Marketing to older demographics is a disgrace to the profession

If you think this is how to appeal to mature consumers, you need to grow up.
 A lot.

By Neil Patrick


Many marketers view older demographics with scarcely disguised distain and patronise them with naive assumptions about who they are and how they live their lives.  The over 40's are a high value and discriminating (in a positive sense) target market, yet brands and marketers regularly fumble their marketing to them. Why?

At the time of the 2011 Census, the median age for the population of England and Wales was 39 years. 27% was aged 40 to 59 years, and 22% was aged 60 years and over. In other words, almost half (49%) of the UK population is aged 40 or over.

Not only that, all the data tells us that people aged 40 plus have greater wealth and disposable income than younger people. The over forties are the most valuable age demographic in the UK today.

No business with any sense would want to alienate its highest potential market segment. So how can such an illogical situation be explained?

I think the explanation is actually very simple. It’s because people in marketing and advertising are generally under 40 themselves. They see the world through a lens which reflects their own likes and dislikes. They simply cannot empathise with those who are older than they are.

Empathy is the cousin of understanding. And without understanding, communication is always going to be difficult.

In their defence, I was no different. When I was 16, anyone over 30 was really old. When I was 30, a 60 year old seemed positively geriatric.

But ageist hiring begets ageist marketing, so the origins are not so much the fault of marketing teams themselves, but rather those who decide who is on those teams.

It’s unconscious bias at its worst. It results in stereotyping and discrimination – something which the young are especially keen to call out - but only it seems when it’s about gender, sexuality or ethnicity.

Brands which either appeal only to the young and/or alienate the mature are setting themselves up as hostages to fortune if they choose to stake everything on the fast-changing and transitory loyalties of the young.

It just doesn’t make commercial sense to target only young people when older demographics are higher spending and less fickle. Chuck Shroeder, a former director at ad giant DDB and now 71 said:

“Advertisers assume that the “old” people of today are some monolithic group of codgers who don’t know anything. Product managers are all young and they don’t want advice from people who could be their grandparents. They have the same attitude I had when I was 30, largely based on hubris and youthful lack of experience. They don’t grasp that they could sell more product if they actually talked to the people who have the money.”

Asked to give examples of ageist ads, he said:

“I nominate the Esurance commercial with the elderly lady who is bragging to her friends that she saves time by posting her vacation photos on her “wall” rather than mailing them. We see her living room wall with pictures stuck on it. Funny eh? It implies that we old folks know nothing about Facebook, even though Facebook has more users over 50 than under.”

Last week I observed a brand in action which would convince any young marketer to rethink their entire preconception of older demographics. But guess what, there were no young people there to witness this live case study of brand loyalty in action.

This is a brand which has endured 50 years of highs and lows, drug and alcohol traumas, fickle fashion changes and more.

I went to see hard rock band UFO play a sold out concert in Cardiff. This band was founded in 1969 and it has been touring constantly ever since. Founder and vocalist Phil Mogg will be 71 this year. The concert hall was packed with men almost none of whom were less than 40 years old. And whilst they didn’t have a mosh pit, they were jumping and singing along just like any audience of on-trend hipsters. This was no chamber music or smooth jazz. It was a loud and sweaty rock spectacular:

This was brand loyalty by the over 40s in plain sight. This tour is sold out nationwide. It’s the very real, cash-till ringing manifestation of 50 years of customer loyalty and spending. And a wake up call to everyone in marketing who thinks older men spend their time and money on gardening and golf. Or hula hooping...

Wake up and smell the coffee kids.

P.S. I learned with great sadness that a few days after this gig, Paul Raymond, seen above on keyboards passed away unexpectedly following a heart attack. As a more or less permanent member of UFO, he will be greatly missed. My condolences go to his friends and family.

Are we getting too fixated about the gender pay gap?

Can you spot the missing person here?

By Neil Patrick

Pick up any mainstream media today and you’ll likely find another article about the gender pay gap. Media interest has been stirred up again because we have now passed the deadline for gender pay gap reporting to the government by employers. Many firms’ gender pay gaps are being brought into embarrassingly sharp focus and whether they can be justified or not is largely irrelevant; if you’re out of kilter, it’s going to ensure egg on faces and corporate embarrassment at the very least.

Just this week, the UK headlines included the news that the BBC’s twelve most highly paid presenters were all men. This ranked as less of an important story than the football (which I choose not to interpret as a sexist fact, but I’ll take your counsel on that). It was widely reported nonetheless. The BBC is conceding that they have got it wrong and are protesting that they are doing everything possible to remedy it. Not a great piece of PR for the BBC, but it demonstrates that rectifying this particular injustice is a concern for them.

While pay disparities by gender are being endlessly wrangled about, another legally protected characteristic is virtually ignored. I am not taking about sexuality, ethnicity or religion all of which are also protected characteristics and benefit from staunch lobbying and widespread public support.

I’m talking about age. Age is also a legally protected characteristic. Yet ageism is the last of the ‘isms’ to remain socially acceptable. For some reason there is little equality amongst ‘isms’.

Yet I’d argue that age is the most important of all the legally protected characteristics. Age is the most important characteristic because unlike gender, ethnicity, sexuality or religion, it applies to 100% of people all of the time.

Age and experience generally confer more not less skill and competence. Research has consistently shown that older employees are more reliable, more conscientious, better communicators and even more creative than their younger counterparts. And contrary to common myth, they are also less absent. While I’ve not found data proving that boozy late nights tend to diminish with age and maturity, I do have a lot of empirical evidence pointing to this as fact.

So something is just wrong when age discrimination goes unchallenged. It’s illogical.

Ageism manifests particularly in the area of recruitment and hiring. Whilst it is illegal to specify age as a requirement, it’s so easy to fudge that it happens almost universally.

Ageism in the workplace involves equality of opportunity being denied to millions of people. And in the west, where we have generally ageing populations, many compelled by their financial circumstances to work into their 70s, this economic exclusion is punishing people of all genders, ethnicities, sexualities and religions. It is also making older people more of a burden on everyone else, because they contribute less to the economy and society than they would otherwise do.

So why is so little attention paid to this and why is neither the law nor public anger mitigating against this greatest of all injustices?

The age and pay differentials are starkly different when we compare public and private sectors. First, the public sector pays significantly higher than the private sector at all ages except for a small age cohort between 40 and 50. In the private sector, pay peaks at around 45 years of age and declines steadily thereafter. In the public sector, pay is almost flat from the age of about 32 right through until 60:

So the public sector, which of course contains all those people who are responsible for the setting and enforcement of rules and retributions for infringements of regulation and law, experience little negative impact of pay discrimination by age. Meanwhile in the private sector, it’s a free for all.

This aggregate data conceals the fact that older workers below the highest positions in the private sector are earning much less than the chart suggests. That’s because their age cohort also contains senior people in organisations at the very highest levels of pay. These people may not be numerous but their exceptionally high levels of reward obscure the modal experience, by making the average pay for their age group much higher than it would otherwise be.

Ageism also compounds the gender pay gap. Whilst the gender pay gap has been steadily falling in aggregate, older women are especially disadvantaged. Ageism is punishing women more than men.

Prof Malcolm Brynin found in the 2017 study for the Equality and Human Rights Commission that:

“The pay gap widens with age: older women experience a larger pay gap compared with their male peers than younger women with their male peers. This is primarily because women are more likely than men to take time out of the labour market to care for children. This may slow career development. The statistical analysis found that women's shorter job tenure, a likely consequence of starting a family, is a factor driving the pay gap.

