The Primordial Nature of Ageist Stereotypes - An Ageist Series (1 of 3)

01
Aug 2024
CPHR Alberta
208
A person is playing a game of chess on a table.

Author: Manley Osbak 

While demographic shifts increase the percentage of older adults in society, unexamined motivations and pervasive biases continue to devalue this growing demographic. Ageist attitudes not only marginalize older adults but undermines the social capacity to organically develop through intergenerational exchange. Consequently, the impoverished environments we create—shaped by stereotypes—become the ones in which we find ourselves mired. This disconnect between demographic reality and societal response underscores the urgency to address our ageist perceptions.

In 1982, the United Nations highlighted the 'phenomenon of aging on a massive scale' at the first World Assembly on Ageing. The Secretary General of the Assembly, Mr. William Kerrigan, emphasized the broad economic and social impacts if the challenges of ageing were not addressed. He pointed out that before developing solutions, a fundamental shift in our attitudes towards ageing was necessary.

Four decades later, little seems to have changed. In 2021, the World Health Organization reported that ageism is widespread and deeply entrenched, impacting society on a level comparable to racism. Ageist stereotypes cast older adults as less productive, less ambitious, resistant to change, and less competent: implying a lack of capability, skill, and intelligence. This enduring prejudice not only marginalizes older people but ensures the development of an impoverished workplace, where biologically driven strengths are neither recognized nor leveraged.

While Kerrigan rebuked our attitude, Ronald Reagan, then President of the United States, clearly, yet unwittingly, expressed it. Speaking to the Assembly, he said, 'Older persons must have a secure place in society. They must be given the opportunity to contribute both socially and economically. Above all, they must not be denied the dignity that comes from being wanted, needed, and respected.' His statement express the biases that Kerrigan warned us about: it is not older adults who need our noble egalitarianism, but rather, it is we ourselves who need to recognize the structure of our own loss.

Ageist stereotypes extend beyond superficial judgments about the specific traits of older people, but instead, reflect a deeper, more fundamental human concern. As depicted in Figure 1, the Stereotype Content Model categorizes these judgments along two primary dimensions: competence and warmth. These dimensions are frequently used as proxies to evaluate an individual's competitive potential. This assessment, in turn, gauges their perceived ability to enhance, undermine, or threaten our own competitive standing.

When people are perceived as competitive and having social status, they are seen as competent but lacking warmth, that is, they are seen as ‘cold.’ Conversely, those seen as not competitive and with low status are typically seen as warm but incompetent. Ageist stereotypes categorize older adults as warm but incompetent due to their perceived lack of competitiveness and low social status. Thus, stereotypes essentially assess a person's capacity to either threaten or support one’s self-enhancement drives and the groups with which one identifies, such as one's employer. Engaging in stereotyping involves making decisions about including or excluding people based solely on our perceptions of their potential to competitively threaten or support us.

Stereotypes distort the truth about people, imposing a false identity upon them and simplifying complex human attributes. While they may be intended to protect the in-group from perceived threats posed by the out-group, ageist stereotypes deprive us of the rich intergenerational processes that hold profound social and interpersonal value. This is the very dynamic that the Secretary General highlighted when he warned about the impacts of ageism. Ageist stereotypes overlook the vital contributions that different age groups make to each other’s development and well-being. Addressing ageism, therefore, is not about extending charity to older adults, as suggested by Reagan’s address; it is about recognizing that their involvement is crucial to our collective and individual development.

Ageist stereotypes are more than just superficial misjudgments about older adults; they represent a more primordial concern about competitiveness, resource allocation, and self-enhancement. As explained through the Stereotype Content Model, ageist stereotypes pigeonhole older adults as warm but incompetent, reflecting their perceived lower competitiveness and social status. Such misguided perceptions not only misrepresent individual capabilities but also hinder the potential benefits of intergenerational solidarity, engagement, and exchange.

Historical insights, such as those from the United Nations' World Assembly on Aging, reveal the persistent nature of these stereotypes and their detrimental effect on social exchange, particularly within the workplace. Importantly, human society is fundamentally intergenerational, with an evolutionary interdependence that strengthens communal ties and enhances collective growth. Recognizing and addressing ageism is therefore not an act of charity but a crucial step towards harnessing this intergenerational strength and fostering a more sustainable and productive society and workplace.


The views and opinions expressed in this blog post belong solely to the original author(s) and do not necessarily represent the views and opinions of CPHR Alberta.


Manley Osbak is a Workforce Development Specialist with Work Locomotion where he leads the development and delivery of supervisor training. As a Certified Training and Development Professional with over 25 years of experience in the energy, construction, and manufacturing sectors, Manley focuses on helping supervisors master their roles in an increasingly complex operating environment. Having authored and coauthored numerous journal papers and trade magazine articles, Manley is well known for his investigative approach and crisp delivery. Connect with him on LinkedIn and access his current work on worklocomotion.Substack.com.


