The Prevalence of Persistent Age Bias amongFuture Business Leaders

Aged 29-49 and the Effectiveness of Providing Prevailing Research Information that Challenges

Some Older Worker Stereotypes

By

Eveline H. Zacharowitz-Brownstein

CAPSTONE PROJECT

Submitted in partial fulfillment of

the requirements

for the degree of

Master of Science in Human Resources

Management

Thomas Edison State College

December 2014

Project Time Line

Collection of responses - approximately twelve weeks

Data collection began the week of October 14, 2014

Data collection concluded on November 21, 2014

Funding Status

No funding

Costs associated with study borne by researcher

Purpose of the Research

To identify:

If younger managers harbor age bias (prevalence);

The forms of age bias they harbor (stereotypes); and,

To what degree (persistence) they harbor them

To learn:

If providing accurate research information, intended to counteract age bias, can be effective when it occurs prior to the hiring manager making a hiring decision

Significance of the Research

Whether or not bias training of managers is helpful in reducing age-related hiring bias

Prevailing Research

There are stereotypes associated with age that contribute to hiring bias in favor of younger workers

There is little management discourse addressing the imbalance

Younger managers might avoid hiring older workers, because they do not know how to manage them (P. Capelli, 2010.)

Prevailing Research,

cont.

Unsubstantiated age bias stereotypes that current literature suggests exists:

Shorter career potential

Lack energy

Higher salary and benefits costs

Health risks

Less flexibility and adaptability

Knowledge and skills obsolescence

Block career paths of younger workers

Suspicion about competence

Fear of discrimination lawsuits from protected older workers

(J. Lahey, 2005)

Experimental Design and Procedure

People responsible for making hiring decisions randomly assigned to a control and an experimental group and asked to make a hypothetical hiring decision with, or without, equity norming statements

Methodology

All study materials were provided to the participants online, via a survey website at www.SurveyMonkey.com

Participants asked to make a hypothetical hiring decision between a younger (31) and older (52) candidate with same resume information for each

The experiment consisted of a 2 (Equity Norming Statements Experimental Group vs. No Equity Norming Statements Control Group) x 2 (Young vs. Old job applicant) x 1 (Age of participant) between-participants design

Participants

Varied pool of volunteer participants

Forty-two (42) adults

Age, occupation, and HR background collected

Random assignment to either: o Equity Norms Experimental Group (received equity norming

statements)

o No Equity Norms Control Group (did not receive equity norming statements)

Groups

Target Age Group (29-49): 13

Age 50+: 24

Randomly assigned to one of:Equity Norms Experimental Group

Target Age Group: 7 participantsAge 50+: 8 participants

o Research information provided that older age and experience are not a disadvantage in hiring

o Statements embedded among other statements regarding value of a diverse workforce and advantages of diverse work teams

o Reminded of federal laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of age, disability, national origin, race, religion or gender

No Equity Norms Control Group

Target Age Group: 6 participantsAge 50+: 16 participants

o Did not receive any equity norming manipulation statements of any type before engaging in the hypothetical hiring process

Materials

Both groups presented with:

Descriptions of a company and management position

Extracted information from a complete job application

oMale applicant’s personal background

oAge as either 31 or 52

oRecommender descriptions with one of four counterbalanced descriptions, containing four positive (e.g., “Excellent capacity to quickly grasp new theories”) and three somewhat negative (e.g., “Disorganization sometimes hinders productivity”) phrases

(Materials used courtesy of N.M. Lindner, A. Graser, & B.A. Nosek, 2014, modified for pertinent study)

Survey

After hiring decision, participants asked to self-report on importance of each of several randomly ordered factors in decision to hire the applicant

7-point Likert Scale design (1 = Not at all important, 7 = Extremely important)