While younger married women earn more than unmarried women, this advantage reverses with age. From their 40s onwards, married women experience a pay disadvantage compared to unmarried women. This is likely to be linked with childrearing: the analysis found that having a child increases the pay gap considerably for women. Married men, by contrast, earn substantially more than unmarried men in all age groups. The ‘wage penalty’ for child-rearing, as a proportion of women’s pay, has increased slightly over time. However, as with the gender pay gap generally, the pay gap between men and women with children has also declined over time.”

The prevailing mainstream media narratives are obscuring the real injustices around work and pay and are not fit for purpose in the 21st century. Ideas such as a patriarchy bent on the economic exploitation of women by men might have been credible 30 or 40 years ago. But today they are past their sell by date. If we look at the data instead of the news headlines, this fact is in plain sight.

Applying the patriarchy conspiracy theory narrative to gender alone creates an illusion of social justice. The real injustices are not defined purely by gender. They are rather the unchecked growth in income inequality across all genders. The persistence of a mythology about youth trumping age and experience. The debt burdens placed on the young to secure university educations that deliver worthwhile careers to ever fewer of their number. And the unwillingness of corporations to invest in people at all stages of their working lives.

None of these structural failures of fairness in the world of work have anything to do with gender. They punish everyone more or less equally regardless of gender, ethnicity, religion or sexuality.

If you want to make a difference and lessen the injustices in the world, don’t default to the #MeToo bandwagon. There is a much bigger and more damaging discrimination going unchallenged. It’s ageism and it unites everyone, because everyone is or will be a victim sooner or later.

What drives employers’ attitudes to employee age?

By Neil Patrick

Age related behaviours in organisations are not random. They are determined by measureable factors and here’s what they are.

When we are early in our careers, we seek an employer that will support our career progression goals. When we are older, we want our age and experience to be duly valued and utilised. For all of us, knowing which employers have the most enlightened attitudes and policies in relation to their employees’ age is valuable.

The young grumble that employers don’t invest enough in their career development. That they cannot become experienced if they aren’t given opportunities to prove themselves and grow. The old complain their skills and experience are disregarded. That they are overlooked in favour of younger candidates.

Are employers' attitudes to age set in stone?

These are heated debates which often revolve around opinion and anecdote. Neither are very helpful in establishing what’s really going on. So I recently turned to the world of academic research to try and get some hard facts.

I wanted to know what information existed about the behaviour of different employment sectors in this respect. Could these things be measured? And if so, what can we discover about the different behaviours of different employment sectors?

This topic is now important to employers. Not because of a sudden growth in organisational empathy, but for the simple fact that demographic shifts are compelling organisations to recognise and respond to an aging workforce, which risks the loss of key skills and knowledge unless they can adapt to these changes.

But many employers are struggling with this

From an employers’ perspective, it is clear that many are struggling to adopt effective strategies to cope with current demographic shifts. According to Deloitte and the Boston College Center on Aging and Work, almost 6 in 10 businesses report that they have a weakness in creating and managing age diversity programs for their workforces:

“Among global business and HR leaders, 58% reported that their organizations have 'weak' capabilities in 'providing programs for younger, older, and multi-generation workforces’"

Source: Global human capital trends 2014: Engaging the 21st-century workforce. Deloitte University Press.

Do different employment sectors have different attitudes?

Yes and the good news is that age-related behaviours across different sectors can be measured. And when we measure it, we find that different sectors are behaving differently.

In this post I have distilled some of the findings of an academic study titled: “Looking up to regulations, out at peers or down at the bottom line: How institutional logics affect the prevalence of age-related HR practices”.

A couple of weeks ago I was delighted to hook up with one of the authors* of the study, Monique Valcour, Executive Coach, Faculty Affiliate at the Third Path Institute and Professor of Management at EDHEC Business School in Nice.  Monique is also a contributor the Harvard Business Review. She has also been kind enough to review and edit this post with her expert insights. Thank you Monique!

What was the scope of the study?

The paper looked at the aging workforce in the US and which business sectors are doing the most to progress their HR practices to respond to the changing demographics. As the baby boomers steadily exit the workforce, this places an imperative on organisations to respond.

Apart from the demographic shift, the recession has forced many organisations to become ultra-lean versions of their previous selves, making them more vulnerable to the loss of key skills and intellectual capital as the most experienced employees retire from organisations.

The research sampled 420 organisations in the USA with an average of 455 employees.

What factors determine employers’ HR practices related to employees’ age?

The research postulated that employee age-related policies, attitudes, behaviours and HR practices are determined by the presence or absence of three main “organisational logics”. These are the beliefs and assumptions that drive the way an organisation’s leaders interpret information and make decisions related to workforce aging and age diversity. These categories are not mutually exclusive - multiple organisational logics can coexist within a single organisation.

The three organisational logics identified in the study were:

1. A strategic logic exists in organisations that are focused on the financial impact (e.g., ROI, staffing costs) of HR issues and management practices
2. A benchmarking logic exists in organisations that seek to emulate peers in their sector, for example, by benchmarking their competitors’ practices and seeking awards that are recognized within their industry.
3. A compliance logic exists in organisations that are focused on adherence to legal obligations, such as those relating to non-discrimination and to safety.

Takeout: Like people, organisations often behave according to overall sets of assumptions and beliefs that affect what information they pay attention to and how they respond to the information they take in.

What did the research find?

Organisations are more likely to actively assess the age demographics of their workforce when they are focused on benchmarking competitors and/or on regulatory compliance. These two logics also tend to be reflected in HR practices targeted at older workers (like transferring knowledge from older to younger employees and providing options for phased retirement).

Organisations are more likely to use age-neutral HR practices, such as recruiting and promoting employees of diverse ages, when they have a strong strategic and/or benchmarking logic.

Which sectors are most likely to assess age so that they can respond to shifting demographics?

The research found little difference across sectors, except that organisations in the mining and oil and gas sector are more likely to use age-neutral HR practices, while organisations in the arts, entertainment and recreation sector are less likely to actively assess the age demographics of their workforces or to use age-targeted or age-neutral HR practices.

Which sectors are most likely to respond to the practices of their peers in relation to employee age?

The financial and STEM sectors were slightly more likely to adjust their behaviours and decisions with external references to their peers, while the health care and social assistance sectors were slightly less likely to make use of this benchmarking logic.

What this tells us

There are two elements in organisational behaviour required to create an effective response to the ageing workforce. First is the gathering and interpretation of relevant data. Second is the conversion of this data into HR policies, procedures and practices which contribute to addressing the problem.

This research proved that a correlation exists between these three organisational logics and behaviours which contribute to positive practices with regard to employee age. In other words, the greater an employer’s focus on strategy, benchmarking and/or compliance, they more likely they are to measure employee demographics and attempt to respond to the changes with positive practices to protect their future human resource.

The inverse is also implied – if an employer pays scant attention to strategy, benchmarking and/or compliance, they are less likely to have adopted positive practices for managing the demographic aspects of their workforce.

If you are seeking an employer with the most progressive attitudes and positive practices relating to employee age, don’t rely on hearsay or anecdote, but instead consider the presence or absence of these three organisational logics. It’s not a guarantee, but it is a statistically proven indicator.

