Ageism Is Alive and It Costs Us All at Work

6 Jan

Why this matters: Ageism remains one of the most accepted and least addressed biases in business. It influences decisions about trust, development, promotion, and exclusion, often masked by terms such as culture fit, future-ready, or high potential. Ageism impacts young professionals whose judgment is overlooked, women who are rarely considered the right age, and experienced leaders whose relevance is doubted when their insight is most valuable.

The costs are tangible. Engagement declines, careers stagnate, and organizations lose talent and performance just as complexity and change increase. Research shows younger workers experience significant age bias, women encounter it throughout their careers, and older professionals are often underestimated in technology and AI despite clear evidence of their capabilities.

This is not a generational issue but a leadership challenge. Under pressure, age often becomes a shortcut for decision-making, replacing discernment with assumption.

This article examines how ageism operates in the workplace, why it persists, and what leaders can do to address it.

Ageism is alive and well in the workplace. It affects young and old, men and women, frontline employees and executives alike. According to research, about six in ten workers age 50 and older have seen or experienced age discrimination at work. Data from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission shows that age-related complaints continue to rise, with tens of thousands filed each year.

Unlike many other forms of bias, ageism often hides in plain sight. It sounds reasonable. It feels familiar. It is frequently excused as practicality, culture fit, or future readiness.

The cost is significant. For individuals, it shows up as stalled careers, lost confidence, and quiet disengagement. For organizations, it shows up as wasted talent, poor decisions, and weaker performance at exactly the moment adaptability and judgment matter most.

Several patterns stand out with striking clarity. Young adults experience age bias more frequently than older workers. Women face age discrimination at every stage of their careers. Many companies continue to assume that older workers struggle to adapt to new technologies, even as evidence proves otherwise. And finally, we have entered an era where retirement is no longer a fixed endpoint, yet many organizations still design work as if careers are short and linear.

Taken together, these forces reveal a deeper truth. Ageism is not primarily a generational problem. It is a leadership challenge.

What Ageism Really Is, and Why We Miss It

Ageism is commonly defined as prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination based on age. In the workplace, it influences who gets hired, promoted, trained, trusted, or quietly sidelined. While laws in many countries focus on protecting older workers, research shows that age bias persists throughout the career span.

A useful distinction is between hard ageism and soft ageism.

Hard ageism refers to explicit and often illegal actions, such as refusing to hire someone because of age, forced exits, or openly age-based promotion decisions.

Soft ageism is far more common and far more damaging over time. It includes subtle assumptions, language, jokes, norms, and systems that signal who is seen as relevant and who is not. It shows up in phrases like too junior, too senior, not a cultural fit, high potential but not yet ready, or no longer a growth investment.

Soft ageism thrives because it feels socially acceptable. Many people who would never tolerate sexist or racist comments will freely make age-based remarks without hesitation. Research from the World Health Organization shows that ageism is one of the most normalized forms of bias globally, and one of the least challenged.

This normalization is precisely why it persists.

Young Adults Experience More Age Bias Than We Expect

One of the most counterintuitive findings in recent workplace research is that younger workers often experience age discrimination more frequently than older workers.

A large-scale European study found that employees under 30 reported higher levels of age-based unfair treatment than any other age group. In the United States, surveys consistently show that younger professionals feel dismissed, underestimated, and excluded from meaningful decision-making despite strong performance.

Common assumptions fuel this bias. Younger workers are perceived as lacking judgment, emotional maturity, or commitment. They are often required to prove themselves repeatedly, even in roles where competence is already evident. Salary negotiations are harder. Responsibility is delayed. Trust is rationed.

The business impact is measurable. Gallup data shows that employees in their early careers have some of the lowest engagement levels of any age group. When people feel their contributions are discounted because of age, discretionary effort drops sharply. Turnover rises. Learning slows.

Organizations often misinterpret this as a generational attitude problem. In reality, it is a response to being consistently undervalued.

Women Face Age Bias at Every Career Stage

For women, ageism does not arrive at a certain birthday. It is present at every phase of working life.

Younger women are often perceived as inexperienced, overly ambitious, or not yet credible. Research shows that young women are more likely than young men to be addressed with diminutive language, mistaken for junior staff, or questioned about their authority.

Mid-career women face a different set of assumptions. Studies in professional services, healthcare, and higher education reveal that women aged 40 to 60 are often judged through the lenses of family responsibility, availability, and appearance. Concerns about energy, commitment, or manageability are far more common among women than among men of the same age.

Older women face the sharpest edge. Data from leadership surveys shows that women over 55 are significantly less likely to be considered for senior roles, succession planning, or development investment. Many report feeling invisible, regardless of their performance history.

This creates what researchers call the never-right-age problem. At every stage, there is a reason to doubt women's readiness or relevance. The organizational cost is profound. Companies lose experienced leaders, institutional knowledge, and diverse perspectives, while reinforcing cultures that quietly push women out.

The Persistent Myth About Older Workers & Technology

Few assumptions are as stubborn, or as damaging, as the belief that older workers cannot adapt to new technologies.

Despite decades of evidence to the contrary, many leaders still associate digital fluency, innovation, and speed with youth. This bias has become even more pronounced with the rise of artificial intelligence.

