Organizational reactions to UK age discrimination legislation
| Published date | 14 August 2009 |
| Pages | 471-488 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/01425450910979239 |
| Date | 14 August 2009 |
| Author | Emma Parry,Shaun Tyson |
| Subject Matter | HR & organizational behaviour |
Organizational reactions to UK
age discrimination legislation
Emma Parry and Shaun Tyson
Cranfield School of Management, Cranfield, UK
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to use neo-institutional theory to examine organizational
responses to the age discrimination at work legislation, recently introduced in the UK. The paper
examines reasons managers advanced for the introduction of human resource (HR) policies about age
discrimination, in addition to legal compliance.
Design/methodology/approach – A longitudinal survey of HR managers and four case studies
within a range of UK organizations are used to elicit data on organizational responses.
Findings – Unsurprisingly, the introduction of the new legislation has created strong coercive
pressure on organizations. However, the results also provide evidence of mimetic and normative
pressures within organizations. There is a complex range of factors that influence changes to policies
and practices. In addition, the impact of organizational context, manager stereotypes and public and
private sector differences are examined. The implications for explaining coercive change in
organizations in terms of different legal philosophies and for future research are discussed.
Originality/value – This paper adds to a currently sparse literature on the introduction of age
discrimination policies by organizations and uses a neo-institutional framework to examine the forces
that may affect the introduction of these policies over and above legislation.
Keywords Age discrimination,Employment legislative, Humanresource management,
United Kingdom
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Legislative requirements for new policies have become increasingly common in human
resource management (HRM). Drawing on neo-institutionalism, this paper seeks to
provide a deeper understanding of the forces which conditioned how HR policies and
practices were adjusted in response to UK legislation against age discrimination. The
paper is in the long traditionof studies which have sought to discoverhow organizations
adjust their HR policies in response to change, in this instance to externally imposed
legislativechange. This paperaims to examine the impact of legislationon HR policies and
to identify forces, other than legislation, thataffect the introduction of these policies.
UK age discrimination legislation
Legislation against age discrimination in employment was introduced in the UK on
1 October 2006 in response to the European Employment Directive on Equal Treatment.
This legislation outlawed age discrimination in employment and vocational training
and covers every member of the workforce. More specifically, the Employment
Equality (Age) Regulations:
.banned direct and indirect age discrimination in recruitment, promotion and
training;
.banned unjustified compulsory retirement ages of below 65;
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0142-5455.htm
UK age
discrimination
legislation
471
Received 23 July 2008
Revised 17 November 2008
Accepted 22 January 2009
Employee Relations
Vol. 31 No. 5, 2009
pp. 471-488
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited
0142-5455
DOI 10.1108/01425450910979239
.removed the previous age limit for unfair dismissal and redundancy rights;
.introduced a right for employees to request to work beyond retirement age and a
duty for employers to consider that request; and
.required employers to give employees six months notice of their retirement date
so that they can plan for retirement.
The introduction of this legislation had potentially significant implications for
employers as it required them to audit their HR policies and practices in order to
remove or to justify objectively policies that were seen as discriminatory according to
age, and to introduce the new systems around retirement. In some cases, this will have
led a need for considerable change within organizations.
There are significant economic reasons for government to intervene in the labour
market, which might resonate with organizations’ managers, irrespective of the
law. The UK population aged over 65 has grown by 31 per cent to 9.7 million people
(16 per cent of the population) since 1971. In addition, the average age of the UK
population rose from 34.1 years in 1971 to 38.6 years in 2004 and is projected to rise to
42.9 years by 2031 (National Office of Statistics, 2007). These population changes mean
that organizations will be forced to recognise the importance of employing older
workers whose life expectancy is increasing and of using their skills and expertise
wisely (Hassell and Perrewe, 1995).
Despite the increasing age of the population, longer working lives and the
impending legislation on age at work, older workers have been under represented in
the workforce of the UK (Loretto et al., 2005). This can be viewed, in part, as the result
of employment practices adopted by employers who favour the recruitment and
retention of younger workers (McVittie et al., 2003). Changes to policies may be due as
much to a good business need to find scarce labour, and to deal with the threats of
demographic change, as to a coercive response to the power of the state.
Amongst the countervailing pressures, there are ingrained habits of discrimination
based on age. Age discrimination can be defined as “any prejudice or discrimination
against or in favour of an age group” (Snape and Redman, 2003). It is quite likely that
managerial bias against older employees is based to some extent upon age stereotypes –
that is to widely held beliefs regarding the characteristics of people in various
age categories (Rosen and Jerdee, 1976b). A vast body of research has suggested
the existence of age stereotypes that depict an older person as potentially less
employable than a younger person (Rosen and Jerdee, 1976a). These stereotypes inclu de
the perception of older workers as having poorer health, being inflexible, less
productive, less willing to accept new technology, less adaptable to change, less quick to
learn, less able to grasp new ideas, as well as less interested in training (Rosen and
Jerdee, 1976a; Lyon and Pollard, 1997; Chiu et al., 2001; Weiss and Maurer, 2004).
Research has also shown a number of positive stereotypes regarding older workers,
including the perception that they have more work-relevant experience, are more loyal
to their employers, more reliable, more likely to think before they act, better at
interpersonal skills, more conscientious, more confident, harder working and better
at working in teams (Steinberg et al., 1996; Lyon and Pollard, 1997).
There has been less research regarding stereotypical attitudes towards younger
workers, but a growing body of research has shown that young employees can also
be affected by age discrimination (Duncan and Loretto, 2004). Younger workers have
ER
31,5
472
To continue reading
Request your trial