I was in a position to hire, a couple years ago, a receptionist/assistant for a small, swanky architectural firm. Most of the applicants were chipper 20-something or 30-something wannabe actresses or singers, but there were a couple of women in their 40s and 50s who applied. They had been doing receptionist work for about 20 years and were probably very competent at many of the tasks, but the position was also very computer-oriented and we had doubts as to whether they would be able to handle things like mail merges, complicated printing layouts. Another consideration was that this person was going to be representing the firm, which made marketing pains to be modern and stylish.
That being said, when I was looking for a job, I was insecure that someone older and with more experience was going to knock me out of the running. Just because you’re young doesn’t automatically give you an in, and often it’s assumed that you’re not willing to pay your dues because you’ve got some generational entitlement built in. Wasn’t there a thread on here a while back about how certain posters are loathe to hire people in their 20s because of their sense of entitlement?
My point is that everyone has pros and cons based on their ages. It’s not an easy thing to find the right position or get hired no matter where you are on the ladder.
It all depends on the organization you’re looking to get into and the job you previously held. If you come from a middle management position in a huge organization, say GE or IBM, your skills probably in institutional management - you know who to go to and how to get things done in your organization. Those skills aren’t very useful or transferrable in the job market. Being the under-assistant deputy in charge of the company picnic isn’t going to get you anywhere. These people are often well-paid and “respectable” and they are the ones who you read about in the papers.
The majority of jobs are not like this. The best kind of jobs to have are the ones that require industry knowledge, and the more narrow the industry the better. I work for a company in a niche market that requires tech savvy and I’m in my forties, and I could get another job tomorrow if I wanted. It’s not that I’m a superstar or anything, but in this field (and millions like it), experience trumps almost everything else and I’ve been doing this for 15 years. It helps that I’m paid by my productivity, so I don’t require a large salary, but still in this industry a veteran with industry knowledge and experience trumps a young go-getter every time.
Not always–sometimes an entire industry will tank. It happened to the telecom industry in 2001, and I paid the price.
I had to start over as an insurance actuary, which has been a good thing for a person my age because no one would care if I was 80 as long as I can pass the stinking exams.
There are a couple of reasons, many of which have already been mentioned.
First of all, I believe the primary reason is that a company is structured like a pyramid. As you go higher and higher up the pyramid, the jobs require more and more experience, however there are less and less of them. A lot of firms need lots of new young analysts, associates and consultants each year because they grind through them.
So the main problem (and we’ve seen this when I was hiring at my last firm) is that you have someone coming in with 15-20 years of experience, they are basically the equivalent of a senior manager. Except that if they are interviewing for a staff level position, they are woefully overqualified. And if you are in your 40s+ and NOT interviewing for a senior level or management position, it begs the question as to what is wrong with your career that you aren’t already at that level?
Of course if you are looking to join a relatively young, hip industry like media, technology and so on, there is also a lot of age bias and questions as to whether you will fit in with their culture.
I’m sorry, but you don’t know what you are talking about. Nobody works at IBM or GE as “undersecretary of the company picnic” or whatever. They work in specific departments like sales, marketing, accounting and so on. They also work in specific industries, of which those companies are the leaders. My dad, for example, spent his entire career working for GE selling and marketing large industrial systems. He’s in his 60s and retired but is now involved in a friends start-up as the marketing guy which he wouldn’t be able to do without a) having his big-company sales experience b) having the street cred from working at GE and c) having made the conections through his work with GE in the first place.
Being technology expert for a niche company in a niche market is not always where you want to be. If the niche changes suddenly or goes away, you could find yourself 40+ years old with no transferable skills. But if the niche is sustainable, you might be better off as you could become the “wise old Obi Wan” of the industry.
The people who I think have the biggest problem are those in dead end jobs or jobs in churn and burn industries who haven’t risen to a level commensurate with their position. Or to put it another way, ideally you do not want to be 40 years old looking for a job that a 22 year old right out of college can do.
Actually, I do know what I’m talking about. I’ve been in a hiring position at a time when a very large IBM location began downsizing. I saw IBM employees every day, and almost all of them were useless at anything other than exactly what they used to do. They had no concept of what it is like to work in an entreprenuerial environment without huge piles of cash to fund any venture they planned.
Your point about large companies having departments that focus on a single market segment is perfect. Small companies (the ones that most people work in) don’t have the luxury of that kind of specialization. Most have one sales force and one marketing department that has to serve the entire company.
Look, the best people (and I’m sure your Dad was one of them) don’t lose their jobs in their 40’s. The ones we’re talking about here are no different than the auto workers who have done the same job all their life when their plant closes - they are fish out of water.
I would disagree with this. My dad’s entire career has been in a very narrow industry–project manager for a specific type of defense contracting–where as my mom’s career is much broader–cost accounting/database management for large manufacturing companies. My dad’s career has been much more erratic than my mom’s: when the industry is hot, he has more job offers than he can stand because there’s only a few hundred people (if that) in the world with his experience, but he’s also had a couple periods of long-term unemployment. My mom, on the other hand, hasn’t had to “job hunt” in decades: when she’s wanted to leave a position, she’s handled it by calling people she knows. A limited supply of a skill set only provides job security if there is also a great demand.
