If the ageing of the workforce is a top three diversity issue for New Zealand companies why do so few have policies and programmes in place?

If 62% of employers at Fortune 1000 companies believe that future retirements will result in skill shortages over the next 5 years why have so few done anything? Only around 20% have taken any action to prevent “boomer brain drain”.

In another US survey why did only 24% of HR professionals see the ageing of the workforce as an issue that would impact their industry over the next 5 years when the demographics are irrefutable?

Management though leader, the late Peter Drucker, was flagging up the ageing of the workforce as a significant challenge for business well over a decade ago. Why is it not included in executive education programmes or the HR curriculum for that matter?

Just this week another credible article was published in the Journal of Applied Psychology stressing the value that older workers bring to the workplace yet we also know that if you become unemployed after the age of 45 it can take longer to get back into work than if you were younger. Many older (and not so old) workers finding themselves without work struggle and eventually give up, the impact of a “100 no’s” eroding their self esteem taking them into “early retirement”.

The economic gain from increasing the participation rate of people over 55 is substantial. Recent UK and Australian reports have underscored this. In NZ the Business of Ageing report has also demonstrated the added economic value. There are also significant health and social benefits from participation in meaningful work.

The myth that continuing to employ older workers will displace younger workers has been well and truly proved wrong yet it persists.   Employing more women did not decrease the number of men in the labour market 30 years ago when the same argument was last run.

In a Manpower survey, just released, 41,700 managers around the world reported talent shortages as peaking at a 7 year high. In the same survey 83% of Japanese managers reported struggling to fill positions. Rapidly ageing countries such as Japan are having businesses curtail expansion plans due to the ageing of the population and very real skill shortages.

Regional economies in New Zealand and Australia are facing skills shortages yet continue to think youth employment and immigration will address their needs as they compete with each other for new workers.

What is going on?

The case for older workers has been well made, the myths have been debunked. We can all identify people over 55, 60 and 65 who just keep going, contributing. They challenge all the stereotypes.

In all Western countries the legislation is in place to protect the discriminated against whether it is on the basis of gender, ethnicity or age. Australia has an age discrimination commissioner, the UK have appointed a national champion (she has just been elected to parliament and has stood down). Australia has funding in place to incentivise business to become age friendly and employ older workers.

A number of countries have NGO’s who speak to the issue, National Seniors Australia, AARP in the USA. There are well established research programmes. Award programmes have been introduced in a number of countries that profile best practice and we have companies who are held up as exemplars.

On the one hand we know what better practice looks like. On the other we know the human and economic cost of not doing much. Yes incremental shifts are taking place. But are they sufficient?

This is a complex issue. It will not go away.

I would welcome your views on what would make a difference?