When former Airbnb’er Chip Conley created the Modern Elder Academy, he attempted to reverse some of the discrimination older people were facing in the workplace by highlighting the wisdom older workers possess.
Perhaps unconsciously, he also reinforced the notion that wisdom and experience tend to be something that we accrue with age, and is therefore passed down from the old to the young. This isn’t always the case in the workplace, of course, and a recent study from the University of Washington explored the dynamic of having a manager who is younger than you are.
Age and status
The researchers highlight that in many organizations senior status tends to go hand in hand with age, with time in the job often viewed as reason enough to climb the ranks. They explain, however, that this mindset is slowly shifting and that so-called status incongruence is increasingly common, whereby younger managers are in charge of older colleagues.
The study explains that in any organization, there are various status markers that tend to be associated with managers, including one’s tenure, education, and age. Status incongruence emerges when those markers don’t apply to a manager, and especially when subordinates have higher status markers than their boss.
It becomes more commonplace when companies start to rely less on seniority when determining who should be a manager and more on ability. Such meritocracies are also emerging alongside a growing trend of workers staying in the workplace longer due to financial difficulties, which has meant it’s more common to see older employees in the workplace than in the past.
The researchers explain that whereas in 2012, just 34% of employees had a manager that was younger than them, this had leaped to 40% by 2020. They also explain that the average age of managers in the United States is 45, which is younger than around half of the people they manage.
An unfair system
The researchers describe one potential consequence of this in that employees may view the way promotions are decided upon as being unfair, which, in turn, affects how they behave at work. After all, if we think work is unfair, then we’re unlikely to attack it with the same gusto as when we believe our efforts will be rewarded.
In the workplace, whether people see fairness despite status differences depends on how good their boss is. When the boss is really good at their job, people don’t worry too much about status differences.
But when the boss isn’t so great, you might think people would see the system as unfair. Surprisingly, people use the boss’s own markers like age, education, and experience to convince themselves that the system is fair. This happens more when the boss isn’t competent.
An illogical process
This isn’t a logical process. It’s not like people genuinely believe these markers make someone a good leader. Instead, it’s something the researchers refer to as the “system justification” process. This means that when people are in a flawed system, they feel uncomfortable admitting it’s flawed. They try to find any reason to make the situation seem fair. When employees don’t have other job options, they’re even more motivated to make the current situation seem fair.
But when you give people power or other job options, they suddenly see things more clearly. They realize their leader isn’t really good at the job, and that factors like age, education, or experience don’t automatically make someone a leader.
This has a number of implications for the workplace, especially when meritocratic organizations unconsciously create an incongruent environment.
Up to the job
To make things work smoothly, it’s crucial for meritocratic organizations to actively communicate to their employees that their leader, even if they don’t fit the typical status mold, is genuinely up to the job.
This assurance helps employees perceive the promotion system as fair, boosting their motivation and reducing the chances of them leaving their jobs. When leaders lack the usual status markers concerning their team, it’s important for them to demonstrate that they earned their position through their skills and qualifications. If managers can do this effectively, issues related to status incongruence shouldn’t be a problem.
However, if a manager is incapable of performing their job, having those traditional markers may provide some temporary relief, but it’s not a practice we want to encourage companies to adopt. It’s always better to have competent leaders in key positions.
Furthermore, this serves as a cautionary message to employees who might feel trapped in their current job due to limited alternatives, especially in times when the economy weakens the bargaining power of workers. In such situations, employees may be more inclined to rationalize a flawed system, even though it’s not in their best interest. Instead, their long-term career prospects should redirect their energy towards enhancing their skills and marketability, thus opening up opportunities to find better jobs elsewhere.