I think you’re taking my example of a narrow field a little to the extreme. I don’t mean being the most knowledgeable person in the world regarding left-handed pencil sharpeners - more like “hospital administration software”. That is a narrow field that few have knowledge of, and having a long list of contacts and an understanding of the issues means a lot more to a company than a fresh-faced MBA does.
One issue that may come into play is concern about older people having a problem being supervised by younger people.
If a 50 year old guy is applying for a job where his boss will be a 30 year old hotshot, it’s pretty reasonable to be a little worried that the older guy will be like “I’m not letting some punk-ass kid boss me around!”
Naturally, nobody should assume that this will be the attitude of the applicant. But exploring the possibility of this kind of friction can be pretty tricky, and bringing up age in any way can trigger accusations of age discrimination. So it might seem easier to hire someone younger and (theoretically) avoid the problem altogether.
I think it depends on the company and the individual. Being a jack of all trades can be just as restricting as being over specialized if you can’t merge it all into a cohesive work history. Big companies are bureaucratic and rigid but they are also more stable. Small entrepreneurial companies can be exciting and can potentially provide a lot of growth, but they can be very risky. And while you can learn a lot of different things at a small company, you aren’t necessarily learning the right way to do them.
Also, compare my current job with a Fortune 500 company against my last job in a consulting firm. I’m working in the same field (Google “litigation consulting”). The difference is that now I work for just one client:
Fortune 500 company:
PROs:
-Name recognition
-Potential to move within the company to a different group in a different field
-Management experience in a structured environment
-Exposure to a wider variety of projects
-Better WLB
CONs:
-Rigid, structured environment
-Bureaucratic and impersonal (I get emails from departmental mailboxes, not
-Not very glamorous
-Not as much room to advance short term
people)
Mid-sized consulting firm:
PROs:
-Everyone knows everyone
-Colegial environment
-Lots of perks - expensed meals, happy hours, travel
-Clear promotion track
CONs:
-Nearly impossible to move out of a senior directors P&L into another group
-Complete lack of managerial competance. Promotions based on favoritism, time worked and hours billed.
-Siloed into one type of project run by your practice area
-No pretense that you have a personal life that can’t be intruded on at a moment’s notice
So I don’t know. My last job was both more fun and more miserable, however from a practical standpoint, me and my coworkers were learning to master a single software product provide by a single vendor (IOW “left-handed pencil sharpeners”). They were also learning a singular “up or out” management style that only works in an environment where you can bully your subordinates with the implied threat of “if you don’t work your ass off for me, you won’t work on my projects again and you’ll be fired once your utilization drops.” Not to mention that “management” consists of a pool of a dozen directors pulling several dozen staff consultants in a million different directions with no planning or foresight.
My new job is a lot lamer, but I am getting a lot better experience actually MANAGING a team. And I’m also getting a lot of exposure to a variety of different types of projects so when I do look to find something new in 2-3 years, I’ll have a much better toolbox of experience to take with me.
An MBA gets you in the door and gives you additional tools once you are there. Over time, THAT is what will get you ahead.
Right now I manage lot of people who have or are preparing for PMP (Project Management Professional) certifications. A 200 multiple choice test cannot compare with a 2 year degree consisting of working on team projects and presentations, countless business case studies, finance, accounting, marketing, business operations, etc.
At my old consulting firm, we tried hiring one (she was in her 40s) and she was a total disaster. She kept trying to apply a PM framework to projects she had little to no understanding of and was eventually let go. We did work together setting up a training program (me designing it and her essentially taking a role as my admin scheduling appointments) after which she told me “I hoped you were able to get some good project management experience from that.” Sure. I mean other than my degree in civil engineering, my MBA, my 5 years of managment and technology consulting experience at that point and the countless projects I had been a part of, I certainly learned a lot from watching her schedule time with the half dozen or so vendors I told her to call.
Which I guess brings me to my final point. If you work in a company run by a lot of overly enthusiastic 20-somethings with no clue what they are doing, it can be daunting coming in as an experience professional. What you think is wisdom can often be percieved as not being a team player. Of course, that’s what happened with most of the dot coms.
I had one boss who actually told me what he was thinking, lawsuits be damned.
His reasoning was, once you’ve had 10-15 years in the workforce, you should have enough established contacts that you’ll generate sales. If you aren’t actually bringing in business, there are plenty of bright, talented, energetic people ready to take your place.
He was a real survival-of-the-fittest type, and it came back to haunt him. But he’s not alone. Most of my former client contacts wound up in positions where they were trying to sell me something rather than buy my services.
Simple answer: Because often those doing the hiring are young. And/or prejudiced. And because they can.