The views and opinions expressed in this blog post belong solely to the original author(s) and do not necessarily represent the views and opinions of CPHR Alberta.



By Jessica Jaithoo August 21, 2026
Each year on August 26th, Women’s Equality Day offers an opportunity to reflect on progress toward gender equity while recognizing the work that remains. While legislative milestones have helped create a more equitable foundation, the lived experiences of women in today’s workplaces tell a more nuanced story. To explore this further, we invited a group of women leaders to share their perspectives on equality in practice, the barriers that persist, and the actions needed to drive meaningful change. Their responses highlight both the progress made and the opportunities ahead. Contributors: Chelsea Harper, Director of Human Resources, Stoppler Hughes Christine Dagenais, Founder and CEO, Bright Wire Leadership Development Connie De Ciancio, Chief Commercial Officer, Strathcona Resources Michelle Dulmadge, Executive Vice President Human Resources, Surerus Murphy Rosy Makkar-Sethi, Portfolio Head of HR, Volaris Group Sabrina Brock, Vice President Human Resources, TriSummit Utilities Inc. To guide the discussion, we asked each contributor to reflect on three questions: What does women’s equality truly mean to you in today’s professional or leadership context, beyond formal policies or stated commitments? From your experience, what structural or cultural barrier continues to limit women’s advancement, and where do you see the greatest opportunity for progress? What is one action by leaders or organizations that can meaningfully advance women’s equality, and why does it matter now? Across responses, women’s equality was described not just as a policy outcome, but as a lived experience of fairness, recognition, and opportunity. As Chelsea shared: “It requires acknowledging that women have historically been conditioned differently in the workplace and society. The goal is to build workplaces where women are valued, compensated, and developed equitably enough that gender eventually becomes irrelevant to the conversation.” Connie emphasized fairness in assessment: “It is when people are genuinely assessed on their capability, judgment, performance, and leadership potential, not on assumptions or labels. It is not about lowering the bar or advancing someone because of gender; it is about making sure the best person has a fair opportunity to step forward and be recognized.” Sabrina reflected: “It is the experience of truly feeling valued for who you are as a professional and as a leader, where gender is not a topic of conversation. It also means being surrounded by more women in senior leadership roles due to equal access to stretch roles, equivalent tolerance for risk-taking, and performance judged by the same standards.” Despite progress for women in the workplace, certain barriers remain and are often invisible to those who have not experienced it. Chelsea reinforces the deeper context behind these challenges: “A true commitment to women’s equality requires acknowledging that history and understanding how deeply it still impacts confidence, negotiation, leadership presence, and career progression today.” Rosy names it directly: “A persistent barrier I continue to see is the reliance on subjective notions of leadership potential, often shaped by familiarity and unconscious bias. In my experience, this disproportionately impacts women, and even more so women of colour, whose strengths and leadership styles may not align with the traditional model. I have seen how this can limit access to opportunity despite clear capability and performance.” Subjectivity, when left unchecked, defaults to familiarity. Familiarity tends to favour the dominant group even when it is not intentional. This habit will continue to be consequential in the workplace. Sabrina offers a common example of how this bias shows up in practice: “If the behaviour is assertiveness, men may be seen as strong, confident, decisive leaders; however, when a woman behaves that way, they may be seen as aggressive, difficult, or abrasive.” The good news: Michelle calls for organizational accountability. “When equity is treated as a business discipline, not just a values statement, it becomes measurable and sustainable.” Christine adds the human dimension: “Real progress happens when women stop waiting for permission and start taking their seat at the table and when men in leadership actively sponsor and advocate for women, not simply as a diversity initiative, but because it strengthens teams and organizations.” Together, they point to the same truth: meaningful advancement requires both systemic intention and individual confidence. These examples are not seeking for exception, but consistency. Women want to be seen clearly, assessed fairly, and given the same opportunities to rise, or stumble, that their peers receive without having to ask. Building on this, one theme emerged clearly in how contributors see progress taking shape: the importance of sponsorship. Respondents highlighted the impact of leaders actively advocating for capable colleagues - particularly those who may not yet recognize their own potential or have had opportunities to demonstrate it. Rosy emphasizes the role of leadership influence, noting that “When leaders use their influence to advocate for women in succession discussions, critical assignments, and promotion decisions, opportunities for women increase significantly”. Similarly, Michelle reflects on the tangible impact of sponsorship in practice: “In my career, the moments that accelerated growth were when a leader put my name forward for something I had not yet been given the chance to prove at scale. Those decisions build confidence, capability, and visibility in ways that formal development programs cannot”. The urgency of this approach is reinforced by Connie, who notes, “This matters now because organizations need the strongest possible leaders, and they cannot afford to overlook capable people who may simply need a push to step up.” Christine expands on this broader organizational impact, stating “The leaders who understand this do not see equality as a favour or a quota. They recognize, as research continues to show, that advancing women’s equality is a strategic advantage. And importantly, they understand that creating greater equality is not a zero-sum game. When women rise, organizations, teams, and communities benefit alongside them.” Collectively, these perspectives highlight key actions: sponsorship, creating meaningful opportunities for growth, and encouraging individuals to recognize and step into their potential. Advancing women’s equality requires intention, advocacy, and action - turning insight into impact by championing talent and ensuring no potential goes overlooked.
