The Workplace Intergenerational Climate Scale (WICS): A self‐report instrument measuring ageism in the workplace

• Date: 01 January 2017
• Author: Scott P. King,Fred B. Bryant
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/job.2118
• Published date: 01 January 2017

The Workplace Intergenerational Climate Scale

(WICS): A self-report instrument measuring

ageism in the workplace

SCOTT P. KING

1

*AND FRED B. BRYANT

2

1

Department of Psychology, Shenandoah University, Winchester, Virginia, U.S.A.

2

Department of Psychology, Loyola University Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.

Summary The Workplace Intergenerational Climate Scale (WICS) is designed to measure employees’attitudes and per-

ceptions about workers of different ages in the workplace. In Study 1, an initial 18-item measure was devel-

oped, reflecting five subscales: Intergenerational Contact, Workplace Intergenerational Retention, Positive

Intergenerational Affect, Workplace Generational Inclusiveness, and Lack of Generational Stereotypes.

Scores on the five WICS subscales were linked to workplace mentoring, opinions about older workers, and

job satisfaction. In Study 2, the WICS items and subscales were further refined, and subscale relationships

with similar constructs were explored via structural equation modeling. In Study 3, a more occupationally di-

verse sample was used to support criterion, incremental, discriminant, and external validity. Evidence sup-

ports the use of the WICS as a valid and reliable multidimensional measure of an organization’s

intergenerational climate. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Keywords: ageism; scale development; employee satisfaction; age discrimination; mentoring

Described in terms like “age wave”(Dychtwald, 1990), “silver tsunami”(Social Security Administration, 2008), and

“elder boom”(Terry, 2002), the impact of the ongoing, drastic increase in the number of adults over age 65 cannot be

understated. As Baby Boomers (people born between 1946 and 1964) age, the proportion of Americans age 65+ will

increase from 14.5% in 2014 to 20.6% in 2030 (Colby & Ortman, 2014). As a result, the 65+ workforce-participation

rate, which was 17.4% in 2010, is expected to increase to 22.6% by 2020 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2012).

Ageism in the workplace

Given that many people born before Baby Boomers remain in the workforce, as many as four generations of adults

can be found working together in some workplaces: Traditionalists (born before 1945), Baby Boomers (born

1946–1964), Generation X (born 1965–1980), and Generation Y or Millenials (born after 1980). With multiple per-

spectives, styles of communication, and worldviews co-existing in the same environment, employees may resort to

stereotyping as a way to characterize their co-workers (Bal, Reiss, Rudolph, & Baltes, 2011; Fritzsche & Marcus,

2013; Kite & Wagner, 2002; Ng & Feldman, 2012; Posthuma & Campion, 2009; Rudolph & Zacher, 2015; Walker,

1999). While stereotypes based on gender, race, ethnicity, or sexual orientation receive the most attention, age-based

stereotyping—i.e., ageism (Palmore, 1999)—and the prejudice and discrimination that come with it, is a critical issue

in the workplace and society at large. Palmore (1999) calls it the third crucial “ism”of our society (along with racism

and sexism), but also has pointed out that ageism is distinct from gerontophobia (i.e., the fear of growing old) or a

hatred of old people: “ageism is prejudice or discrimination against or in favor of an age group”(Palmore, 1972, p. 4).

*Correspondence to: Scott P. King, Department of Psychology, Shenandoah University, Winchester, Virginia, U.S.A. E-mail: sking4@su.edu

Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Received 19 August 2014

Revised 22 April 2016, Accepted 25 May 2016

Journal of Organizational Behavior, J. Organiz. Behav. 38, 124–151 (2017)

Published online 14 July 2016 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/job.2118

Research Article

Researchers have documented numerous negative effects of ageism toward older adults, including the tendency

for older candidates to be less likely to be hired or promoted than equally qualified younger candidates (Avolio &

Barrett, 1987; Bendrick, Brown, & Wall, 1999; Britton & Thomas, 1973; Haefner, 1977; Rosen & Jerdee, 1976).

