Ageism is expressly forbidden by our legal system. So that means it doesn’t exist, right?
In my early days as a cub recruiter, I learned to use age as a qualifier right along with skills, compensation and career progression. We discussed age only in hushed tones, and were suprised to see date of birth emblazoned so prominently on foreign resumes. Age is most important as a component of career progression.
The fact is that accomplishment over time reveals a person’s career trajectory. This trajectory much more important than age, but they typically translate into the same thing. If someone becomes CIO at 40, that person’s ability to accomplish more during their career is greater than the CIO at 55. It also indicates a record of achievement at an earlier age, and hence, better prospects for the future.
It stands to reason, that if you have a search that requires a CIO with five years experience, you will choose the 45-year-old, who now has five years on the job, over the 60 year old, who has the same experience in that role.
Shouldn’t we just be honest about the way we use age as a qualifier?
Contact Jason Sanders
No comments:
Post a Comment