Each To Their Own
Individuality. Uniqueness. Originality.
In this day and age everyone strives to be different. Catch-phrases, motivational speakers and trendy hashtags all proclaim that every person is different and unique, and every person has their own race to run. People are also very quick to point out that everyone is different and you therefore cannot generalize or treat one person the same as the next.
And yet that is what happens in many companies when it comes to their HR policies. Many HR practices and policies are considered as commonplace, a standard term in a contract, despite the fact that the policies and practices ignore the very thing we all are so sensitive about — individuality.
One of the most common practices is the mandatory retirement age of 65 years. This has become such a normal practice that it appears in almost every employment contract for almost every type of industry. This became the norm due to the belief that a person’s mental ability and intuitiveness declines after 65, and that they can therefore not be effective in their job anymore. This notion made it acceptable to put an expiry date/age on a person’s professional career. This decision is often made several decades in advance, and no effort is made to actually assess the person’s capabilities when they reach 65. They receive a nice thank you, maybe a gift or two, and are sent off into the sunset.
In contrast (and ironically), it is not strange to have politicians and even presidents that are over 65 while still in office. Pres. Donald Trump was 74 when he took office, and Pres. Joe Biden 78. So it is acceptable to have people over 65 run a country, but they are not capable enough to remain in the workplace? Even judges are often over the age of 65, and that is considered acceptable. Yet an office job is deemed too tedious and demanding for people of the same age, and they are asked to retire. Surely any argument to justify “older” politicians can also apply to persons in other professions.
Having a mandatory retirement age can lead to loss of skill and knowledge within the company. Instead of forcing someone from a job — one they might really enjoy — simply because they reached a particular age, companies should consider alternatives. For example, implementing mentorship-programs or offering consultation positions are just two alternatives that could ensure the company retains valuable skills and knowledge while still making way for a new generation.
Age is not the only criteria which is often used to arbitrarily assess an employee’s skills and/or competencies. Several ideas have turned into accepted norms over the years, with no one questioning whether these norms are actually fair.
Another such example — albeit a bit more secretive — is assuming that married people are more mature and will therefore make better managers, heads of departments and so forth. Does the mere fact that someone is married automatically make them more mature? If that were true, would the divorce rate not be lower? The Cambridge English Dictionary defines maturity as “the state of being mentally and emotionally well-developed, and therefore responsible”. Marriage does not make a person mature. How they deal with challenges and grow either makes a person mature or not.
Asking candidates about their marital status has also become a common practice in interviews, as if that will be a determining factor in how they do their work. Surely there are more important questions to ask than whether someone is married or not.
Simply assuming someone is mature because they are married, or that they will be a decent manager because they are married, is a dangerous step to take and can create many problems within the company. Rather than assuming facts, it is advisable to assess people as individuals, irrespective of their marital status.
The alternative is not to ignore these factors when assessing an employee’s skills and capabilities. Age does have an impact on a person’s abilities, and being married makes out a big part of who a person is. Ignoring those components would be ignoring big parts of that person’s identity. Instead it is necessary to put those components — along with many other — in the right context and not assign certain attributes purely based on assumptions.
It happens all too often within the corporate environment, especially when dealing with HR, that certain assumptions are made based on old-fashioned notions. Rather than simply assuming, measure an employee as an individual. Being of a certain age, marital status, race or gender does not mean that employee has certain skills. Everyone wants recognition as individuals, especially in the workplace.