*The full list of contributing authors was:

Ariane Ollier-Malaterre Rouen Business School, France (now at the Université du Québec à Montréal)

Tay McNamara Sloan Center on Aging & Work, Boston College, USA

Christina Matz-Costa Graduate School of Social Work, Boston College, USA

Marcie Pitt-Catsouphes Graduate School of Social Work, Boston College, USA

Monique Valcour EDHEC Business School, France

The unemployed - they are absolutely not who you think

By Neil Patrick

The whole reason that I started this blog was vindicated for me this week in just one paragraph by my good friend, Twitter star and fellow blogger Andrew Ginsburg (Twitter @GinsburgJobs) within an email he sent me. Here’s an excerpt:

“I was recently at a birthday party and realized almost all of the men were unemployed. I am the youngest of all of them, but most are Harvard Law or Business School grads, even a friend who I grew up with who has been a very successful investment banker in New York for the last 30 years was laid off last year. He has the luxury of having tens of millions of dollars in the bank so he can seek out a different path. Most of us don’t have that. Even another friend, who went to Harvard undergrad and Business school said that many of his colleagues have been let go.”

This single paragraph would be unthinkable even a just a few years ago. People who have worked hard for decades and achieved professional success in their chosen careers are today facing unemployment in their hundreds of thousands. 

This situation isn’t because of the recession. It’s not going to suddenly get ‘better’ if and when our economies improve. Economists call this “structural unemployment”, and Wikipedia defines it thus:

“Structural unemployment is a form of unemployment where, at a given wage, the quantity of labor supplied exceeds the quantity of labor demanded, because there is a fundamental mismatch between the number of people who want to work and the number of jobs that are available.”

Most of us never think about types of unemployment. If you have a job, or work for yourself, you are considered to be employed. If you don’t, you are either retired, in education or unemployed. But today, structural unemployment is devastating the group that is popularly considered the most over-privileged in the world – white, middle-aged, middle class men.

I can almost hear the heckling of the young, working class and under-privileged now saying “Haha! Welcome to our world suckers! You created this mess, so now you can suffer with the rest of us”.

Such twisted triumphalism gets us nowhere. Those who’ve played by the rules they were given, worked hard and contributed the most to society (not to mention the government’s coffers) deserve neither condemnation nor vilification.

And letting them rot on the scrap heap is the worst thing we can let happen. If there is any long-term solution to reigniting economic growth in the US and Europe it won’t be based on low skill jobs and even lower wages. If there is economic salvation available, it will be because we are able to out-perform the rest of the world in our creativity, competitiveness, innovation, entrepreneurialism and critically, our ability to evolve and lead in what Jeremy Rifkin calls “The Third Industrial Revolution”.

Anarchy, revolution or class war won’t deliver any prospect of this. Neither will groupthink or any amount of youthful enthusiasm. But re-engaging the experience, maturity and brainpower of those greying guys on the scrapheap just might, if we ask them nicely (and provided they learn how to function in the digital age).

Who employs older workers?

By Neil Patrick

There are always plenty of opinions floating around about which types of business employ younger people and whether or not this is fair or even sensible. I have expressed my own views on this often enough on this and other blogs.

Today though I opted for a different tack. I thought I’d run some numbers and see what they revealed.

This was by no means an exhaustive study, but I was amazed by what I found.

I expected there to be few discernible patterns and yet I found quite the opposite. This quick dip into the numbers showed conclusively that there is a huge variation across business sectors when it comes to the age of their staff.

My method was simple enough. I just took the average age of employee as recorded in the Sunday Times top 50 best UK companies to work for as reported for 2014.

To calculate a simple benchmark, assuming a normal distribution curve based on an age range of 18 years to 65 years old, the mean age of employees should be 41 years. Higher than this means the workforce is older; and vice versa.

Now of course this assumes also that the available workers for each age group are the same, which of course, they are not. The baby boomers for example created a significant swelling of their age group as a proportion of the total population. So my purely mathematical average cannot be taken as wholly accurate – just a rough approximation.

Meet the new boss...

I simply wanted to discover which, if any sectors had demonstrably older workers and which ones had younger workers.

Since the average age of employee is not a significant factor in the Sunday times’ ranking, we can take this as a more or less randomised sample of the age profiles of people working in UK businesses today.

Moreover, every one of these firms has been assessed to be well liked by their employees, so they also represent some of our best employers.

So based on this data, here is the average age of employee at the top 50’s best UK firms to work for which I have re-ranked by oldest average age of employee to youngest (the original list rank is also shown in the first column):

N.b. I am not suggesting that my re-ranking makes any of these companies more or less ageist. There are plenty of perfectly valid and legitimate reasons why a company might have an older or younger age profile within its workforce.

What I was interested in was to see if there were any patterns when I re-ranked the list - and there certainly are.

The two firms ranking first and second are both from the same sector – contract catering.

Three of my list’s top 10 are from the pharmaceutical/medical sectors.

On the other hand, four of the five firms at the youngest end of this list were from two sectors – recruitment and financial services.

This list reveals other facts too. First the range of average ages 45 at oldest to 21 at youngest, reveals a huge range of age profiles across the sample firms – clearly if you are only in your early forties, you are already well past the average age of the majority of sectors’ employees.

Second, taking the approximate average age we’d expect to see – c.41 years - only 6 firms (12% of the list) had an average age that was older than this.

To sum it up, if you are over 40 and looking for work, contract catering looks like your best bet unless you have experience from the pharmaceutical sector…

What’s the real cost of ageism?

 By Neil Patrick and Dean Goranson

The debate about the relationship between employee age and business performance has been going on for ever. But the recent economic turmoil and its after effects on young and old alike have resulted in the topic surfacing again. It’s time to ditch the prejudices.

Employer attitudes can be summarised as:

Younger workers are cheaper to hire, have more up-to-date skills – especially in the area of technology and have more energy and dynamism. They also have lower reliability and significantly less loyalty.

Older workers stick around for much longer than their younger peers. They attain greater mastery of their work and have higher interpersonal skills. But they are also more expensive, less energetic and struggle with today’s technology.

This simplified view distorts the real question. There is no simple correlation between employee age and business performance. Having an older or younger workforce doesn’t automatically make your business perform better or worse. Neither does providing a great working environment result in greater staff loyalty.

The surprising truths about age and employee retention

According to the PayScale report, the Fortune 500 company with the highest median employee tenure (20 years) is Eastman Kodak. More than half of its employees are older than 50. Over the five years through 2012, according to data compiled by Bloomberg, it delivered an average return on assets of negative 12%...

Another myth is that creating a great working environment and culture for staff increases loyalty.

The perks Google lays on for its youthful employees are the stuff of legend. Free gourmet food all day, the best health insurance plan anywhere, five months' paid maternity leave, kindergartens and gyms at the workplace, the freedom to work on one's own projects 20 percent of the time, even death benefits. The tech behemoth has topped Fortune Magazine's list of best companies to work for every year since 2007.

Despite this, Google ranks amongst those with the highest employee turnover rates. The median employee tenure at Google is just over one year, according to the payroll consultancy PayScale.

The simple truths are staring us in the face

So what are businesses to do? If you hire younger people, you are burdened with higher turnover rates. If your workforce is older, you risk stagnation and loss of competitive edge.

A friend of mine, Dean Goranson has provided a valuable perspective which I provide below. It’s a simple tale about his experiences when seeking to get his watch strap repaired.