Older workers may also be disadvantaged, compared to younger workers, when transitioning careers (Fritzsche &

Marcus, 2013). Ageism has detrimental nonmonetary effects on older adults, themselves. For example, in commu-

nicating with older adults, people sometimes use patronizing language, or speak overly loudly or slowly. Such com-

munications can erode self-esteem and self-efficacy on the part of the older people, thus potentially reinforcing

whatever stereotypes the speaker had in the first place (Harwood, Williams, & Williams, 1998; Ryan, Hamilton,

& See, 1994). Over time, older adults who encounter negative age-related stereotypes experience adverse psycholog-

ical and physiological changes, including worsened memory, cognitive performance, self-efficacy, handwriting,

will-to-live, hearing, and cardiovascular stress responses (Levy, 1996, 2000, 2003; Levy, Ashman, & Dror, 1999;

Levy, Slade, & Gill, 2006; Levy, Slade, Kunkel, & Kasl, 2002). In this respect, ageism shows a similarity to other

prejudices, such as racism and sexism, through the concept of stereotype threat (Steele & Aronson, 1995): when a

target group is made aware of stereotypes about themselves, they are threatened by the chance that they will bear

out those stereotypes, and their performance suffers as a result. For example, Hess, Auman, Colcombe, and Rahhal

(2003) showed that projecting negative stereotypes on an older person leads to decreased memory performance.

Research on the effects of ageism on younger adults is scarce (Rudolph & Zacher, 2015), although Abrams,

Eilola, and Swift (2009), Abrams, Russell, Vauclair, and Swift (2011), and Sweiry and Willitts (2012) have included

younger adults as targets of age discrimination in larger studies of ageism in Europe. Duncan and Loretto (2004)

found that workers in the youngest and oldest age groups were most likely to have experienced age-based workplace

discrimination in the U.K., with younger workers reporting being the target of negative attitudes and being

overlooked for promotion. While not focusing specifically on stereotypes about younger workers, in a 2011 meta-

analysis, Bal et al. found a consistent trend toward perceiving younger employees as less reliable than older

employees. In light of the aforementioned increasing numbers of older adults in the workforce, and the increasing

potential for multiple generations of workers to be interacting with each other on a daily basis, it is important to

try to lessen the presence and impact of ageist attitudes in the workplace.

A first step toward that goal is to determine the extent of ageist attitudes in the workplace. National data about job

discrimination settlements provide a broad financial estimate of ageism, and experiments show how it affects individ-

uals, but if an individual organization wants to eliminate ageism in its immediate environment, attention must be

given to intergenerational dynamics within that organization or workplace (Lyons & Kuron, 2014; Posthuma & Cam-

pion, 2009; Posthuma & Guerrero, 2013). These dynamics, as perceived by the employees themselves, comprise an

organization’s psychological climate (Baltes, Zhdanova, & Parker, 2009), or in this case, intergenerational climate.

Although meager in comparison to the measurement of sexism and racism (Nelson, 2002; North & Fiske, 2012),

literature on the measurement of ageism includes a handful of validated instruments measuring ageist attitudes and

behaviors toward older adults, such as the Aging Semantic Differential (ASD; Rosencranz & McNevin, 1969),

Fraboni Scale of Ageism (FSA; Fraboni, Saltstone, & Hughes, 1990), the Relating to Older People Evaluation scale

(ROPE; Cherry & Palmore, 2008), or the Succession, Identity, and Consumption scale (SIC; North & Fiske, 2013),

and even a measure of stereotypes about older workers with the Attitudes toward Older Workers Scale (AOWS;

Gringart, Helmes, & Speelman, 2013). However, little research has addressed attitudes toward workers of a variety

of ages (Perry, Hanvongse, & Casoinic, 2013), nor has a tool been developed to measure intraorganizational inter-

generational dynamics.

North and Fiske (2012), in discussing intergenerational tension as a root of ageism, point out that younger workers

may be stereotyped similarly to older workers, and argue for researchers to broaden their perspective on ageism to

include all age groups. The SIC scale (North & Fiske, 2013) is a noteworthy initial attempt at measuring ageism

from this broadened intergenerational perspective, yet does not address intergenerational dynamics within organiza-

tions. As North and Fiske point out, much of the rationale for traditional theories of ageism rests on the idea of older

people existing in modern society’s periphery, where younger people can avoid contact with and dissociate from

them. This invisibility assumption, however, will become more and more untenable as the aforementioned age

WORKPLACE INTERGENERATIONAL CLIMATE 125

Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 38, 124–151 (2017)

DOI: 10.1002/job