I spend a lot of time recruiting and interviewing. I've noticed an increased tendancy from candidates over 50 to bemoan the fact they find it hard to get a job.
Whilst I can empathise and see how this point of view is created I do find all to often that the self same candadates have failed to develope themselves and have happily coasted along for a number of years. Often they are then made redundant (in a company shake-up - nothing to do with them) and they then find it difficult to obtain work. They 'blame' this on ageism however the issue from a recruiters perspective is that the often havent kept their skills up to date and lack current practices and skills.
We decline them and no doubt their self fulfilling prophesy perpetuates itself.
Is there any truth in this? What do others think.
PS. I'm not denying ageism does go on.
Juliet LeFevre
20 Responses
I’m not sure if this helps
Hi Juliet
(My title refers to my comment, it is not a judgement on your question!)
I recently heard of a recruitment consultant who was interviewing for a training manager role.
The consultant wanted someone with some gravitas and history.
He met a candidate whose age wasn’t clear from the CV.
The candidate stated “I’m the youngest 50 year old you’ll ever meet”
From his appearance, demeanour and previous comments the recruitment consultant had actually thought the candidate was nearer 65!
Rus
ageism
Hi Julie
Well the fact of the matter is that whether this is true or not or whether it is ageism/age discrimination/or age anything, recruiters need to be up to scratch with the forthcoming legislation (October 2006) that will make Age the final strand of diversity to be covered by the law… I welcome the changes and remind us all that it’s the only strand of diversity that we are all potentially discriminated against. The training courses I run on the topic are booking up fast… which is a good indicator that there is a desire to be conversant with the law.
Qualified recruiters?
I’d be interested to know more about your qualifications as a recruiter.
Presumably you look for staff who are able to read and write English, in which case perhaps it’s time to brush up your own skills: I spotted several typos in your question (tendancy, candadates, develope, the often havent).
Also, what’s your own age? All too often older candidates find it harder to get past the prejudices of the first layer in the selection process, which is staffed by people like yourself.
Touchy
Robin,
I recruit the best person for the job irrespective of age. Anecdotally younger candidates are often more able to demonstrate that they have processes and policies up to date. Older candidates frequently do not demonstrate this. This is a fact however much you may disagree with it.
Older candidates are frequently more skillful ie. possess more skills and experience than younger candidates, however they arent using current practices or processes. It is the latter evidence that employers are looking for.
As for my age 40. As for my spelling, I type quickly and forgot to proof read and as there is no spell checker they showed up. I’m addressing a chat site not sitting an exam, formality isnt a prerequisite. Shoot me.
Ageism
Ageism is much more subtle than “older” workers not keeping up with current skills. Just take ten minutes to read through some job advertisements. Comments like….would suit someone looking to develop thier career in…..suit someone looking for the the next step up the career ladder…..young vibrant Company seeks……young outlook required…..All these phrases indicate that what Companies are really looking for is someone in 20/30 age range. I went to University at the age of 46 and studied part-time whilst working full-time and seeing my children through GCSE’s and A levels and gained a Masters degree in Management. What did I find when I was looking for jobs a couple of years ago….I was over qualified! You just can’t win! I’m now 52 and luckily work in a training department, mostly with people much younger than myself doing a job that I enjoy and where my experience is appreciated. I also think there has to be some responsibility with Companies to keep their staff fully trained and up to date its shouldn’t all rest with employees (of any age. Technology moves on at such a pace that even if you went to evening classes off your own back the knowledge would be out of date within a very short length of time. Come on employers don’t moan when staff aren’t up to speed, send them on training courses or run them internally.
Nobody has the right to a job
I think your assessment of the issue is pretty spot on.
I worked with many people over the years, and age does not seem to be the problem to me, it is attitude, and I think many years aog most people did expect to be ‘looked’ after by their employer.
To be honest I was one of them, until the day I got made redundant.
However those 15 years I s pent in one company was spent doing about 6 different roles. Therefore I had a wide range of skills and abilities which I was able to use to my advantage.
I had 28 year olds in my team who got made redundant who behaved as if it was ‘the world against them’.
I do not believe that current practises are any different to practises of years ago, other than the langgauge and the culture (and speed) have changed. I say this becuase the world seems to see Drucker and Welch, Goleman etc etc as the business leaders. Well Drucker and Wlech are not t hat young, and Goleman is based on Buddhist philosophy, so just a bit older than Jack or Peter (I think).
You point of skills is the key, and it begs the question as to the failings of their previous employer not exploiting the full capability of it’s employers which leads to stagnation, lack of innovation, and eventually a cost reduction exercise called redundancy.
Personally I say that I will only stop developing my skills and knowledge the day they make my wooden overcoat and lay me to rest.
