Ageism: a study of demographic diversity in Brazil

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine the demographic diversity of the so‐called 100 best companies to work for in Brazil and probe whether they exhibit any age bias and discrimination and, if so, in what degree it occurs. Design/methodology/approach Drawing predominantly on Great Place to Work® Institute Brazil lists, the author develops, through a historical research method, the analysis of the published data of those organizations over the decade between 1998 and 2008. Findings The results show that older workers were being sidelined by top‐tier organizations in Brazil. Further, the findings suggest that just some worker groups were being benefited by the 100 best organizations to work for; at the same time, it seemed that they are not interested in other ones. Research limitations/implications Although some triangulations were done with the Minister of Labor statistics, this investigation it is not completely exempt of bias. In light of this possibility, future research should focus on those organizations that show an undeniable age bias in their workforce demographic diversity composition. Practical implications The paper argues that behind the ageism concept lies an inadequate appreciation for some human beings. As a result, organizations that are concerned with better corporate reputation and images should hunker down to eliminate the signals of ageism and the lack of demographic diversity within their workforces. Originality/value This paper shows the results of a qualitative research design focused on Brazilian corporate settings reality. It examines the demographic diversity of the 100 best companies to work for in that country and identifies, in which degree, age bias and discrimination were found inside them, specifically over the period between 1998 and 2008.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 21 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.