When Is A Good Age To Work?

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.

A Quantum of Conscience

Quantum Physics is a heck of a thing to get your head round. Central to its concept is that by viewing any particular event, the result is changed by the act of viewing it. No such thing as voyeurism at that level.

Quantum Physics - A Metaphor For Life?

Hardly - Quantum Physics underpins life itself. However, there is a parallel in that each new life, each existence, each death has some impact upon the earth that will forever change it.

I don't believe that to be a theory - it's a truism.

The benefit of being a particle is that it may not care what impact it had while at the macro level every life has an impact and so has a responsibility for creating a future. Either that is in producing offspring or just trying to make the place civil enough to live in, humans have a burden of responsibility like no other particle or animal to help create a future.

Corporate and Social Responsibility

This blog piece was prompted by a lively discuss on I joined on the IOD Forum on Linked In. A question on Maternity Payments which was labelled 'Have the Lunatics Taken Over the Asylum' which berated European Lawmakers for introducing ever more onerous payments for Maternity Leave. It's certainly true that such payments and Maternity Leave itself hits SME businesses much harder than larger companies yet the levels of payments are exactly the same. As a small business owner and a person experienced in running SMEs, I know how hard that cost can be.

The trouble with the particular argument, and it is a perennial concern, is that where does social and corporate responsibility stop and start. You see, at the heart of the question, unspoken or not, is why should employers have to pay for the new generation of children. Maternity in the Employer's eyes is often as a lifestyle choice and should not burden the company cost. In the thread of the discussion, one contributor asserted that the sole purpose of businesses was wealth creation which contributed to the greater good. Even a lady professed 'it was not a company's responsibility to bring up the next generation'.

I argued otherwise.

Evolution of Corporate Responsibility

If we take the assertion that businesses are there solely to create wealth for the shareholders etc then I would suggest left to their own devices, most businesses would try to obtain as much profit for the lowest cost as quickly as possible. Without any encumbrances like laws, most businesses would not have evolved from the 18th century. Over a long period, things have changed and for the better too. After all the riots, demonstrations, strikes, unions which did not always help us business-wise, we have arrived at a point where companies have a responsibility to earn their profits within a framework of law which is designed to stop doing it without regard to everything else. We have a minimum wage, we have Maternity Leave and allowances, we have Health and Safety Laws, we have Carbon Emission restrictions and lots more. Gone are the days of companies polluting rivers without recourse, gone are the days of companies killing their workers and other people by exposing them to toxic chemicals without recourse, gone are the days when a coloured person had to worry about discrimination.

Or have they? What the debate showed is that when it comes to cost and profits, companies should be allowed to earn their profits without any thought to their employees or the outside world. It took laws, lots of laws, over a long time to get us to where we are now and what we have learnt along the way is that companies will not take on such responsibilities unless compelled to do so. What we also know, is that companies will disregard the laws and responsibilities at the earliest opportunity if allowed it.

Corporate Responsibility in Practice

My father died of an industrial disease caused by exposure to asbestos which he inhaled having been compelled by his company to delag control rooms without proper protective equipment despite that fact the dangers of asbestos were discovered 30 years before. He was not the only one on that detail to die a hard and cruel death many years later fighting for his last breath. The only company he had ever served for over 40 years turned their backs and our family dealt with their insurance company who paid a nominal sum. That company turned in one of the largest profits in British corporate history last quarter.

That same company polluted its local environment and the spot where my father's ashes lie overlooks an unsightly black marsh where no wildlife thrives as it was a reservoir for dumping the contents of pipes - no amount of clearing up after the event has brought back the natural plants and animals despite the companies dazzling green logo.

In Alaska, my father commissioned the first oil down the pipeline from Prudhoe to Valdez and constantly berated his executives for lack of attention to safety and hazards - he had written several safety manuals in his old place of work. Despite that, a pump station explosion took a life and later a tanker spilt its contents into the waters around that beautiful place.

Did the company learn? No, in Texas a few years ago, a major disaster killed several people and the company was found again to be at fault. Yet last quarter it earned £billions in pre-tax profits.

At what price does profit come? And without the compulsion of law that company, amongst many, would never have changed because it found it hard to change even when compelled.

The Next Generation

You may think that I am using extreme examples to prove a case. Not really - if Maternity Laws were not introduced and enforced we would not only have less women in the workforce but we would have widespread discrimination against them - much more than there is already. Because if a female can justify that a company is not responsible for somehow playing a art in bringing up the next generation, you can bet your bottom dollar a man will not.

Here's a commercial take on it. Many businesses directly market to mothers and rely on them for profits, and many focus on young people to make money. That's simple. However, it is simple mathematics to work out that if life was not renewing itself, all of us would go out of business soon. So it makes commercial sense to support the next generation - we should be thanking women who take a career break to have children and encouraging them rather than discriminating against them and berating everyone for their cost. Yet even with laws, companies have a problem with it even though if women were not allowed to have that break then the economy would not grow at the same rate and the rate of births would likely drop - buying business a problem.

Just as with carbon emissions, companies do not see what that has to do with them. It's about that Quantum Theory thing again. We each have an impact on this earth and the bigger we get, i.e. companies, the bigger the effect. Companies have a huge responsibility to make their money the right way.

But We Do, Don't We?

Last year the top half dozen banks in North America paid out a collective $28bn in bonuses. This year one of those banks collapsed completely and the other has been bailed out by the US Treasury despite firing 72,000 staff. Greed is a very powerful opiate - it makes you think that only you are important and that wealth is king.

