Skip to main content
Cross Validated

Return to Question

Notice removed Authoritative reference needed by LF12
Bounty Ended with Sycorax's answer chosen by LF12
Tweeted twitter.com/#!/StackStats/status/595301352554782720
Notice added Authoritative reference needed by LF12
Bounty Started worth 50 reputation by LF12
Improving since I am offering reputation
Source Link
LF12
LF12
  • 539
  • 2
  • 6
  • 18

I read thisA report a few weeks ago and its finding was interesting but I am concerned with the interpretationclaiming that older individuals were not appreciated at technology firms.

The authors (I wish I had a link) look at how age is appreciated in the technology sector. This isThey studied a great question since the labour market is aging. The authors use the contextdozen factory locations of onea tech firm where employees could (across a dozen locationsanonymously) where employees propose asuggest process improvement that is postedimprovements on thea bulletin board. People for in the next week canhallway. Others could walk by and votesign their name if they like the improvement. No negative voting is allowedagreed.

The authors find that process improvements suggested by older employees (those less than 35 are considered young) are endorsed 8% less than younger employees and that it is highly significant. The people voting have no idea whoresearchers knew which employee suggested what so they could study the effect of age seems real. They control many variables like location of plant, week of the year, and what categoryA dichotomous measure that is unity if a suggestion was written by an employee over the process improvement falls inage of 35.

They don't know how many people could have voted, so they cant do a ratio, butfind that does not bother me too muchsuggestions by older employees received 8% fewer endorsements. What I don't understand

My concern is that they reportalso state that 80% of the employees are considered youngunder 35, and that 71%a similar proportion (71%) of processthe suggested improvements are suggested by youngerfrom young employees.

Don't So, don't they have to show that the number of endorsements is fewer than what we would expect given the age ratio atfact that the majority of employees are young? I feel like the result is being driven by the makeup of the firm, the board on any given day is dominated by young employee suggestions. On the other hand, it is not like employees are picking their favorite and then we could expect the proportion to matter.

I am not just that older people get less? The authors don't discuss thissure so maybeI would like to know if it ismatters and if not an issue, but iswhy doesn't it? If it is wrong,does how would you do the analysis to showthey fix it? And, if it does is there an example of a study that the older employees are getting less than we would expect given their proportion at the firmdoes it right?

I read this report a few weeks ago and its finding was interesting but I am concerned with the interpretation.

The authors (I wish I had a link) look at how age is appreciated in the technology sector. This is a great question since the labour market is aging. The authors use the context of one firm (across a dozen locations) where employees propose a process improvement that is posted on the bulletin board. People for the next week can walk by and vote if they like the improvement. No negative voting is allowed.

The authors find that process improvements suggested by older employees (those less than 35 are considered young) are endorsed 8% less than younger employees and that it is highly significant. The people voting have no idea who suggested what so the effect of age seems real. They control many variables like location of plant, week of the year, and what category the process improvement falls in.

They don't know how many people could have voted, so they cant do a ratio, but that does not bother me too much. What I don't understand is that they report that 80% of the employees are considered young and that 71% of process improvements are suggested by younger employees.

Don't they have to show that the number of endorsements is fewer than what we would expect given the age ratio at the firm and not just that older people get less? The authors don't discuss this so maybe it is not an issue, but is it? If it is wrong, how would you do the analysis to show that the older employees are getting less than we would expect given their proportion at the firm?

A report was claiming that older individuals were not appreciated at technology firms.

They studied a dozen factory locations of a tech firm where employees could (anonymously) suggest process improvements on a bulletin board in the hallway. Others could walk by and sign their name if they agreed.

The researchers knew which employee suggested what so they could study the effect of age. A dichotomous measure that is unity if a suggestion was written by an employee over the age of 35.

They find that suggestions by older employees received 8% fewer endorsements.

My concern is that they also state that 80% of the employees are under 35, and a similar proportion (71%) of the suggested improvements are from young employees. So, don't they have to show that the number of endorsements is fewer than what we would expect given the fact that the majority of employees are young? I feel like the result is being driven by the makeup of the firm, the board on any given day is dominated by young employee suggestions. On the other hand, it is not like employees are picking their favorite and then we could expect the proportion to matter.

I am not sure so I would like to know if it matters and if not why doesn't it? If it does how would they fix it? And, if it does is there an example of a study that does it right?

Source Link
LF12
LF12
  • 539
  • 2
  • 6
  • 18

Difference or proportional

I read this report a few weeks ago and its finding was interesting but I am concerned with the interpretation.

The authors (I wish I had a link) look at how age is appreciated in the technology sector. This is a great question since the labour market is aging. The authors use the context of one firm (across a dozen locations) where employees propose a process improvement that is posted on the bulletin board. People for the next week can walk by and vote if they like the improvement. No negative voting is allowed.

The authors find that process improvements suggested by older employees (those less than 35 are considered young) are endorsed 8% less than younger employees and that it is highly significant. The people voting have no idea who suggested what so the effect of age seems real. They control many variables like location of plant, week of the year, and what category the process improvement falls in.

They don't know how many people could have voted, so they cant do a ratio, but that does not bother me too much. What I don't understand is that they report that 80% of the employees are considered young and that 71% of process improvements are suggested by younger employees.

Don't they have to show that the number of endorsements is fewer than what we would expect given the age ratio at the firm and not just that older people get less? The authors don't discuss this so maybe it is not an issue, but is it? If it is wrong, how would you do the analysis to show that the older employees are getting less than we would expect given their proportion at the firm?