You spend your young days aching to be older to do more interesting things. Then you spend your days over 40 yearning to be young again now that you know all you know.
In my early career in the 80’s you often saw job adverts carrying the strap line of the ‘golden age’, generally recognised to be 25-35. This was considered the peak employment age range particularly for salespeople and sales managers. Anything older and the candidate was likely to be not energetic and hungry enough, anything younger and the candidate was unlikely to have the prerequisite 3 years experience in a similar job.
It is handy that new legislation has come in and stamped out ageism in the work place and such adverts are not seen anymore. But ageism still prevails. It is now unspoken or not so overt in the process of selection but in companies it is still one of the major barometers used in employing people.
You see, you can change the law but you cannot change the practice and the prejudice.
People still believe that a salesperson over 40 is less likely to be as hungry as one aged around 30. They still believe that an older person cannot learn new techniques, skills or methods – they believe older people have a problem with technology, applications or the internet. It’s not everybody but we all know what goes on in business. I have said recently, when someone asked me if I would consider a return to Hi Tech Distribution as I am so involved in Channels and I found myself answering, ‘Distribution is young person’s game.’
Even I think it about myself! Yet I have all that experience, I run my own company so there is no lacking in desire and enthusiasm. I have my own blog, I run my own accounts package, website, CRM, have mobile Windows on my PDA and regularly use the internet not just to search but to bank, buy travel, buy goods and even use eBay from time to time. I am the epitome of a modern worker in that sense. So why would I believe I am not cut out for a certain job that I have plenty of skills and experience to do?
Hidden Prejudices
It boils down to my own inner and hidden prejudices. Clearly this must have been the way I felt when I was in Distribution and running a business. Years later it is still in the back of my mind. ‘Distribution is for younger people,’ is what my minds says and that is function of my personal prejudice.
Yet in Business Week Magazine this week, the CEOs highlighted for the future are all but two out of the top 10 within a year or two of my age. When it comes to employing at the top of a company, age is seen as a very important plus point. It seems you have to be above 30 and below 55 to be a budding CEO (or at least in the US). In the UK, in order to be a non-executive Director or Chairman, you must be above 50 to stand a decent chance.
So if a 45-55 year old person is considered prime age range to run a big company, why on earth would they not be good at being a salesperson? You have to have hunger, desire, enthusiasm and endeavour to be a CEO at any age, yet these are fundamental attitudes required to be successful in sales or middle management.
So why is it that companies still consider older people to be less employable?
The Law And Reality
Implicitly, managers do not want to be threatened by people they employ or else they will soon be pressured out of their job. This may be a reason for hidden prejudices – it’s the ‘dog eat dog’ syndrome that an older manager will not employ people as experienced as themselves. I am talking generally here.
Despite the law and the penalties, many managers practice discrimination, often when they think they are not because of this inner prejudice or competitive streak. Recruiters contribute to this and they operate more overtly, as if carrying out the ‘unspoken desires’ of their clients.
Last year, at a slow point in my business, I saw a job that had my name written on it. It was starting up a European subsidiary of a US West Coast software company who required a Sales Director with hands on experience of doing this. Not to blow my own trumpet, a quick read of my website would indicate this is my business and I have several successes in the bag with superb references, having taken US software companies from zero to plenty sales - starting them off myself and building teams where necessary. I have the unique combination of knowing how to run companies, build them from scratch, manage people and interface with an HQ 6,000 miles away and 8 time zones and be trusted to represent the parent professionally and govern the company within the laws of Europe and the US. I duly sent my application and wasn’t even considered.
When I called the recruiter, who I vaguely knew, I was described as ‘Over qualified’. A euphemism for being too old.
In the same Business Week magazine this week, there is report on US unemployment. While unemployment has risen sharply in the US since the start of the recession, there are still over 3 million jobs currently advertised and yet to be filled. There are many reasons for this. Obviously, it is harder for US employees to up sticks and move as they cannot easily sell their houses right now and the nomadic nature of the US workforce has always been a key feature of the success of US business. But the biggest reasons are that there is mismatch between employers and available candidates.
As many low skilled labourers lose work, there are few similar jobs available. It is thought also that many ancillary or blue collar workers who lose their jobs may never see similar jobs again as more and more are outsourced. Then there are those who are skilled up for one job but the employers need different skills. So despite a raft of people on the job market, there are still frustrated employers who cannot get the staff they want.
Then you look at Germany – they have relatively high unemployment generally at about 8% before the recession but it has only risen to around 9% since. Part of the reason of why they have experienced less of a hit is that they approach the whole issue of re-skilling pragmatically. They disincentivise those who do not try to get a job by ratcheting benefits down, they offer retraining in different skills such as computer literacy and business English, they pay employers to try out new, less skilled workers by paying part of the first year’s salary and they practically help people to find out what skills they should be getting to be successful.
It means that age is taken out of the equation as skills become the key criteria for what employers really require.
Getting The Focus Right
If UK firms took a similar approach then we would get past this blind prejudice on age even if we think we don’t have it. The proportion of experienced, ready to work 40-somethings out there is high and they can do jobs with just a little re-learning. But what they come with is a raft of knowledge on business, commerce and how not avoid mistakes. They are hungry as all have mortgages to pay, families to feed and overdrafts to service. As in my case and my application over a year ago, there is a growing feeling that employers are fixated on inner grading systems, corporate fits and tickbox recruitment to look beyond the obvious grey hair and middle age spreads and see the potential of talent.
That will take a brave set of managers to overcome this natural instinct but if you don’t make the cut of the budding CEO, they too will be in the same bracket some day – and boy will they get frustrated. The UK has an issue with identifying talent over what the piece of paper and procedure says. But sometimes it takes talent to spot talent. I’m afraid that is something they don’t teach you on The Apprentice, in the City or in University. Some of the best entrepreneurs in Britain are unemployable and if they are employed, they are under valued.
Some day the talented 50 something CEOs will realise that people of the same age as they are also in their prime.
No comments:
Post a Comment