Skills or rapport ?
As a 50-something who HAS kept his skills up to date, but found it very difficult to find another job after redundancy, I think it can be more subtle. As I’ve grown older, I’ve learned to think before I open my mouth, but recently a 20-something agency recruiter said I didn’t come across as energetic and enthusiastic. It could be that the recruiter has as much responsibility to connect with candidates. In my experience, technical skills are less important than willingness to learn and change, but easier to use to make a short list.
Employee also plays a part
Thanks for some balanced comments
>>>>Your point of skills is the key, and it begs the question as to the failings of their previous employer not exploiting the full capability of it’s employers which leads to stagnation, lack of innovation, and eventually a cost reduction exercise called redundancy>>>
I agree with this and it can also be looked at it from the point of view of an employee who was quite happy to coast along and let this happen to them. They didnt go elsewhere for another job, they didnt look externally (night school) and they didnt proactively keep themselves current. Its a two way process for which the employee has some responsibility.
>>>>20-something agency recruiter said I didn’t come across as energetic and enthusiastic.>>>>
You see here is the exact point and the chip on the shoulder to prove it. You dont know what the recruiter was tasked with looking for it could be that energy and enthusiasm are highly praised attributes for the position. So you’ve assumed that they must wrong and it must OF COURSE be something to do with their age and of course its their fault that you didnt display enthusiasm or energy.
When are we going to get beyond this thinking???
yeh but…
I would agree with you if those attributes were mentioned in the role profile. As they were not, I look for a less rational explanation.
My ‘chip’ is about a 20-something recruiter who actually understood little about the job or my skills – Resumix or the like could perhaps have done a better job. It is about people making decisions about me beyond their competence, irrespective of their age, and maybe I’m not alone in that respect.
Pots and kettles
I understand your point Peter however you would reinforce it much more strongly if 1. You asked for his/her notes under the Data Protection Act to thereby prove that you were discriminated against and that he/she didnt understand your current level of skills/knowledge and 2. You didnt keep referring to a ’20 something’ – the implication being its was his/her age that was to blame.
Thats assumptive and ageist in itself.
Peter,
Are older people less flexible in their outlook, you seem unable to see it from the other person’s perspective?
Is rigidity a facet of getting older?
Isnt that my point? Older candidates perhaps dont display willingness to change, openness of approach, flexibility?
You tell me???
Ageism begets ageism
OK, you’ve flushed out some stuff for me to think about. Most of it is actually based on my memories of being in my 20’s and thinking anyone over 50 had one foot in the grave and should listen more to ‘energetic’ and ‘enthusiastic’ people. So thank you for that.
To take up your footnote and to return to your main question, my perspective is that it seems to be becoming received wisdom that people in their 50s and beyond are becoming much more flexible, especially in career terms, than perhaps in our parents’ generation. I’m thinking in particular of those who set up their own businesses, maybe unrelated to their previous work experience, or go back to study and change career (as Barbara L below did).
Thus some companies I believe are missing out by not managing their talent: (1) by allowing their peoples’ skills to get out of date in the first place (no wonder GB is not in the top 20 in terms of productivity) and (2) not harnessing the continuing (but perhaps less overt) enthusiasm and energy that older folk have. I wonder why they might appear ageist ?
Funny though that the main reason I get rejected for jobs is that I lack experience in that sector or this industry. Where’s the flexibility in the employer or recruiter, especially when, as an HRD person, my core skills are transferrable ?
PS, my top Gallup Strength is Adaptability.
Learning from mistakes
>>>>Funny though that the main reason I get rejected for jobs is that I lack experience in that sector or this industry. Where’s the flexibility in the employer or recruiter, especially when, as an HRD person, my core skills are transferrable ?
Nothing funny about it, when you are faced with a candidate with experience and one who doesnt and its gonna cost time and training to bring that candidate up to speed then employers go for the experienced candidate. Secondly employers arent required to exercise flexibility, they are required to adhere to the law and pick the best person for the job, if there is someone with more experience than you and thats what they are looking for then I’m afraid its ‘tough cheese’.
Instead of looking for a job where experience in a sector is a requirement why not stick to a sector where you do have that experience?
Pls read my comment again
You miss my point – management training is management training is management training. There’s a whole industry around delivering generic courses. But some recruiters and employers think their function/industry is unique. If they understood training better, they’d tap into a wider pool of talent. Flexibility is two way.
Age is just a number
I tend to agree with Peter on this point. Twice I have been shortlisted down to the last 2 candidates and have lost out due to the other person having industry experience (at least that’s what they told me!). That is despite the fact that my CV shows I have worked in various industry sectors, totally unconnected and still managed to make a significant contribution.
