Leaders and managers can be too caught up in concerns about HR legal red tape to adopt a mature approach to workforce management. Age Management is a positive move, which recognises expertise. It’s only ageism when done badly.
Many companies in the UK are afraid of getting their workforce management wrong. For some the whole “HR thing” is a threatening minefield full of expensive regulations and even costlier tribunals – best keep your head down and hope no-one moans. Thankfully, for the vast majority, there is an understanding that any organisation’s best asset is its people. However, that understanding appears to wane when it comes to older workers. Sometimes they are viewed with suspicion – they know where the corporate skeletons are buried, so need to be made to feel so uncomfortable that they leave. Sometimes they are viewed as a burden, with younger managers struggling to empathise with the experiences of people sometimes twice their age, so older workers are excluded from developmental opportunities … and feel so unwanted that they leave. The point is that neither of these approaches is leadership. It isn’t even management. In truth, it is incompetence. In my introductory post to this series of items on older workers and how to make the most of this “goldmine”, I addressed the issue of organisations’ complacency in the face of a demographic “time bomb”. In this post, I want to tackle the dreaded “-ism” that many managers fear … ageism ….simply because they don’t really understand it. Age is one of the nine protected characteristics of the 2010 Equalities Act, against which policies and services should be evaluated. Failure to do so is not simply a failure of leadership; it is potentially unlawful. No leader worth their salt should proceed with any organisational change without conducting an Equality Impact Assessment (EIA). However, no leader worth their salt should proceed with that change based on the avoidance of trouble either. They should be looking at the resources at their disposal and deploying them to their best effect. That is where age management comes in (and this wonderful Dilbert cartoon is a cracking of example of how NOT to do it, of course …). 
To manage a workforce’s diverse skills and expertise is to be competent; it gives any organisation the best possible opportunity to thrive. Additionally, it offers everyone in that workforce the opportunity to contribute (and thrive) at a team and individual level. That diversity holds much of an organisation’s operational riches. There will be people with drive and lots of ideas; there will be people who bring others together and encourage teamwork; there will be people who look after the detail and make sure everything is as right as it can be; there will be people who sell well; there will be people who administer well… you take my point. Workers are capable of these attributes aged 16, or 86 and beyond. It all depends on the person involved – and how their skills are used, valued and combined with the skills of others to craft a cohesive offer. Obviously there are some jobs where youth and physical competence are required, and as workers age they may find such jobs difficult or even impossible. However, their inability to lift heavy weights, for instance, should not be allowed to negate all their other skills and experience. An effective leader will review their organisation as a whole (systems thinking is a major strand of programme management, but could be argued to be a leadership plan for life). Seeing where skills can be deployed, rather than finding a place to hide someone whose initial attributes don’t appear to fit any more, makes more sense on business and human levels. In other words, an effective leader manages their resources; they manage the impact that age has on their workplace…they use an “age management” approach. So why don’t more leaders follow this path? Many aren’t leaders – they manage, fire-fighting and being driven by the need to response not proactive action. These people will cite the lack of time at the front line to tackle such issues, or blame senior management for a failure of leadership, or … . They need to have a look at Covey’s 7 Habits. For some, who do show leadership in other spheres, the fear of appearing discriminatory means that they respond as if caught in the proverbial headlights, and take the apparently easier path of losing expertise from the workplace. How is losing an expert resource, the product of years of expensive investment, the easy path? Happily, for a growing number of leaders, in all sorts and sizes of organisations, the preferred path is actually the simplest: talk with your older workers and help them to plan their future. By identifying that they still have something to contribute, you break down most of the old ageist barriers in one action; listening. I address the issue of older workers feeling valued, and the differences this can bring to the workplace, in a later post. However, to return to my Covey recommendation: #5 – Seek first to understand, then to be understood. It’s a simple thing, which might take a bit of time and effort (not least because if this is a new approach in your organisation, there will be a bit of suspicion that it’s too good to be true!). However, the best way to identify the resources at your disposal as a leader is to find out as much about their potential as you can. 
Workers aren’t widgets – they can talk and, if asked the right questions, using a coaching approach, they can tell you what they know, want … and what they have to offer. How about making the most of that rich vein of information, mine it and make informed business decisions which protect your investment as a result? Some workers will want to leave, but having had a meaningful conversation about their future, they will feel more able to be ambassadors for your organisation, rather than retiring amid feelings of rejection and worthlessness. For those workers who choose to remain and contribute their wealth of expertise to your organisation, you have the chance to use that expertise in new ways, bringing positive, workforce-led change to your workplace. Best of all you can introduce a skills-transfer programme, where older workers help to train younger workers in what they know, including perhaps “traditional” skills which are coming back into demand. This will make other workers recognise the importance of their older colleagues in terms of the contribution they can make, which in turn will contribute to a more tolerant (and, as a byproduct, happier and more productive) working environment for all. So relax into effective leadership, and be confident you are doing the best for your workforce, your organisation, and you. It won’t be all plain sailing. There will be new behaviours to develop, possibly on all sides. However, a coaching approach encourages a supportive and empowered workplace. The CIPD found in a survey that 84% companies found in-house manager-coaches effective. That’s great. If your organisation doesn’t have such things (yet!), the CIPD also found that 92% companies found that external coaches were effective. So, you have little to lose in adopting a coaching approach to communicating with your older workers, and so very much to gain. Some of my points in this article may have hit a nerve. If they have and you want to comment, please do below. If they have and you want to discuss how you can explore doing things differently, please get in touch and let’s have a conversation.
Image courtesy of Canva