“It does not help to look young and dumb…”. Ageism and intergenerational contact in the Norwegian technical industry

• Pages: 202-218
• Date: 16 April 2018
• Published date: 16 April 2018
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/EDI-04-2017-0089
• Author: Jenny Meinich,Kate Sang
• Subject Matter: HR & organizational behaviour,Employment law,Diversity, equality, inclusion

“It does not help to look young

and dumb…”

Ageism and intergenerational contact in the

Norwegian technical industry

Jenny Meinich and Kate Sang

Department of Management, Heriot Watt University, Edinburgh, UK

Abstract

Purpose –While age is receiving increased attention in the literature on workplace diversity, it remains

under researched. Intergenerational contact and its relationship to ageism require further research to

understand their mechanisms and impacts. The paper aims to discuss this issue.

Design/methodology/approach –Using semi-structured interviews in the Norwegian technical industry,

this paper explores how generations are formed and how this influences intergenerational contact.

Findings –Through the lens of ageism, the findings reveal that generational stereotypes are strongly held

by respondents, and may affect how members of the generations interact in the workplace. Further, the data

demonstrate that both age and generation are socially constructed, and age discrimination is perceived by

both older and younger workers.

Originality/value –The study has relevance for managers who are overseeing organizations with

considerable age differences.

Keywords Norway, Generations, Ageism, Intergenerational contact, Technical work

Paper type Research paper

Introduction

Age and generational diversity are receiving increasing interest as a dimension of

workplace diversity (Pritchard and Whiting, 2014), leading to some understanding of

managers’attitudes toward workers’age (primarily older workers). Intergenerational

differences in the workforce provide challenges for managers and have become an

increasingly important topic amongst the human resource management practitioners

(Benson and Brown, 2011). Workers’age has been found to be important to workplace

experiences within technological industries; however, generation and its interconnectedness

to age remains underexamined. Older workers are more likely to report increased

satisfaction with work-life balance (Maruyama et al., 2009), a greater association between

professional identities and their employing organization (Marks and Scholarios, 2007) and

potentially a greater need for technology training (Warhurst et al., 2006). Less is known

about how “generations”interact in the workplace. Although there is some suggestion

that younger workers may be skeptical of the technological capacities of older workers

(Weeks et al., 2017). The current research adds to this body of research, by examining

intergenerational attitudes within the workplace, specifically the technical industry in

Norway which is numerically dominated by younger workers. The paper begins by defining

“generation”and intergenerational contact, with the latter examined through the lens of

ageism. The qualitative case study methods are then outlined, which address the main

research question:

RQ1. How might perceived ageism affect intergenerational contact within the

workplace?

The paper contributes to understanding of age and employment within technology

industries, with ageism apparent at the interpersonal, institutional and meso-levels.

Equality, Diversity and Inclusion:

An International Journal

Vol. 37 No. 3, 2018

pp. 202-218

© Emerald PublishingLimited

2040-7149

DOI 10.1108/EDI-04-2017-0089

Received 27 April 2017

Revised 17 August 2017

Accepted 19 September 2017

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/2040-7149.htm

202

EDI

37,3

Defining “generation”

The term “generation”has been much debated and subsequently defined in s everal different

ways (Urick and Hollensbe, 2014). A common definition of a generation is “individuals who

were born and raised in the sametime span”(Chi et al., 2013, p. 43). Severalresearchers have,

however, challenged this definition stating that an age-based generation is more than a

biological necessity (Sessa et al., 2007). Rather than being a biolo gical issue, Mannheim (1952)

argues that a generation is a sociological matter whereby younger and older generations

collectivelyencounter a set of events during adulthoodthat distinguish them from each other.

Benson and Brown (2011) suggest that a generation does not exist without the presence of

social interactions between human beings; in other words, a generation represents a unique

social locationbased on the socio-politicalevents that occur whenthe generation comes of age.

Generationalvalues, perspectives and beliefsare thus argued to be shaped by both social and

historical events during the time they were born and raised (Costanza et al., 2012).

Joshi et al. (2011) argue that successive entrance to an organization, or a tenure-based

approach to generations, is a factor that may shapegenerations, also known as cohort-based

generations. In this manner, individuals that enter organizations at the same time may

develop greater in-group identification as they acquire similar values due to age and tenure

(Joshi et al., 2011). The popular usage of the chronological-based perspective on generation

formation suggest that the contemporary workforce is comprised by three generations,

namely, Baby Boomers,Generation X and Millennials,which are discussed in the subsections

below. Age groups are often used interchangeably with generations (Joshi et al., 2011).

Additionally, the development of personality, beliefs and values of these generations is

argued to be influenced by early human socialization and, once formed, is stable into

adulthood (Srinivasan, 2012). However, viewed in this manner, the extant literature on

generations has tended to conclude that the generations mentioned above are articulated as

fixed entities. Pritchard and Whiting (2014) argued that age-based (young, old) and

generation-based categories (Baby Boomer, Gen X, Gen Y) have often been conflated taking,

for example, younger workers to imply Generation Y. Generational labels have tended to go

unchallenged and their meanings thus needs to be unpacked (Pritchard and Whiting, 2014).

For example, situational factors are nottaken into account, as it implies that intergenerational

conflict arises because of differences between the generations hence fixedtraits exists within

these generations(Urick and Hollensbe, 2014).As Ng and Parry (2016) identified,there is little

literature that supports the notion of intergenerational difference. However, Hillman (2014)

identified two key explanations of generational difference;first, the difference in work values

among the generations, established through birth-year-cohort membership. Second he

suggested that the differences in work values are associated with the development of

age-based life stage values.

Generational identities as social construct

Joshi et al. (2010, p. 393) proposes the concept of “generational identity”defined as

“a multifaceted construct that is broadly defined as an individual’s knowledge that he or she

belongs to a generational group/role, together with some emotional and value significance

to him or her of this group/role membership.”The authors draw on three approaches to

generational identity, namely, cohort-based identity, age-based identity and incumbency-based

identity. The former refers to particular events, such as entry to an organization, whereby an

individual identify with the preceding or succeeding generations that result in similar attitudes

among that particular generation (Urick and Hollensbe, 2014). Secondly, a person might

identify with age, which draws on Mannheim’s work whereby two elements, the common

location and distinct consciousness, are important for identity formation. This is reflected in

popular conceptualizations of generations based on age, including Millennials, Generation X

and Baby Boomers. Joshi et al.’s (2010) approach to age-based identity relies on chronological

203

Ageism and

intergenerational

contact