After all, this grand challenge is one that has been the subject of much commentary, numerous official and semi-official inquiries, a large volume of public policymaking, and business awareness-raising campaigns. Yet, advocacy on behalf of older people is not without criticism with, for instance, efforts focused on challenging notions of ageing potentially confusing societal discourse. Thus, the Stanford Center on Longevity states that its mission is to accelerate and implement behavioural practices and social norms that make century long lives healthy and rewarding (Stanford Center on Longevity, 2020). Yet in a recent report – The New Map of Life – it invoked ageist stereotypes in asserting that: ‘The speed, strength, and zest for discovery common in younger people, combined with the emotional intelligence and wisdom prevalent among older people, create possibilities for families, communities, and workplaces that haven’t existed before’ (Stanford Center on Longevity, 2022: 25). It has been argued that there are potentially more effective ways of engaging with industry.

Beyond the existence of ageism in older people’s advocacy, as noted already, flawed arguments for the use of early retirement as a job creation mechanism resurfaced in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. Added to this, it has been pointed out that there is a need to consider the heterogeneity of ‘older workers’ (Bal and Jansen, Reference Bal, Jansen, Bal, Kooij and Rousseau2015) and that complex interactions among factors, such as ethnicity, social class, occupation, and industry sector, in determining experiences of work at older ages casts doubt on the utility of the term at all (Phillipson, Reference Phillipson2019). Consequently, social policy and advocacy targeting ‘older workers’ may have limited effectiveness. Similarly, there may be problems in operationalising such an imprecise concept at the firm level. Moreover, issues of ageing should be considered alongside the other dimensions of the future of work: technological change and globalisation (OECD, 2019b).  For example,  Phillipson (Reference Phillipson2019: 641) suggests recasting the approach to one aimed at ‘improving work quality and security as a precondition of any policy for encouraging working in later life’, an interpretation which potentially overcomes problems inherent in the focus on merely prolonging working lives. These he identifies as the nature of work and the characteristics of workers, tackling skills deficits, and the potential of present approaches to accentuate inequalities in work and retirement.

In response and building on recent efforts to reinvigorate debate via the concept of the longevity economy (AARP and Oxford Economics, 2016), we propose adding a sustainability perspective that moves beyond efforts to define policy and advocacy agendas narrowly focused on ‘older workers’, and instead adopting a life course approach (Amick, et al., 2016), considering for instance, the downstream consequences of labour market inequality among younger people (United Nations, 2018). A sustainability discourse also emphasises the importance of building and deploying partnerships between stakeholders for dialog, problem-solving, and action (Munck and Tomiotto, Reference Munck and Tomiotto2019). Consequently, HRM professionals potentially have a role to play in facilitating the involvement of workers of all ages in the development of age management strategies focused on developing and embedding shared organisational values concerning age inclusivity over a working life. Given the lack of evidence for the crowding out of younger by older workers, the OECD (2013) has identified a need for mutually reinforcing employment strategies, for instance, fostering intergenerational partnerships. Such an approach would emphasise the value of generational dialog and solidarity, responding to disjunctions and contradictions inherent in an age advocacy that has hitherto often focused solely on the needs of ‘older people’ (Taylor and Earl, Reference Taylor and Earl2021).

Second, it should be recognised that HRM professionals are embedded in sociocultural contexts in which they learn and develop attitudes that shape their practice regarding older workers. These are powerful influences and, as noted already, ones to which even older people’s advocates do not appear immune. Here, HRM professionals can benefit from recent efforts to address conceptual gaps in terms of intersectionality from an organisational perspective (Woods, et al., Reference Woods, Benschop and van den Brink2022). Guided by Common Good HRM’s principle of equity and fairness, effective age management, thus, rests on an underpinning recognition that given ageism can be experienced at any age (World Health Organization, 2021), equity for older workers does not come at the expense of that for younger workers, and vice versa; similarly, current egalitarian advocacy – that endorses less prejudice against and more support for women and racial minorities – may lend support to ‘succession’-based ageism, which prescribes that older people make way (Martin and North, Reference Martin and North2022). This raises issues of balance and proportionality, which are complicated when considering that the prevalence of age cohorts is different across occupations, industries, and countries and consequently a perceived sense of disadvantage may not easily be addressed. Furthermore, HRM’s commitment to the principle of equity and fairness needs to filter down to the line management level that may exert a stronger influence on daily working lives, including employee well-being, satisfaction, and retention and upward to senior leadership that can do most to model appropriate workplace behaviours and influence organisational culture. Consequently, HRM will play a key role in fostering a multi-level and multi-layered approach that would potentially avoid actions in one domain that could be at odds with ones in another.

Third is the notion that all stakeholders have a role to play in achieving age equality and fairness. This could include networked employer partnerships to enable better resourced, larger-scale employers supporting smaller-scale employers that lack HRM capability in implementing age management strategies (OECD, 2019a). While size is not the only factor in enabling action, this approach would especially equip larger employers to contribute as social role models, not only in supporting other employers but for supporting wider society. Alongside the many companies that are already implementing policies and codes of conduct aimed at mitigating human rights violations in supply chains (SDG 8) (Australian Government, 2018), a leadership commitment to the cause of common good may help curb the possible tendency of some managers to harbour ageist attitudes. For instance, promoting alternative examples that recognise sociocultural influences and emphasise counter-stereotypical and inclusive practices might change behaviours. Yet modeling good practice alone is not sufficient localisation and contextual relevance are required (Rohwerder, Reference Rohwerder2017). This can offer a starting point for implementing a transformation of employment relationships, for instance, in cases where employers in upstream supply chains might perceive the need to respond to cost pressures by dismissing older and more highly remunerated staff. Research demonstrates that while smaller businesses have some understanding of issues of workforce ageing management responses are nascent (Egdell, et al., Reference Egdell, Maclean and Raeside2020).

Fourth, the Common Good HRM framework assumes that the employee’s psychological contract will be maintained in terms of protecting the human need for secure, safe, and meaningful work. This might involve an age focus during periods when organisations are in transition, for instance, in rejecting early retirement (Taylor, et al., Reference Taylor, Gringart and Webb2022) in favour of efforts to retain workers of all ages or, as noted earlier, where different equality agendas might be in conflict. It would also challenge HRM to consider the needs of those whose abilities to adapt are socially stratified and unevenly distributed across the life course (Moen, Reference Moen, Waite and Plewes2013). Such an approach to HRM would thus emphasise the opportunity to undertake quality work (Osterman, Reference Osterman2019) over a (longer) working life given the influence of job demands on life expectancy (de Wind, et al., Reference de Wind, Sewdas and Hoogendijk2020) and the continued responsibility of employers as workers move into post-work or retirement phases, including those exiting workplaces early due to poor health or family-care responsibilities (Stiemke and Hess, Reference Stiemke and Hess2022). Transforming post-work might include employer action in response to the inadequacy of pension arrangements, for instance, for those who experience fragmented or disrupted employment trajectories. With people nowadays often living in ‘post-retirement’ for considerable periods, yet with marked differences between occupational groups (Deeg et al., Reference Deeg, De Tavernier and de Breij2021), business may also play a role in reducing inequality and promoting healthy ageing by maintaining relationships with former employees.