Decision Factors:

o Expertise

o Career Longevity Potential (Age Factor)

o Educational Background

o Energy (Age Factor)

o Marital Status (Age Factor)

o Work Experience (Age Factor)

o Parental Status (Age Factor)

o Creativity

o Flexibility (Age Factor)

o Interpersonal Skills

o Age (Age Factor)

o Dependability and Productivity

o Leadership Skills

Findings

Equity Norms Condition

Age 50+: Favored younger candidate

Target Age Group: Slightly less favored peers, but not more favorable to older candidate

No Equity Norms Condition

Age 50+: No visible difference between both candidates

Target Age Group: No visible difference between both candidates

Discussion

Age bias in hiring appears not to be the exclusive practice of younger managers, but as supported by both this research and prior research, is apparent among managers of all ages

Younger managers do harbor age bias

Neither protective legislation, nor training in equity norming appear to have the desired results of reducing age bias (as evidenced in numerous studies)

Both younger and older managers agree on the importance of creativity, flexibility, interpersonal skills and leadership skills

Recommendations

Train hiring mangers to:

Broadly hire to increase the prevalence of creativity, flexibility, interpersonal skills and leadership skills (skills appreciated among managers of all ages) across their organizations without a focus on age

Do not focus training on making hiring managers aware of their own biases (it does not have the desired effect)

Do not focus training on equity norming (though they do need to be aware of legislative requirements)

Limitations

Size of sample in all age groups

No statistical measures (a qualitative study)

Differences in responses when the job applicant candidate is in a different legally protected group (e.g. gender or race)

Suggestions for Further Research

Participants’ motivations for their choices

Is there a fear of hiring protected classes due to litigation concerns?

Discovering other skill areas common among hiring managers of all age groups upon which to build hiring manager training that does not focus specifically on training to reduce bias or focus on protected groups

References

Americans with Disabilities Act (1990). Retrieved from http://www.ada.gov/2010_regs.htm

AonHewitt. (2011). 2011 Health care survey. New paths, new approaches. Consulting Health

and Benefits. Retrieved from http://img.en25.com/Web/AON/Aon%20Hewitt%20Health%20Care_Survey_2011_Final%5B1%5D.pdf

Bendick M. (2007). Situation Testing for Employment Discrimination in the United States of

America, Horizons stratégiques 3 (n 5), p. 17-39. Retrieved from: www.cairn.info/revue-horizons-strategiques-2007-3-page-17.htm

Bendick, M., Brown, E. and Kennington, W. (1999). No foot in the door: an experimental study

of employment discrimination against older workers. Journal of Aging & Social Policy. Vol. 10, Iss. 4,

Bendick, M., Jackson, C. W., & Romero, J. H. (1996). Employment discrimination against older

workers: An experimental study of hiring practices. Journal of Aging & Social Policy, 8 (4), 25-46

Capelli, P. (October 11, 2010.) Older workers and the job market. Human Resource Executive

Online. Talent Management Column. Retrieved from: http://www.hreonline.com/HRE/view/story.jhtml?id=533322956

References, cont.

Center for Disease Control (July 2012) Older Employees in the Workplace. Issue Brief No. 1.

Retrieved from: http://www.cdc.gov/nationalhealthyworksite/docs/Issue_Brief_No_1_Older_Employees_in_the_Workplace_7-12-2012_FINAL%28508%29.pdf

Civil Rights Act of 1964. (2009). Civil Rights Act of 1964, 1. Retrieved from EBSCO host

Finstad, K. (May, 2010). Response interpolation and scale sensitivity: Evidence against 5-Point

scales. Journal of Useability Studies. 5 (3), pp. 104-110. Retrieved on November 15, 2014 from: http://uxpajournal.org/wp-content/uploads/pdf/JUS_Finstad_May_2010.pdf

Harcourt, M., Wood, G., & Wilkinson, A. (2008). Age discrimination and working Life

perspectives and contestations - A review of the contemporary literature. International Journal of Management Reviews, 10, 425-442. Retrieved July 28, 2014, from http://eds.b.ebscohost.com/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=094147c8-5c84-473a-af1c-71b688cc693a%40sessionmgr115&vid=3&hid=102

Hipple, S. & Sok, E. (September 2013). Tenure of American Workers. Bureau of Statistics: Spotlight on

Statistics. Retrieved from: http://www.bls.gov/spotlight/2013/tenure/

Lahey, J. (2005).Do older workers face discrimination? Center for Retirement Research at

Boston College. Retrieved on August 9, 2014 from: http://crr.bc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2005/07/ib_5-33_508x.pdf

References, cont.