Recent surveys of hiring managers show a stark gap between perception and reality. While fewer than one-third of employers say they would consider candidates over 60 for roles involving advanced technology, nearly 90 percent rate the performance of older employees they already employ as equal to or better than that of younger peers.

Even more striking is what happens when older workers engage with new tools. Studies of AI adoption show that a subset of mid- and late-career professionals become frequent and highly effective users. These individuals often report improved work quality, faster execution, and better decision-making. Many are self-taught and highly motivated.

The real issue is not ability. It is access and expectation. Older workers are less likely to be offered training, stretch assignments, or opportunities to experiment. When development is withheld, capability is misread as resistance.

As organizations invest billions in AI, this bias becomes a strategic risk. Effective AI use depends on judgment, context, and ethical oversight. These are precisely the strengths that experienced professionals bring.

The Era of No Retirement Has Already Arrived

Work is changing in ways many organizations have not fully absorbed.

People are living longer, staying healthier, and working longer. In many countries, workers aged 55 and older are the fastest-growing segment of the labor force. In the United States alone, nearly one-quarter of the workforce will be over 55 within the next few years.

Retirement is no longer a clear endpoint. Some people continue working by choice, driven by purpose and engagement. Others do so out of financial necessity. Many move through phases of work, shifting roles, hours, or focus over time.

Yet most organizations still design careers as if they end at a fixed age. Learning budgets taper off. Leadership pipelines quietly narrow. High-potential labels disappear. The message is subtle but clear. Contribution has an expiration date.

This mismatch creates widespread disengagement and loss of value. Research consistently shows that older workers have lower voluntary turnover, higher reliability, and strong performance ratings. When organizations fail to adapt, they leave enormous value on the table.

Ageism as a Leadership Shortcut

At its core, ageism often serves as a shortcut for leadership.

When leaders face pressure, uncertainty, or rapid change, age becomes a convenient proxy. Youth is associated with energy and adaptability. Experience is associated with rigidity or risk. These shortcuts feel efficient. They reduce complexity. They also distort reality.

This is not primarily about generations clashing. It is about leaders defaulting to simple stories when better judgment is required.

Research on decision-making shows that under stress, humans rely more heavily on heuristics. Age is an easy one. It is visible. It is socially reinforced. It allows leaders to move quickly without engaging deeply with individual capability.

The cost of this shortcut is high. Talent is misallocated. Learning is uneven. Trust fractures. Teams become polarized. Over time, organizations lose exactly the mix of experience and fresh perspective that fuels resilience.

Age-inclusive leadership requires slowing down these shortcuts and replacing them with better questions. What does this person know? How do they learn? What do they contribute? What conditions help them thrive?

How to Identify Ageism in the Workplace

Ageism rarely announces itself. It reveals itself through patterns:

Language & labels - Listen for age-coded language in meetings, job descriptions, and feedback. Words like energetic, fresh, seasoned, or overqualified often carry unspoken assumptions.
Uneven access to opportunity - Track who gets training, high-visibility projects, and leadership development. Patterns by age often emerge quickly.
Hiring and promotion trends - Review age distribution across levels and functions. Sudden drop-offs signal bias more clearly than any survey.
Cultural signals - Office norms, social events, and imagery often cater to narrow life stages. Inclusion is shaped by what feels normal.
Silence - Very few people formally report age bias. A lack of complaints is not evidence of fairness. It is often evidence of resignation.

How to Combat Ageism and Get It Right

Addressing ageism requires more than awareness. It requires deliberate leadership action.

Redesign work for longer careers - Assume careers will span 40 or 50 years. Invest in learning at every stage. Normalize transitions, reinvention, and phased roles. Some companies are leading the way by offering 'returnships,' which provide opportunities for seasoned professionals re-entering the workforce after a hiatus.
Focus on skills and contribution - Make decisions based on capability, not assumptions. Separate age from potential in performance and talent discussions.
Build mixed-age teams intentionally - Intergenerational teams outperform homogeneous ones when designed well. They increase learning, reduce bias, and strengthen decision-making.
Democratize access to learning and technology - Ensure training, especially in digital and AI tools, is available to everyone. Expect learning from all age groups.
Challenge language and norms - Call out age-based jokes, labels, and stereotypes. What is tolerated becomes culture.
Equip leaders to make better decisions - Train leaders to recognize shortcuts in their thinking. Replace speed with discernment. Inclusion improves judgment.

The Real Cost of Inaction

Ageism drains organizations quietly and continuously. It weakens engagement, limits innovation, and undermines trust. In a world of rapid change, longer careers, and complex technology, this is a cost few organizations can afford.

The solution is not about favoring one age group over another. It is about building workplaces that value contribution across the full arc of working life.

To turn awareness into momentum, I challenge you to take one concrete step within the next 24 hours: identify a potential age bias in your team's processes or dialogues, whether it be during hiring, performance review, or team meetings, and propose a change. By taking this first step, you can begin reshaping your organization into one that truly values all ages and embraces inclusivity.

Ageism is alive. It costs us all. And it is within leadership's power to change it.

+++