I was let go from a major corporation two years ago. My job was eliminated. I was 60. The only other person in the department whose job was eliminated was a person in his late 50s. I was the only female in the department other than a secretary. I strongly believe that the people in charge of the department at that time simply didn’t want older people, and females, in positions of authority. In preparation for my job being eliminated the young snot who was my boss simply kept giving me less and less significant work to do, including specifically telling me NOT to do certain challenging things, taking away responsibilities that I had handled just fine, to all accounts, for several years. I didn’t fight him, and simply continued to do the best job I could on everything I was handed. When I still didn’t quit, I was let go.
Can I prove that? Maybe, maybe not. But it was close enough that my lawyer was able to convince them to give me a much, much, much large separation payoff than they had planned on.
I job-searched in my field for 6 months. Every single person who saw my resume would say something to the effect of “really impressive. You have a lot of skills that we need.” I tried to look as young and professional as possible, but some things you can’t hide. I did fine on the telephone interviews, but I always came in second after the in-person interviews. Can I prove that all of those jobs went to someone younger only because of age? No, I can’t. But I strongly suspect it.
Employers often think that a 55+ aged person is only going to work for a few more years anyway and then retire, so it’s somehow not worth the effort. Hah. How many 20- or 30-somethings last nearly ten years at a job? Few. It’s simple shortsightedness.
I finally did get another job, in another field, in a small company. Their only reservation about hiring me was that I was overqualified and might leave after a few months when a job in my previous field came through. As if. I’m still there, year and a half later. I now have a window office.
Some day, maybe, people in hiring-and-firing positions will realize the many benefits of hiring older people, especially women. They are not going to run off, starry-eyed, to get married. They don’t need maternity leave. They don’t even get cranky once a month. They don’t have to leave early to pick up toddlers from day care, or stay home to take little Sally or Timmy to the doctor because of yet another ear infection. They are not going to step on people to climb the corporate ladder. You can check out decades of work and life experience.
Please note that I’m not saying that employers should discriminate against people with families, either. Most workplaces are not as family-friendly as they should be.
Companies that strictly inbreed are limiting their knowledge base. Other places have different approaches and different knowledge sets that may well help you.
Most people move jobs quite often nowadays. The idea that they wont hire you because you wont be there for 40 years is ridiculous. Nobody will be.
Companies that hire 65 years old or older, do not have to pay health insurance. That is a big financial savings.
That might have been true 20 years ago, but it isn’t today. I’ve never seen any prejudice, in the electronics industry at least, about people laid off. Increasingly, whole divisions or projects get cut, both the good and the bad. Companies cutting back have got to lay off good people as well as bad. In fact a good number of hiring managers have gotten laid off themselves.
When my company canceled a big project, the members of the project were at risk, and since we’re a good company, we had an internal job fair for them. The problem is that quite a few of the best people offered jobs had quickly found even better ones outside. I know some people from IBM, recognized as leading experts, who got cut when a fab got closed.
This is a big advantage to living in a place with lots of companies rather than just a few. Job hopping is a lot simpler and less disruptive, and the companies like it not having to pay relocation.
I think the biggest reason is the perception that older people are past their prime. My friend and I were talking about that today. My current job is with a company with a much older and more “family centric” workforce. My impression (as a 35 year old) looking at these people is that they don’t look like “winners”. They look like a bunch of slow moving middle aged people with rumpled clothes and untucked shirts, taking naps in the break room, biding their time until retirement. Compare that to my last job where just about anyone at that age is a pretty senior guy and has the whole “I’m a rich powerful old guy” thing going on.
And quite frankly, an older person coming in at a junior level at my old company probably wouldn’t be successful in my group. They most likely wouldn’t like the long hours, travel and having to deal with a bunch of 20 and 30 something managers who are in love with their own hype. It’s the type of job where we hire armies of kids out of campus recruiting every year knowing a third wont be there in 18 months.
And there you have a reason for a good bit of the prejudice against them. Ambition nowadays often means a cutthroat attitude. If you see through all that, you’re just not going to fit into most office cultures.
Uh…My point was that younger people are more willing to maneuver, suck up, and play politics and hardball. Assuming they do good work too, this tends to impress the higher-ups and reinforce their values. Sometimes more so than experienced old hands who may have too much perspective. Especially if the boss doesn’t have as much.
It’s Corporate America. Who gives a shit about “the job”? Your “job” is to do what your boss asks you to do, do it the best you can and put on a facade like it’s the most brilliant request ever (provided it isn’t illegal or too unethical).
Office politics is also part of any job whether you like it or not. Given the choice between me or some other guy getting a raise, promoted or keeping his job in tough times, I choose me every time.
Have you actually worked with younger people (under 25 or so)? They often act like college freshmen with no clue as to how to act in a corporate environment.
But yes, younger people do tend to bring a more irrational enthusiasm for their job. They still suffer from the dilusion that if they work until 11pm every night and weekends, they will quickly rise up the ladder and be VP or partner by age 30, driving a Porsche and making a million dollars.