Here’s Dean’s tale:

A while back I had somehow managed to break the watch band on my high end wrist watch. I finally got tired of running around with it in my pocket, so one day I decided to go down to the mall and check out the jewellery stores to either get it fixed or replaced.

The first store I stopped in, I showed the young lady my watch. She took it to her manager. He asked if I had purchased the watch in their store. I said , ”No”. He replied, "I'm sorry it's the store’s policy to only work on Items we sell from here." I then asked, "Isn't that the style of watch you have in your display case?" "Well yes" was this young man’s reply "but we don't service anything we haven't sold. Perhaps you should try that watch band kiosk across from us." This young manager who must of been well on the south side of thirty was definite in his conviction of his being right. Consumer experience was nowhere to be found on his radar screen. So off to the kiosk to see if I would have any better luck there.

The experience with the young lady who also appeared to be well on the south side of thirty turned out to be quite similar to the first store I had stopped at. I asked if she thought she could fix my watch band. "No, I'm afraid I can't. We only sell watch bands and put them on for the customer and I don't have anything that nice. I have an imitation leather if you want me to put that on for you?" I declined and bid her adieu. I really started to feel like this was becoming a quest by this point with no easy answers, yet on I trudged to the next jewellery store.

At the third store I was confronted by another well under thirty something young fella. I showed him the watch and asked if they could fix it "Let me get my manager." The manager is summoned. Another under 30 something, he takes a look at the watch and say's "Let’s see what my jeweller can do with this." so over to the jewellers station we go he looks at it and say's " I'm not going to be able to fix this band." the manager then asks " Do we have any watch bands in the store to replace this?' They look and no can do. "Well, I guess we'll need to call home office to order a replacement."

The manager asked the jeweller to call home office for the order, the jeweller came back and said he couldn't get home office on the phone. The manager then asked, "Let me get your phone number and I will call you as soon as I find out something." At least this young manager was trying to make my experience worthwhile but his operation was in such a state of chaos that he couldn't make it happen. So off I went disappointed and frustrated.

By now I was a bit dejected at not being able to either get my watch band fixed or replaced. 

Walking past the fourth jewellery store, I happened to look in and behind the counter were a couple of ladies. They were well up in age - the grey hair, the glasses and thick figures. I thought to myself what the heck, let’s see if they have any ideas.

Into the store I go and ask these two women, "I've got a broken watch band is there anything you can do with it?" "Let me see it," the white haired gal asked. "We've only just started selling this brand of watch; you’ve had yours for a while haven't you?" "Yes I have." I could tell in her mind she was fussing over what her next move was going to be. "Let’s take this over to Bill and see what he has to say".

So over to Bill we go who turns out to be their manager. He too is older and greying. The lady explains the situation to him and asks what they could do to help me. Bill looks at me and says " Technically I'm not supposed to work on a watch we haven't sold to a customer, the upper management has the fear we will get sued by someone who claims we broke their stuff." “You wouldn't do something like that if I worked on your watch would you?" I said "It's already broken, what have I got to lose."

Bill then asks," Where did your watch fit on your wrist before the band broke?" I showed him and he said "Let me try something." He took my watch over to another counter and came back in a couple of minutes and said "See if that fits over your hand?" My watch fits better now than it did before I broke the band. Bill even refused to charge for the repair.

A few weeks later it was a good friend’s birthday. And I bought her some diamond earrings. Did I shop around? No I just went straight back to Bill…

Horses for courses

Dean’s experience is not research data of course. It’s no more or less than a personal experience. But I am sure it is one that most of us can relate to and have probably shared.

In the effort to improve on profits, what ends up being missed is the consumer experience - the part which keeps the customer coming back for more and recommending the business to others. This hinges on those people the business owner has retained to be the company’s representatives to the public. The higher the quality service the customer receives, the better the results for the business.

As Dean’s story relates, the different levels of service received directly influenced his purchase behaviour now and probably for many years to come. An older employee might be well past the dynamic approach of their youth. But today, youthful distractions are behind them. They have the rich experience of what quality service and customer care really mean.

It seems to me that it’s time to forget the over-simplistic and pointless debate of young versus old. What we need is a simple recognition that age in and of itself is not the issue. Skills and attitudes are what matter. If you want to give your customers excellent service, there is a strong argument for hiring older people. And even if they are slightly more expensive, you’ll recover these costs in longer tenure and enhanced customer loyalty. If you need the sort of perspective that the young have and can afford to replace them frequently, then hire young people. But don’t expect there’s anything you can do to keep them for long.

Let’s not be trapped by the pointless argument about which is better. The key to getting the best business results is about understanding the distinct merits of young and old, making hiring decisions on the value of each and the requirements of the role regardless of the candidate’s age.

Is having a job really the best choice for you today?

By Neil Patrick

Last week I was sent the transcript of a soon to be published book about self- employment as a consultant and how to go about it successfully.

The author asked me if I’d be willing to review the book and provide my reaction to it in the form of an endorsement to be included in the final version when it goes to print.

I was surprised and flattered. Well I’m now reading the book and it’s great and after it’s published in a couple of weeks, I’ll be writing more about it here. But because the topic of the book was essentially self-employment for mature professionals, it got me thinking I really should revisit this topic on this blog.

I talk here a lot about jobs, and how to get them in these hyper-difficult economic conditions.

But there’s another option too of course - creating your own job.

Our generation has been taught to be a bit scared by this I think. We all know of someone who lost their entire life savings when their business went bust or failed to even get off the ground. And yes, the statistics for the failure of start-up businesses are still frightening.

But being self-employed doesn't automatically mean you must risk your savings and your financial future. Quite the opposite in fact.

Not if you choose to take the skills you have acquired over all those years of working and decide to sell them in small pieces to people that need them.

In fact if we accept that getting a job as an employee is now harder than ever, especially once you get past about 45, isn’t it more sensible to choose a life path where our age and experience is actually a benefit rather than a burden?

And here’s the truth: people want and need freelancers more than ever today.

The recession has made businesses really cautious about taking on extra employees. It’s obvious the reason this is happening - why take the commitment of having an extra head on the payroll, month in month out, at a time when costs need to be ruthlessly squashed, when you could get the job done by a contractor with absolutely no long-term obligations attached?

And people will pay top dollar for this too.

You see, the real question clients often face isn't can we afford to pay $500 or $1000 or $2000 a day for a contractor? The fact is that many, many businesses have now slashed their permanent full-time staff to the absolute bone. The moment anything happens (which of course it always does) which means they need some extra resource, they are stuck. Big time. They may also have hiring freezes which means they cannot hire any extra people.

So their problem cannot be solved by hiring new people. But it can be solved by finding skilled and reliable people outside the business to handle it for them. And suddenly if you are on their radar, and you have the skills and experience called for, you are in a strong position to negotiate a good rate. So let’s say they hire you for 6 weeks, 2 days a week, at $1,000 a day. Total cost $12,000 dollars. And their problem is gone.

And you are $12,000 better off in exchange for 12 days of your time. (Okay, I know that’s a gross simplification, but you’ll get the point I’m sure)

And your client’s headcount is still the same. You’re happy. They’re happy.

There’s another thing I like about this choice also. It’s kind of a philosophical point but it goes like this. Remember all those years of toil and torture to get things done for the people you worked for in the past? Sure you do. You’d just rather not think about them usually right?