Lindner, N. M., Graser, A., & Nosek, B. A. (2014). Age-Based Hiring Discrimination as a

Function of Equity Norms and Self-Perceived Objectivity. Plos ONE, 9(1), 1-6. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0084752

Moore, K (Producer) & Brockman, R. (Editor). (July 23, 2014) The aging workforce and age discrimination (Video). Academy of Management. USA: McGill NCS Multimedia

Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.Office of the Vice President for Research (n.d.). Forms. University of South Carolina: Office of Research Compliance. Retrieved from: http://orc.research.sc.edu/PDF/debriefing_template.pdf

Ory, M., Hoffman, M. K., Sanner, B., & Mockenhaupt, R. (2003). Challenging aging stereotypes: Strategies for creating a more active society. American Journal of Preventative Medicine, 25, pp. 164-171.

Perrin, T. (2005).The Business Case for Workers Age 50+: Planning for Tomorrow’s Talent Needs in Today’s Competitive Environment. Washington: AARP

Rainville, G. (May, 2009). AARP bulletin survey on employment status of the 45+ population:AARP Research: AARP Knowledge Management. Retrieved on August 9, 2014, from: http://www.aarp.org/work/work-life/info-05-2009/bulletin_jobs_09.html

Rix, S. (2011). AARP. Employment and Aging. Handbook of Aging and the Social Sciences.Social Factors and Social Institutions. Washington, DC: Elsevier Inc.

References, cont.

Rones, P., Ig, R. and Gardner, J. (April 1997). Hours of work since the mid-70s. Bureau of Labor Statistics Monthly Labor Review. Retrieved from: http://www.bls.gov/OPUB/MLR/1997/04/art1full.pdf

Segrave, K. (2001). Age discrimination by employers. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company,Inc.

Sedensky, M. (January 4, 2014). Are older workers taking jobs from younger workers? USA Today. Retrieved from: http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/01/04/will-surge-of-older-workers-take-jobs-from-young/4305187/

Schaie, K.W. (1996). Intellectual development in adulthood: The Seattle Longitudinal StudyNew York: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1474018/

Singer, T., Verhaeghen, P., Ghisletta, P., Lindenberger, U. & Baltes, P. B. (2003). The fate of cognition in very old age: six-year longitudinal findings in the Berlin Aging Study (BASE). Psychology and Aging, 18, 318-31.

Surveymonkey.com (n.d.). Consent Form. Retrieved from: https://www.surveymonkey.com/consent

The HR Specialist (2012). Use consistent hiring, firing processes to knock down agediscrimination claims. HR Specialist: New York Employment Law, 7(2), 2, retrieved from: http://www.businessmanagementdaily.com/29524/use-consistent-hiring-firing-processes-to-knock-down-age-discrimination-claims

References, cont.

U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, www.eeoc.gov. Shaffer, D. and Williamson, G. Ageing and cognitive functioning. Cambridge Handbook of

Psychology, Health and Medicine. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press Retrieved from: http://search.credoreference.com/content/entry/cupphm/age_and_cognitive_functioning/0

Wang, M, Olson, D. and Shultz, K. (2012). Mid and Late Career Issues: An Integrative Perspective. Florence, KY: Routledge Taylor and Francis Group

Wood, G., Wilkinson, A., & Harcourt, M. (2008). Age discrimination and working life:Perspectives and contestations – a review of the contemporary literature. International Journal of Management Reviews, 10(4), 425. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2370.2008.00236.x