By Jessica Jaithoo August 19, 2026
Author: Kanwaljit Chaudhry We often begin developing leaders after we have given them something to lead. Someone is promoted into their first supervisory role. They join a leadership development program, receive coaching, attend workshops, or are paired with a mentor. All of these can be valuable. But by then, leadership development has already been happening. Long before the title arrives, people are learning how to exercise judgment, influence others, navigate disagreement, take responsibility and make decisions when the answer is not obvious. The question for HR is: Do we have to wait for the title to help those capabilities grow? Create opportunities, not just programs Some of the most valuable leadership development happens through work itself. A stretch assignment. Leading a small project. Presenting an idea to senior colleagues. Coordinating people who do not report to you. Navigating competing priorities. Being trusted to make a decision rather than simply carrying one out. None requires a management title. HR can help organizations look at development as not only as courses people attend, but as experiences people need. That may mean encouraging managers to distribute meaningful opportunities rather than repeatedly turning to the person who is already proven. It may mean designing project work so different employees have opportunities to lead. It may mean making mentoring, coaching or job-shadowing available before someone enters a formal leadership pipeline. The objective is not to make everyone a manager. It is to give more people opportunities to build capabilities that will serve them whether or not formal leadership is their eventual destination. Make room to learn from experience Experience alone does not necessarily create development. Two people can go through similar experiences and take very different things from them. What often makes the difference is the opportunity to reflect: What worked? What didn't? What did I notice about myself? What would I do differently next time? HR can help make those conversations part of development rather than leaving them to chance. A manager checking in after a difficult project can ask more than, “Did we deliver?” A mentor can help someone examine why a conversation went differently than expected. A performance discussion can explore not only what someone accomplished, but how they influenced others, exercised judgment or responded when things became uncertain. These are relatively small interventions. But they help turn experience into learning. Notice leadership before it becomes obvious There is another role for HR: helping organizations broaden what they notice. Potential does not always announce itself loudly. The person who volunteers to coordinate a complicated piece of work may be demonstrating leadership capacity. So might the employee who brings people together when a team is stuck, asks the question no one else is asking, helps a colleague succeed without needing credit, or remains thoughtful when everyone else is rushing toward an answer. If we look for leadership potential only among those who already resemble our current leaders, we may keep finding the same kinds of people.  Creating broader opportunities allows capability to become visible before we decide who has it. Pay attention to what the organization teaches Organizations are also developing future leaders when they are not deliberately trying to. Employees notice who gets promoted. They notice what behaviour gets rewarded, whose ideas receive attention and what happens when someone makes a mistake. They notice whether managers share information or protect it, whether difficult conversations are avoided or handled respectfully, and whether asking for help is treated as good judgment or weakness. These observations become lessons about what leadership looks like here. HR influences many of the systems through which those lessons are reinforced e.g., performance management, recognition, development, succession planning and promotion among them. That makes an important question worth asking: What are our people learning about leadership from the way our organization actually works? The answer may tell us as much about our leadership pipeline as any competency framework. Before the title Leadership development does not have to begin with a leadership program. It can begin when someone is trusted with something slightly beyond what they have done before and supported while they figure it out. It can happen when a manager shares the reasoning behind a difficult decision rather than only communicating the outcome. It can happen when someone gets to lead a project before they have people reporting to them. And it can happen when an employee has someone who helps them make sense of an experience rather than simply move on to the next task. HR cannot manufacture leaders. But HR can help create workplaces where people have opportunities to practise judgment, responsibility, influence and reflection long before a title makes those things part of their job description. Perhaps the question is not only “Who are our future leaders?” It is also: “What are we doing today that gives future leadership capacity a chance to emerge?”
By Marina Perkovic July 22, 2026
At the CPHR Alberta Conference, we asked HR leaders one question: What leadership capability matters most for the future of your organization? Leaders picked up a star and placed it beside their answer. By the end of the conference, HR leaders cast 131 votes across 16 capabilities. Three stood out, with two tied for first place. Here is what they told us. What the Data Showed The capabilities on the board came from Bright Wire's PLUS Leadership Framework, a proprietary model built to define what effective leadership looks like across every level of an organization and is organized across four dimensions: Courageous Coach-Like Disciplined for Results and Relational The results below reflect the capabilities HR professionals believe matter most. 
MORE NEWS