But here’s the thing – all that sweat and tears taught us a lot. And that’s the point. We can view that as an investment in us. And whilst we may not have exactly enjoyed the process, it makes us what we are today. Which is mature, experienced people who have learned a great deal in our lives.

So what I like is the idea that indirectly, all that sweat and toil is now being rewarded back to us over and over again.

Somehow it feels like justice has been done!

Oh and if you still want to invest all your time in just hunting for a job, remember these realities:

For every great job out there, there are dozens of really soul-sucking, punishing and unrewarding jobs. Just remind yourself about:

1. The feelings of powerlessness experienced daily by millions of employees

2. The lack of job security that now exists for just about every employee

3. The frustrations of having to do what you are told, rather than what you are really best at

4. The requirement of every employer that you work to a rigid schedule like a machine

5. The crazy office politics that demotivate everyone

6. The lack of fulfillment you feel by doing things just because someone tells you you must

7. The increasingly rarity of pay rises when our costs of living continue to soar

8. The daily torture by bad bosses

9. The lack of appreciation shown for all your efforts

10. The fear of making a mistake which will lead to disciplinary action or possibly even being fired.

Let the young people who are less experienced than us have these jobs I say. They need work experience and they need to learn. We've already paid our dues.

Aren’t you infinitely smarter and more experienced and knowledgeable today than when you were 25 or 30? Of course you are. So why would you choose to even think about competing with those people?

Play to your strengths.

Why it’s never too late to embark on your true calling

By Neil Patrick

It’s a strange thing. As we age, we often see our opportunities narrowing not widening.

I say strange because as we go through life, we acquire more and more experience and skills, and logically therefore should see our options expanding not shrinking.

But so many of us are conditioned into thinking ourselves into a box. And if the box you are in just really isn't YOUR box, it gets kind of uncomfortable. And if you’re uncomfortable, you’ll never be capable of achieving your best work.

Here are some examples of well-known people who rejected those ideas and instead went after their true calling.

Some had found their path but hadn't attained any success... some were in a completely different career... some were on the verge of giving up or had given up. But as they matured, they found their true calling and never looked back.

Sylvester Stallone, deli counter attendant. After getting no career traction as an actor in his 20s, Stallone attacked his 30s like any 5'3 man should: He wrote a movie where he was an all-American hero who triumphed over every obstacle.

That movie was "Rocky"... he banged out the "Rocky" screenplay in three days, in between working at a deli counter and as a movie theater usher... and it launched his career with an Academy Award for Best Picture. 

Andrea Bocelli, lawyer. He'd loved music and singing his whole life... but didn't really see it as a career possibility. So, after school, he got a law degree at the University of Pisa. At age 30 he was working as a lawyer and moonlighting in a piano bar for fun and extra cash. He didn't catch a break as a singer until 1992, at age 34. 

Martha Stewart, stockbroker. When she was 30,Martha Stewart was a stockbroker, no doubt learning all about finance and the ‘ethics’ involved therein. Two years later she and her husband purchased a beat-down farmhouse in Connecticut... she led the restoration... transitioned into a domestic lifestyle... and grew that most innocent of things into her evil, evil career. 

Mao Tse-Tung, elementary school principal. In his 30’s, Mao was already involved in communism... he was a young star of the Chinese Communist Party... but didn't realize it could be a career. (Probably didn't see communism as being very lucrative...?)

Instead, he was working as the principal of an elementary school. Where, no doubt, hall passes were decadent. Four years later he started a communist group that eventually became the Red Army and put him in power.

JK Rowling, unemployed single mum. Seven years after graduating from university, Rowling saw herself as "the biggest failure I knew". Her marriage had failed, she was jobless with a dependent child, but she described her failure as liberating:

“Failure meant a stripping away of the inessential. I stopped pretending to myself that I was anything other than what I was, and began to direct all my energy to finishing the only work that mattered to me. Had I really succeeded at anything else, I might never have found the determination to succeed in the one area where I truly belonged. I was set free, because my greatest fear had been realized, and I was still alive, and I still had a daughter whom I adored, and I had an old typewriter, and a big idea. And so rock bottom became a solid foundation on which I rebuilt my life”.

During this period Rowling was diagnosed with clinical depression, and contemplated suicide. Rowling signed up for welfare benefits, describing her economic status as being "as poor as it is possible to be in modern Britain, without being homeless" 

Barack Obama, university lecturer. Obama taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School for twelve years, as a Lecturer for four years (1992–1996), and as a Senior Lecturer for eight years (1996–2004).In 2004, he was 43 years old. I’m not entirely sure what happened after that.

James Joyce, alcoholic. By 30, Joyce was writing... just not getting published. So to make ends meet he reviewed books, taught and, weirdly, made a lot of money thanks to his gorgeous tenor singing voice. He was also a raging alcoholic, which isn't financially lucrative until you become an author and can parlay those drunken antics into stories. Just ask Hemingway. Or James Frey.

Joyce finally got his first book, "Dubliners", published at age 32, which launched his career as, arguably, one of the most successful authors of all time. 

 
Colonel Sanders, tons of blue collar jobs. Well into his 40’s Harland Sanders was still switching from one random career choice to another: Steamboat pilot, insurance salesman, farmer, railroad fireman. He didn’t start cooking chicken until he was 40 and didn't start franchising until he was 65. 

Rodney Dangerfield, aluminium siding salesman. He started doing stand-up at age 19... then gave up on it in his mid-20s.. He started working as an acrobatic diver ... and then as an aluminium siding salesman. He didn't start getting back into comedy until he was 40. 

Harrison Ford, carpenter. When Ford was 30, he starred in "American Graffiti"... which was a huge hit. But he got paid a pittance for acting in it, decided he was never going to make it as an actor, and quit the business to get back into the more financially dependable world of construction.

Four years later, he met up with George Lucas again (Lucas had directed "Graffiti") and Lucas cast him as Han Solo in a movie called Star Wars.

So there you have it. A more or less random list of people who have shown us that by refusing to be kept in your box and allowing your innermost talents to come to the fore, that it’s never too late to start on your own path to greatness.

I guess the message for us all is, never let anyone tell you what you can or cannot do. Especially yourself.

New Zealand: Ageism is alive and kicking

By Raewyn Court

Ageism on the job and not enough cash to retire ... it's tough being a working senior

If you're in your golden years and don't think you have enough money saved for a comfortable retirement, you're in good company.

A study by recruitment firm OCG Consulting says only 6 per cent of New Zealand workers aged over 50 have sufficient savings for "financial security" and a "good lifestyle" in retirement.

OCG's report, Coming of Age: the impact of an ageing workforce on New Zealand business, shows the desperate financial situation of many older workers, as well as widespread workplace age discrimination.

The survey of 864 job-seekers and 56 senior business people highlights that by 2031, one million people will be of retirement age, yet six out of 10 workers over 50 today say their retirement savings are insufficient.

OCG chief executive George Brooks says the combination of financial necessity and frequent ageism is leading the country towards a socio-economic crisis as a generation of baby boomers prepare to retire.

"This is a human issue, a business issue and an economic issue," he says.

"It's not enough to say the market will sort it out because our analysis shows the market isn't, and these grim statistics need to be addressed."

The report shows that during the past five years, about 60 per cent of job seekers have seen or experienced age discrimination, including reduced access to promotion, less interesting jobs, lower remuneration and reduced training opportunities.

