Someone posted on LinkedIn recently that hiring for values contributes to ageism. Since then, I’ve been thinking about this comment and what it means.
First, I’m not naïve. I understand ageism exists. Ageism refers to how we think, feel, and act towards others based on their age. We might be tempted to think of ageism only in terms of older people, but ageism happens to younger people too. An example might be saying “young people don’t want to work”. Honestly, it’s one of the reasons that I try not to get involved in the “generational” conversations. I think conversation like Millennials think this … and Boomers think that … contribute to the age discussion and not in a positive way.
But back to the original comment about hiring for values contributing to ageism. The word values means “something considered to be important or beneficial”. We know that organizations have values. So do individuals.
When it comes to organizational values, I found an article on the MIT Sloan Management Review that said they researched almost 700 large U.S. based companies and the top three values listed on their websites were 1) integrity, 2) respect, and 3) innovation. If this information is true, then the LinkedIn comment doesn’t necessarily align. Because that would mean that hiring for integrity, respect, and innovation contributes to ageism. And I’m not sure that integrity, respect, and innovation are exclusive to a particular age group.