The Pros And Cons Of Including Age In DEI Strategy

As the spotlight on workplace ageism grows, companies face yet another pressure point for employee inclusion. Yet, most DEI programming excludes age altogether or only references ageism as an example of stereotyping during more focused training sessions. So the question remains: Should companies address workplace ageism as part of their DEI strategies? Here are a few pros and cons to consider.

Pros for Including Ageism in DEI Strategy

1. For companies that remain committed to DEI, the initiatives are leadership-driven. That means it is typically led by an executive and reports to the company’s top tier. That’s where you want important culture change initiatives to be since that is one of the ways to get C-suite exposure. Like other dimensions of diversity, age bias, stereotyping and discrimination are nuanced and complex. It takes the willingness of leaders to put resources behind understanding how it shows up in the workplace and how best to address it.
2. Aging impacts everyone and therefore intersects and compounds potential bias and stereotyping against other dimensions of diversity. The tendency to ignore the intersection of race, ethnicity, gender and age has potentially obscured essential differences in how health is maintained and undermines efforts to eliminate health disparities.
3. Addressing workplace ageism requires culture change, and DEI practitioners are (or should be) highly skilled change agents. Many people make ageist comments or decisions based on age-based stereotypes that hurt others, either younger or older. Awareness of ageist words and behaviors must come before establishing accountability for change. It’s all part of a culture change process intended to create a more inclusive workplace.

Cons for Including Ageism in DEI Strategy

1. DEI programming is intended to address workplace opportunity gaps for historically disenfranchised communities such as race and gender and tied to centuries of systemic oppression. Ageism, while not new, is gaining more visibility and prioritization due to increased legal actions resulting from age discrimination as people are living longer and need (or want) to extend their careers. However, cultural awareness has not caught up to this significant demographic shift and the death of retirement as an economic norm. As a result, older people are generally expected or forced to leave the workplace much sooner than they want. As new groups are added to the DEI profile, practitioners must choose between funding traditional programming or spreading that resource to other groups.
2. For decades, companies have supported affirmative action and DEI programming to make the workplace more inclusive for women and people of color. While progress has been made, the reality is that women do not have as many opportunities (more so for women of color), nor are they paid as much for the same work. Women are paid roughly 22% less than men on average. The Economy Policy Institute writes that little to no progress has been made in closing the gender wage gap in three decades. Intersecting gender with race, women of color typically earn even less. Bottom line, DEI is not working.
3. The most compelling reason to address workplace ageism separately from DEI is political–the incoming president has promised to eradicate DEI once and for all. Earlier this year, HBR warned that DEI programming could put companies at risk, and many have already reduced or eliminated their DEI programming. When the U.S. Supreme Court decision effectively ended race-conscious admission programs at colleges and universities nationwide in June 2023, Texas and Florida had already passed anti-DEI legislation. Since 2022, 85 anti-DEI bills have been introduced in 28 U.S. States and Congress, with 14 already passed into law. And, last Wednesday, The Dismantle DEI Act (H.R.8706) passed the House Oversight Committee 23-17. If approved by both houses of Congress, the bill will eliminate all DEI programming in the Federal Government and for all of its contractors.

Another Possibility for Addressing Workplace Ageism

Everyone is ageing, and that’s a plus for keeping age-inclusive training front and center. In fact, across the globe, countries report increased longevity, combined with decades-long decreased birth rates–a demographic duo challenging every company’s talent sustainability strategy. To offset the decreasing talent pipeline, leaders must pivot policies, procedures and workplace culture to facilitate the new whole-life career model to benefit from the longevity advantage.

Successfully navigating this change requires a multidimensional approach focusing, in part, on embracing the whole life career and longevity mindset by addressing and rejecting ageism as a social construct. Because recruiting and retaining skilled talent is becoming increasingly competitive, companies must look at the policies and processes preventing them from drawing from older workers to fill their skill needs.

Until then, lawsuits like class action that hit RTX, formerly known as Raytheon, will likely become more common. According to the June 2024 filing, Raytheon has routinely rejected and deterred job candidates aged 40 and older while giving preference to recent college grads. The pros and cons of addressing ageism in DEI strategy may be moot given the political climate, but ignoring workplace ageism altogether is not a sustainable business strategy.