Brooks says that while similar surveys have shown a degree of discrimination, reports from employers and employees show ageism is more prevalent than realised.

Although close to half of employers agree that older workers are a largely untapped resource, few have strategies for ageing workforce participation.

Brooks says there needs to be a wider appreciation of the value older workers bring to businesses, including knowledge, experience, productivity and ability to handle a crisis.

"Financial need, coupled with ageism, is a very real economic, political and social problem," he says.

"It is individual firms and the workers they employ who make the decision to hire or not to hire an older worker. Solving this problem requires leadership and cultural change."

One company that rejects age discrimination is international beverages company, Frucor New Zealand.

"The age of an applicant, like their gender, is irrelevant," says managing director Mark Callaghan.

"By way of example, we have recently built a new distribution centre and wanted to improve the level of shift leaders.

"We made three hires - a man in his late 30s, a woman in her early 30s and a man in his 50s. What they had in common is that they were the best individuals for the job."

Callaghan believes there are many positive factors in employing an older person, such as experience, maturity, life balance and stability, as well as stickability.

"More mature workers tend to want to build a career with the organisation they are in. That is something we encourage at Frucor."

Half the senior employers surveyed in the OCG report cited negative factors in hiring an older person, including cost, lack of adaptability, health issues, IT illiteracy and lack of ambition.

Callaghan says these factors would be a concern - or at least things to consider - when hiring anyone, irrespective of their age.

"Lack of adaptability is not something that is exclusive to older people. Again, what is most important is the individual and their attitude."

This post originally appeared here:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11148248

RICHARD BRANSON: Hiring older workers is the right thing to do

Here's a interview with Richard Branson last year, in which he gives his views on the value of older workers. Given the association of the Virgin brand with youthful vigor, not to mention Branson's penchant for adrenaline stoked adventures, I think his views on this subject are worth repeating here. Apparently he plans to work until he is 90...

Q: What is your approach to hiring older workers? If you were looking for a position, how would you look to overcome the ageism barrier?

A: Thank you for your question! It is an appropriate time for me to address the issues of age and the workforce, as I turned 60 in July.

This year I ran my first marathon in just over five hours and tried to set a record as the oldest person to kite-surf across the English Channel (high winds forced me to abandon the attempt) - both tasks usually associated with younger people. And I'm not alone. These days, people are living much longer, active lives - so retiring at a young age is no longer necessary. If a person looks after himself with regular exercise and a good diet, there is no reason why he should not keep going well past 60.

I plan to work until I feel I'm no longer making a real contribution to Virgin. I see a good 30 years of work ahead. It's true that at 60 there are some tasks that suit me better than others, but I see few real limitations in my current role.

Richard Branson

In the UK, the government has recommended extending the age of retirement to 67, and many countries in the rest of Europe are contemplating similar legislation. It is not just governments, but company boards around the world that are facing the challenges of serving ageing populations.

So while it is true that some employers may have negative preconceptions about hiring older workers, they are only doing themselves a disservice. Entrepreneurs and managers who hope to succeed are taking a close look at older applicants.

There are real advantages to hiring these employees. Studies have shown that older workers may lower time-keeping and absentee issues ; they also tend to have higher levels of commitment to their jobs and loyalty to their employers, which reduces staff churn and helps reduce recruitment costs.

And there is a strong business case for companies to diversify the age groups they employ. In all our ventures, we put a real emphasis on offering great service, and to succeed, we must truly understand our customers and see our service through their eyes. As our and others' customer bases get older, managers will need staffers who themselves reflect the changing demographics.

This is a challenge for Virgin since we have tended to be quite young at heart. The average age in the group is still fairly young, with more than a third of staff under the age of 35 and only around 3% over 55.

This is largely determined by a few factors, including the sectors we operate in and the newcomer status of some of the businesses. For example, Virgin Active, our health club chain, attracts a younger workforce due to the physical nature of the work. As the challengers to established brands, our airlines - Virgin America, Atlantic and Blue - have tended to be magnets for younger cabin crews and ground staff, which affects the group's average age.

Even our finance business has younger staff - again, people interested in the company's challenger status and in new product development. But as we prepare for the future, this is a factor that clearly needs to change.

How? Well, many businesses retire their experienced staffers, both to cut costs when times get tough and as a matter of course. But those employers can lose a lot of key skills when workers with a wealth of knowledge and experience leave.

One answer is to become more accommodating in work arrangements. Offering part- time jobs, job shares, flexi-time and full-time jobs with longer holidays may attract older workers. This would enable everyone - not just older employees - to strike a better work-life balance and allow companies to retain their skills and experience.

I hope that with this approach, our group will continue to maintain a very open policy of recruitment and that ageism will not be an issue. Hiring older workers isn't just the right thing to do; it also makes good business sense.

Branson blogs on www.virgin.com/richard- branson/blog. You can follow him on Twitter at http://twitter.com/ richardbranson.

This post originally appeared here:
http://www.bdlive.co.za/articles/2010/10/14/richard-branson-value-the-skills-of-older-workers;jsessionid=27C5CBE518983FFEF9FD83338E88121E.present1.bdfm

Why it's a LIE that olders workers are taking jobs from the young (pt2)

By Neil Patrick

This morning I was disappointed to read the article below from the Denver Post which promotes the notion that work opportunities for the young are being ‘stolen’ by older workers in Colorado.

Titled misleadingly, ‘Youths hit hard as older workers claim most new jobs’, the Denver Post article claims to show that mature workers are ‘stealing’ the job opportunities from the young. It even includes an apparently persuasive graph to 'prove' the point.

Of course this is all nonsense and I've provided the full transcript below for you to judge for yourself.

Granted, it’s a pleasingly convenient idea to grab when you look at the graph below, but as with so many news stories, it doesn’t actually tell the whole truth.

In fact it even contradicts the some of the key findings of the Report it cites, the Express Employment Professionals' white paper. This paper stated that, ‘The first Boomers turned 60 in 2006, so no one is surprised that they’re retiring. The size of this generation, which comprises 26.4 percent of the population and makes up the largest percentage of the workforce in the U.S. at 38 percent, is producing an increase in the retirement rate, impacting the labor force simultaneously”.

So it is clear that because of the large size of the baby boomer group, retirements in the US are actually increasing. If this is true, how can they also be taking jobs from the young? How can we reconcile these apparent contradictions?

Actually when we dig a little deeper, it’s not too hard to find the truth:

1. The fall in the level of workforce participation by the young can be directly attributed to increased numbers staying in education, the increase in those that have given up looking for work and the fact that many are choosing to stay at home, eased by ‘subsidies’ by their parents and others. To quote the Express Employment Report directly, “There are an estimated 1.8 million young adults who are not in the labor force because they have given up on job hunting for the time being”.
2. The article identifies two ‘outcomes’ i.e. the stable rate of labor force participation by older workers and the falling rate of employment amongst the young and assumes that the former is causing the latter. This isn't a causal relationship - one has not caused the other, so it is inaccurate to state that ‘older workers are claiming most new jobs’. 
3. The data is based on LFPR (Labor Force Participation Rate). This has absolutely nothing to do with job hirings. It is simply a measure of the proportion of people within a given group that are in paid employment. The LFPR for a group can rise or fall without anyone changing their job, simply by the number of people in that group changing for any reason e.g. retirement or emigration. 
4. Similarly, the growth in employment numbers for any given group doesn't equate to new jobs being filled; it has as much or more to do with the numbers that actually do not leave employment as it does with those that gain it. So for example if the numbers in employment increase in any given period, this number is the result of the net outcome of people joining and leaving the workforce. It does not equate to new jobs being filled.

