“We are a young company”: Exploring organisational ageism through the lens of Social Identity Theory

This study aims to contribute to a better understanding of ageism as a qualitative business management problem and answer the research question of how age stereotypes and prejudices might cause organisationally based or organisational age discrimination. In this way, it answers Dordoni and Argentero (2015), who suggest that “great scholarly attention should be given to the process through which age stereotypes toward older workers became barriers to their employment” (p. 394). Identity and identification are “root constructs in organizational phenomena” (Albert, Ashforth and Dutton, 2000, p. 13) and, according to Hatch and Schultz (2002), most research on these ‘root constructs’ in an organisational context is based on Social Identity Theory (SIT). Urik (2017) suggests that stereotypes amplify age-based social identities. SIT holds that perceptions of group membership and non-membership constitute a significant source of bias and discrimination (Lalonde and Gardner, 1989; Tajfel and Turner, 1979). SIT is concerned initially with individual-level identities. Therefore, in most cases, business management literature deals with the social identities of individuals in organisations. In contrast, my research is also concerned with the social identities of organisations. I chose a qualitative and exploratory approach to address the management problem of ageism at work and answer my research question. As part of a single case study research design, I conducted semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample of thirteen managers and HR professionals of a German online retail company, which I call Oreco, about age identities, identification, age-based stereotypes and prejudices and ways of dealing with bias and discrimination. Looking for cues of organisational age identity, I also examined the company’s website and social media. My observations reveal that, through informal work processes and flat hierarchies, Oreco enacted this part of its identity, which can be understood as dramaturgical identity work. In corporate blog posts, Oreco expressed its age identity in a way that can be understood as discursive identity work. Likewise, on social media, it used a visual language that can be understood as discursive identity work (cf., Brown, 2017). Oreco’s dramaturgical and discursive age identity work was cliché-laden and employed a variety of age stereotypes and prejudices. The stereotypes embraced by Oreco were mainly descriptive and positive. However, its signals were possibly interpreted by observers as prescriptive and negative (‘older people should not work here’). It stood out that stereotypes expressed about people of a certain generation or at a certain stage of life or career were often congruent with stereotypes expressed about companies at certain stages of development. Younger people were attributed qualities that were also said to be characteristic of start-ups. Older people were attributed qualities also mentioned as characteristic of established large-scale enterprises. Such overlaps may have fuelled managers’ misconceptions about ‘cultural fit’. In the case of Oreco, it can be argued that ageism is mostly an unintended result of discursive organisational-level identity work that resorts to age stereotypes. Ageism does not usually emanate from individual managers and employees, although hiring decisions are sometimes guided by managers’ pseudo-rational motives, which can lead to statistical discrimination. My findings bear valuable theoretical and practical implications. Particularly, they suggest that identity and SIT are relevant analytical tools in organisational studies and that identity work is a useful explanatory concept for research of identities in, around, and of organisations. They show that low age diversity in the workforce can be both a symptom and a cause of an organisational self-definition and culture that embraces age stereotypes and prejudices.