On the ageism point, I have never put my age on my CV (I am over 50) and my age hasn’t been a factor in my last 3 jobs. I do think it’s a case of the age you act and feel rather than the number. If I get the interview based on my CV, it is then up to me to demonstrate that I’m the best person for the job, regardless of any other considerations
Sue
Are we all guilty?
I think it’s equally true from both sides of the equation.
There are a large number of 50+ candidates who have either failed to keep their skills up to date or who are unable to demonstrate that their practices and procedures are current in an interview (candidates fault or interviewers fault?)
However, equally there are a large number of recruiters who (anecdotally) favour younger candidates because they “perceive” that they are more current or have more energy or enthusiasm, or because they are cheaper to employ.
Incidentally self-fulfilling prophecies are dangerous things. If your perception is that the older candidates are less up-to-date, then that can be what you will end up proving.
It seems to me Juliet that what you are doing is defending your position. Your original questioned seemed to be based on a genuine desire to challenge your own belief but your responses seem to indicate that you want to change everyone elses.
Just my perception as a 30-something training and recruitment manager.
Sole authors of their misfortune ?
Juliet,
I’m struggling to imagine your 50+ people who drift in such a rapidly changing world, though admittedly I’ve no experience of the public sector. I’ve heard anecdotally of some who are just holding out for retirement at 60 – perhaps they’re the type you have in mind ? But are there so many ? What industries are you in ?
I’d been in the same company for 10 years, so my experience is limited, but for 50+s I know usually it’s not for the want of trying to keep up to date. What I HAVE seen most often (and I’m NOT speaking of myself) is people on high salaries (£40k+) being moved aside because a less experienced (and younger) person can do the job almost as well and keep the salary budget down. Those people are then parked in a backwater and forgotten about in development terms. The psychological impact of this can be as great as being made redundant, and I think more cruel, because at least on the dole they don’t waste much time figuring out what to do next. So in these cases, the organisation is ageist.
Stop press: had an interciew yesterday £5k below previous salary and got knocked back for being overqualified. We’re not all under par 😉
Getting people talking and thinking
>>>>Those people are then parked in a backwater and forgotten about in development terms.
Here is the drifting. No one forces them to stay, no one says they cant proactively update their skills. They have to accept some responsibility themselves.
Dont blame capitalism for demanding cheaper costs. They could have moved.
Nigel,
You have me banged to rights. My view is and was that I think this is a glass half full, glass half empty debate. It depends on your perspective. Certainly we’ve seen some entrenched views on both sides.
I dont have solutions but I do interview candidates and observe actual behaviours (not simply perceive).
Was I trying to spark some controversy and debate? Yep.
Did I start froma preconceived hypothesis, yes, and I did state it.
Was this debate a good thing to do?
Time will tell.
Respect begets respect
>> Here is the drifting. No one forces them to stay, no one says they cant proactively update their skills. They have to accept some responsibility themselves.
>>>Dont blame capitalism for demanding cheaper costs. They could have moved.
I agree, once they’ve come to terms with the change. This takes time. Then there’s the sham of giving them some allegedly important role which turns out to have no substance. But I’m not an apologist, more trying to give you some of the pressures by which they arrived in front of you. And there can also be an element of tree-hugging as you suggest. Some of it can be motivated by holding out for a large redundancy payment, whereas if they jump into an uncertain 50+ employment world, they get nothing. Would you hang around for 6 months and perhaps pick up £50k+ redundancy if you’ve got long service, or get on your bike as you advocate ?
But you’ve missed my point again, the company is not making best use of its resources. I heard recently of one company that took 20 people that weren’t key and put them in a resource pool for other overstretched projects to draw on in time of need. What happened ? They sat on their backsides for months with no work. ‘Capitalism’ perhaps ought to be more efficient, even if it is to give them the boot.
>>>I dont have solutions but I do interview candidates and observe actual behaviours (not simply perceive).
I’ve made the mistake of going to yet another meeting with yet another recruiter believing through experience most are a pretty low form of pond life (yourself excepted of course!!) and behaving in a very different way to being in front of an employer. I’ve learned the hard way. Is this perhaps where some of your developing bias is coming from ?
Generational conflict
Perhaps another explanation is generational conflict. By that I mean that some younger interviewers may display ‘ageism’ when interviewing older interviewees, and older interviewees may display ‘youthism’ when being interviewed by younger interviewers. This could result in ‘contaminated’ or even ‘toxic’ communication.
New Age Regulations
This post has attracted a lot of comments and ageism looks like being a hot issue once the new Age Regulations become law on 1st October. “The big employment law issue” according to Cherie Booth. For information and guidance on the new Regs have a look at http://www.age2006.org