So what is actually happening is that mature workers’ labor force participation is being stabilized by a balancing between a shrinkage of the group due to increasing numbers of retirees and others working longer and delaying retirement. Meanwhile, the LFPR by the young is falling due to low growth in the parts of economy generating jobs for which the young are qualified and a growth in those who are either staying in education or have given up looking for work.

Hardly the same story as the headline is it? And it’s the sort of sensationalist argument promoting inter-generational resentment that we don't need. Neither does it highlight the real issues which are nothing to do with age and everything to do with restoring real growth to the US economy.

Anyway, here’s the full story as it appeared in the Denver Post last weekend.

Youths hit hard as older workers claim most new jobs

By Aldo Svaldi The Denver Post


Welcome to the brave new labor force, where the young struggle to find a job, the old delay retirement and a shrinking share of the population is working.

"We have an actively disengaged portion of the population, and the implications are far reaching," said David Lewis, an executive with Express Employment Professionals, which put out a white paper on the topic last week.

Back in 2000, nearly half of 16- to 19-year-olds were employed in Colorado, and eight in 10 of those age 20 to 24 worked. But in 2012, fewer than three in 10 teenagers were employed and only 64.2 percent of those in their early 20s, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

At the other end of the demographic curve, employment among 55- to 64-year-olds in the state went from 60.8 percent employment to 64.8 percent over the same period. Among those 65 and older, it went from about 12 percent to 18.8 percent in 2012.

Since employment levels bottomed out in December 2009, workers age 55 and older have claimed nearly three out of four new jobs created in the U.S., according to the Center for Economic and Policy Research.

They were claiming about 84 percent of the jobs created in the 12 months through April, the center reports.

A look at unemployment rates disproves the myth that older workers were hit hardest by the recession, said Alexandra Hall, the state's chief labor economist.

Those age 55 to 64 in Colorado had a 6.8 percent unemployment rate last year. The unemployment rate among teenagers was at 26.2 percent.

The greater participation of older workers, including those past traditional retirement age, bucks the overall trend of fewer people working or looking for work with each passing year.

"Overall labor force participation rates will continue to decline as they have since 2000, through 2040," forecasts Cindy DeGroen, the state's director of population and economic forecasting.

People on either end of the age curve have more options when it comes to not working, which is why those groups are seeing some of the biggest shifts, Hall said.

One key explanation for fewer young adults working is that more of them are going to college, which is a positive for the economy, she said.

But even those with four-year college degrees are increasingly finding themselves underemployed, said futurist Tom Frey, executive director of the DaVinci Institute in Louisville.

About half of college graduates last year are holding jobs that don't require a degree, and about 35 percent are trying to start their own businesses, he said.

Some of the decline in youth employment is tied to a lack of opportunities, as older workers take jobs that traditionally would have gone to younger workers.

Some of it is also generational. Millennials, those age 18 to 30, are more optimistic than their elders about their employability, despite the difficult economy.

About 62 percent are confident of the possibility of a career, making them much less willing to settle for a "job," according to survey released Thursday by employment search provider Monster Worldwide.

"They believe they are worth more than the market does, especially if they graduate with a liberal-arts degree," Lewis said.

Lewis said that a third of millennials were raised by single parents, and many have tight familial bonds, making them less willing to move for an opportunity and more comfortable living at home.

Hall said the labor statistics show young adults, despite getting a later start, increasingly join the ranks of the employed by age 25 and beyond. The employment rate in Colorado among those age 25 to 34 is 78.3 percent.

But delayed entry into the workforce carries a cost, especially when it comes to developing what labor experts refer to as the soft skills, things like dependability, problem solving, professionalism and the ability to communicate with co-workers.

"They are getting older, but they are not very skilled because they haven't had a chance to work," Frey said.

At the other extreme are baby boomers, those born between 1946 and 1964, who find themselves, either by choice or necessity, working far longer than previous generations.

"You need more money to support a longer life span," DeGroen said of the group that has been called the healthiest and wealthiest generation.

Two severe bear markets in equities and one in real estate, not to mention low interest rates, have prevented many baby boomers from building the nest eggs they needed to retire.

Retirees over age 65 in Colorado are replacing, on average, about 56.5 percent of their pre-retirement income instead of the 70 percent that financial advisers recommend, according to astudy from Interest.com.

And a growing number of seniors in the country, about 338,000 of those over age 60, have financial responsibility for their grandchildren, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

Still, even at 20 percent, the share of those 65 and older employed is only a fourth of the level seen among "prime age" workers, those from age 25 to 54.

Given that they can't work forever, one unknown is whether the accelerating departure of the baby boomers from the workforce will create opportunities for young adults.

"As employers have more demand for labor and bid up what they are willing to pay, workers will come into the workforce," Hall said.

Economist Lawrence Mishel, at the Economic Policy Institute, argues that the federal government should create a temporary five-year program to allow retirement at age 60 and above.

"Get them out of the way and let younger people have jobs," he said.

Colorado, which has one of the highest concentrations of baby boomers of any state, will see the number of residents over age 65 triple between 2000 and 2030, according to the state demographer's office.

But there are those who argue that demographics aren't the key factor. Labor markets are undergoing a fundamental shift that is changing the very definition of work and a job.

"We are becoming much more a free-agent and freelance society," said Frey.

The overhead costs for a full-time employee now average $10,000 a person, and employers remain reluctant to add to their workforce, he said.

Young adults simply have no choice but to become more entrepreneurial and flexible in how they make their living, he said.



http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_23986720/youths-hit-hard-older-workers-claim-most-new

Proof at last - older employees are not less innovative than younger workers

By Neil Patrick

For decades now, there have been several highly persistent myths about older workers which have negatively influenced organisations' behaviour and had a detrimental effect on their performance.

The widespread negative stereotyping of older workers has led to many managers believing without a scrap of scientific evidence to support it, that older workers:

1. Have poorer health and thus greater absenteeism and lower productivity 
2. Have shorter job tenure, demand higher salaries and pension benefits and hence are more expensive 
3. Are less technologically competent 
4. Are more rigid and resistant to change 
5. And last but not least, are less innovative and creative in the workplace and their jobs. 

Myths 1-4 above are relatively simple to disprove through even the most cursory scrutiny of available data and research. For example, earlier research by Ng and Feldman (2008) showed conclusively that, ‘older workers exhibit stronger extra-role performance and less counter-productive behaviour than younger workers’.

Firm conclusions about creativity and innovation however have proved elusive due to the complexity of acquiring reliable data. Until now.

Last month, The Journal of Occupational and Organisational Psychology published new research by Thomas W. H. Ng and Daniel C. Feldman from the University of Hong Kong and The University of Georgia, respectively.

Titled excitingly (!) ‘A meta-analysis of the relationships of age and tenure with innovation-related behaviour’, this research proves conclusively that older workers are no less innovative or creative than younger workers, and under the right conditions are much more so.

By the year 2020, Americans who are over 55 years old will comprise close to 30% of the residential population of the United States and a similar percentage in the UK and Eurozone countries. The over- 55’s will also by that time comprise c.25% of the workforce.

