Why not see great candidates over 40, or even 50?
Does more youth = more energy and time spent working?
Do you dream younger people will stay with you 10-20 years?
Does being older mean being too set in our ways?
None of these things are relevant to age, and you know it.
The last 3 years has shaken the hell out of everything.
The right person for your company can be any age.
Here’s the criteria:
1. Not a job-hopper.
2. Current, relevant experience.
3. Education and cultural fit.
What else is there besides the practicalities?
(Location, compensation, growth opps, etc.)
Now get real and give everybody a chance.
I would love to see great candidates of any age. Please send me candidates with -
1. College degree
2. Software and Hardware certifications
3. Able to sell all kinds of ice to picky eskimos
I don't care if it's Old Man River AND Father Time. My job descriptions are so narrow age is the least of my worries.
Common sense should remind hiring management that in older, accomplished and proven seniors--there is hardly a learning curve to get them contributing to teams results.
Their stability is legendary, and their value as mentors should never be overlooked. Many seasoned professionals actually pioneered the technology, product, and industry positioning many employers enjoy today.
Everyone's comments are right on and to be admired. Older often does equate with wiser and certainly maturity. But we all see the discrimination on a regular basis. Recruiters don't care the age of their placements, the fees the same! It's the companies that need to wake up and I'm afraid that unless it's a rare placement where extremely difficult, and narrow, skills are matched perfectly, the old folks near retirement are going to have one difficult time being reemployed. I'm seeing more and more 50+ candidates who leave their experience from the 70-80's off their resumes, as well as graduation dates. However, even internal recruiters are now beginning to ask what the person did before his first job as often the first job listed is senior in title and/or experience. Or, I've sent candidates in for interviews and the disinterest is immediate with all those excuses we hear which make no sense. Being 59 myself, I'll do anything to support my peers, but it's a harsh reality out there. I'm glad I'm self employed!
Unfortunately, I have heard from many workers who have been let go as they neared retirement, or not even considered because their salary requirements were much higher than that of a new entrant to the workforce. One client even sent me a job ad that stated that applicants must have a high degree of experience and listed a number of skill sets that can only be accrued over at least a decade of work, but the job ad specifically said that the person must 'only have 4-5 years of experience; any applicants with more than this range will not be considered.' Wow - how much more blatant can you get?
So frustrating- there is so much opportunity yet so many companies that are trying to cut corners by going with the lower-paid workers that they are losing out on experience and focus from more mature workers which could literally take them to the next level.
Three of my most valuable colleagues are almost 70! My company has learned that with youth comes great ideas, (but less stability).
Most 'recruiter based hiring' depends upon recruiter or who has the 'ticket' to hire. I know that some "open tickets' are designed to focus on < 35 or so. Any recruiter or search firm has gleaned needs of CEO and Executives who sometimes 'profile' to exclude by what is not said in descriptor. Others are afraid to interview someone who is clearly very experienced. Still others - "I cannot work for my father/mother etc".
In many cases, executives are the sole source of age bias discrimination. Their team reflects their openness.