Not surprisingly therefore, this topic is assuming a greater than ever degree of importance, not just from the point of view of fairness, but also from the perspective of the maximisation of the value of organisations’’ human capital.

‘Innovation-related behaviour’ (IRB) was the focus of this latest research. As innovation has become more critical component of an individual’s contribution to an organisation’s performance, an accurate assessment of the relationship between employee age and IRB is becoming even more important for managers to understand.

Moreover, as Sternberg (2001) and Choi and Chang (2009) have emphasised, ‘creativity only adds value when the people who generate new ideas can persuade others of their utility and can convince others to implement those ideas. If new ideas do not gain widespread attention, are poorly implemented, or are never implemented at all, they have virtually no impact on the organisation’s ability to innovate’.

The often superior levels of communication and influencing skills displayed by older workers give them a distinct advantage in this valuable respect too.

The methodology adopted by Ng and Feldman involved the meta-analysis of 98 empirical studies. Put another way, this means that no fewer than 98 separate previous studies and their respective data were selected and aggregated to create not only a diverse but also an up to date sample. The results therefore have a high degree of statistical reliability.

The research conclusions are summarised in the research report thus: 

• Contrary to common belief, the results of this study show that age and tenure are not negatively related to innovation-related behaviours. 

• Older and longer-tenured workers do not engage in less innovation-related behaviour than younger, more junior workers 

• These results hold true even at the high end of the age and years of service continuum 

• This study concludes that the negative stereotype that older and longer tenured workers are less innovative is not based on accumulated empirical evidence.

• As such excluding older workers from innovation-related tasks is counter-productive. 

Sadly I do not think that this report will be the end of the matter. Stereotyping takes years to eradicate in all areas of life, but I am hopeful that gradually, the findings of this important piece of work will filter through to organisations and start to eliminate the perpetuation of these myths and falsehoods. It’s vital not just to older workers, but to all of us and the success of the organisations we work in.

Unemployed Boomers Need Help NOW

By Alinda Tugend

I WAS recently talking to a friend at a party whose husband - in his 60s - has been unemployed for more than two years. While there are many challenges, she said, one of the hardest things is trying to balance hope with reality.

She wonders how to support him in his continued quest to find a job in his field of marketing and financial services while at the same time encouraging him to think about what his life would be like if he never worked in that field or had a full-time job again.

“I wanted to move to what I thought was a healthier place. I wanted to turn the page,” said my friend, who asked to be identified by her middle name, Shelley, since she didn’t want to publicize her family’s situation. “He saw it as vote of no confidence.”

For those over 50 and unemployed, the statistics are grim. While unemployment rates for Americans nearing retirement are lower than for young people who are recently out of school, once out of a job, older workers have a much harder time finding work. Over the last year, according to the Labor Department, the average duration of unemployment for older people was 53 weeks, compared with 19 weeks for teenagers.

There are numerous reasons - older workers have been hit both by the recession and globalization. They’re more likely to have been laid off from industries that are downsizing, and since their salaries tend to be higher than those of younger workers, they’re attractive targets if layoffs are needed.

Even as they do all the things they’re told to do- network, improve those computer skills, find a new passion and turn it into a job - many struggle with the question of whether their working life as they once knew it is essentially over.

This is something professionals who work with and research the older unemployed say needs to be addressed better than it is now. Helping people figure out how to cope with a future that may not include work, while at the same time encouraging them in their job searches, is a difficult balance, said Nadya Fouad, a professor of educational psychology at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.

Psychologists and others who counsel this cohort need to help them face the grief of losing a job, and also to understand that jobs and job-hunting are far different now from how they used to be.

“The contract used to be, ‘I am a loyal employee and you are a loyal employer. I promise to work for you my entire career and you train, promote, give benefits and a pension when I retire.’ Now you can’t count on any of that,” she said. “The onus is all on the employee to have a portfolio of skills that can be transferable.”

People in their 20s and 30s know that they need to market themselves and always be on the lookout for better opportunities, she said, something that may seem foreign to those in their 50s and 60s.

If a counselor or psychologist “doesn’t understand how the world of work has changed, they’re not helping at all,” she said. “You can’t just talk about how it feels.”

In response to this concern, Professor Fouad and her colleagues have drawn up guidelines for the American Psychological Association to help psychotherapists better assist their clients with workplace issues and unemployment. It is wending its way through the association’s committees.

Of course, not everyone who is unemployed and over 50 is equal. For some, the reality is that they need to find another job - any job - to survive. Others have resources that can allow them to spend more time looking for a job that might have the salary or status of their former position.

In the first case, Professor Fouad said, “You need to decide what is the minimum amount of money you can make and how to go about finding it.” In the second case, she said, it’s necessary to examine what work means to you and how that may have to change.

Is it the high social status? The identity? The relationship with co-workers? It is important to examine these areas, perhaps with the help of a professional counselor, Professor Fouad said, to discover how to find such meaning or relationships in other areas of life.

Sometimes simply changing the way you look at your situation can help. My friend Shelley’s husband, Neal, who also asked that I use his middle name, said the best advice he received from a friend was “don’t tell people you’re unemployed. Tell them you’re semiretired. It changed my self-identity. I still look for jobs, but I feel better about myself.”

He also has friends facing the same issues, who understand his situation. Such support groups, whether formal or informal, are very helpful, said Jane Goodman, past president of the American Counseling Association and professor emerita of counseling at Oakland University in Rochester, Mich.

“Legitimizing the fact that this stinks also helps,” she said. “I find that when I say this, clients are so relieved. They thought I was going to say, ‘buck up.’ ”

And even more, “they should know the problem is not with them but with a system that has treated them like a commodity that can be discarded,” said David L. Blustein, a professor of counseling, developmental and educational psychology at the Lynch School of Education at Boston College, who works with the older unemployed in suburb of Boston. “I try to help clients get in touch with their anger about that. They shouldn’t blame themselves.”

Which, of course, is easy to say and hard to do.

“I know not to take it personally,” Neal said, “but sure, I wonder at times, what’s wrong with me? Is there something I should be doing differently?”

It is too easy to sink into endless rumination, to wonder if he is somehow standing in his own way, like a cancer patient who is told that her attitude is her problem, he said.

Susan Sipprelle, producer of the Web site overfiftyandoutofwork.com and the documentary “Set for Life” about the older jobless, said she stopped posting articles like “Five Easy Steps to get a New Job.”

“People are so frustrated,” she said. “They don’t want to hear, ‘Get a new wardrobe, get on LinkedIn.’ ”

As one commenter on the Facebook page for Over Fifty and Out of Work said, “I’ve been told to redo my résumé twice now. The first ‘expert’ tells me to do it one way, the next ‘expert’ tells me to put it back the way I had it.”

Some do land a coveted position in their old fields or turn a hobby into a business. Neal, although he believes he’ll never make as much money as in the past, recently has reason to be optimistic about some consulting jobs.

But the reality is that the problem of the older unemployed “was acute during the Great Recession, and is now chronic,” Ms. Sipprelle said. “People’s lives have been upended by the great forces of history in a way that’s never happened before, and there’s no other example for older workers to look at. Some can’t recoup, though not through their own fault. They’re the wrong age at the wrong time. It’s cold comfort, but better than suggesting that if you just dye your hair, you’ll get that job.”


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/27/your-money/unemployed-and-older-and-facing-a-jobless-future.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0