Corporates today at the highest level continue to behave without a conscience when they can. It starts at SMEs too. In the IOD thread a person struck the nail on the head and said that if he were running a small business now he would be very wary of employing women. Everyone thinks this a PC thing and laughs it off as a Brussels-induced hallucination - lunatics running the asylum.

We have moved on as a race thankfully. No one should get discriminated against for their gender, religion, sexuality or race - it's pretty fundamental.

How We Should Pay

Where I do sympathise with all my co-threaders at the IOD was that the amount that SMEs have to pay is disproportionate. As with personal tax, SMEs pay at the same scale no matter what their size but we all know the bigger or richer you are the more you can pay to 'mitigate' tax. But like most citizens, SMEs are soft touches - they pay. I do believe that within all the Corporation Tax and NI that employers pay some should be spent on supporting working mothers and that the great pool of tax out there should be covering SME businesses for these extra costs. One person going on maternity leave in a 10 person company is a huge cost to the business whereas one to someone like BT is trivial. And so the payments should be reflected in this and this is where the tax system can and should help.

Direct taxation has been the hallmark of this Government, forgetting its Socialist roots. I have no problem in BT having to pay a slightly higher rate of tax than my company in order to subsidise the hard hit SME in this situation. And should I ever grow my business to those giddy heights, I would gladly accept it the same way.

Good Behaviour

Without the framework of law, companies would earn their money in whatever way they could and ignore their responsibilities wherever possible. I don't have a massive amount of time for the 'lunatics running the asylum' in Brussels or anywhere else but I do believe without them, companies would have not changed by themselves.

Discrimination - Political Correctness Gone Daft or Right?

The UK Government's Laws to prevent discrimination in the workplace and specifically at interview for jobs are causing a stir but according to Which? research bosses are still asking taboo questions. According to Which? research the most popular questions are 'Do you plan to start a family?', or 'What are your childcare arrangements?', and 'Are you married?'.

The fact is the law is there to ensure that employers do not use a person's race, sex, sexuality, religious or political views or if a candidate is a parent of a young family as part of their selection criteria. What employers are typically not aware of despite the abundance of literature and web information is that firms found guilty of discrimination in any of the categories face unlimited fines and compensation.

The Which? research found employers still commonly asking several discriminatory questions at interview, some phrased more innocuously as to disguise their intent. Professional bodies advise that candidates should politely refuse to answer any such questions.

When Did All This Happen?

The sweeping changes in Employment Law occurred in October 2006 and it made it illegal to discriminate against employees and potential employees on the grounds described above. Employers found the implementation of the laws both confusing and the subject of debate within the legal community itself. There seemed also a very marked shift toward en employee having the right to 'protect' himself or herself from poor performance by invoking the law in their favour under fairly tenuous circumstances.

I personally attended a lengthy tribunal in which discrimination was alleged and I can say from personal experience that the subject is exceptionally complex.

I can also say from personal experience that the UK has very often been the first port of call for North American firms setting up base in Europe - some believed that continental Labour Laws were too onerous. The shift now puts the UK into a similar league as the rest of Europe and there is no doubt that many North American firms have been more reticent to start up in Europe and the UK specifically since October 2006. European Labour Laws are very different to US ones in particular where 'Fire at Will' still pervades in employment.

Is This All a Bad Thing?

Let's be absolutely clear, discrimination is a bad thing and should be driven out of employers' thinking. Let's also be clear, discrimination is still alive and kicking in all walks of life and particularly in business. Age plays a huge part in the selection process - too many times I have heard the phrase 'He/she is too experienced for this role' or 'He/she lacks experience'. Many of my blog articles subtlety ask questions and the responses are indicative of a still biased view on what experience, qualifications and job requirements are and how they relate to ability.

At interview stage I have seen too many instances of interviewers making judgements based on CVs or shaping questions designed to find out information which negates the candidate's knowledge and skills which may be appropriate for the job. The issue also lies in recruiter screening. Many hide behind the 'Client's Tick Box' which may be biased and so they screen people out via CV or interview for the wrong reasons. Recruiters gain little credibility sending candidates they know do not conform and only cause delays in getting fees.

Talent vs Tick Box

'Tick Box' recruitment is a numbers game - fast candidate turnaround based on poorly drawn up selection criteria and high fees at stake. The faster the turnaround the better. Recruiters and HR play a strong part in this and the further the recruitment is done from the hiring executive or employer the easier for this to happen - so outsourcing generally is a poor option and outsourcing abroad is just plain negligent because the filtering process becomes driven by process only.

And, above all, recruiters are less likely to be considered viable long term if they send certain types of candidate forward. It becomes the ultimate screening point because the employer could naturally point a finger at the recruiter and legitimately say 'I never laid that down as criteria', while the recruiter could say, 'The employer said minimum 5 years experience required' or 'needs to be flexible on location or hours'.

Most Common Discrimination

Without doubt age, sex and race still lead the league table in my eyes. As a for instance, in times when there is heightened tension between Christians and Muslims (let's not forget we are directly at war with two Muslim countries and you cannot avoid the issue in the media) it is impossible to gauge the effect this has on employers, hiring managers and recruiters but I would suggest that it has a profound one. There is also no doubt that employers, when selecting new employees, are trying to find out the child care arrangements of parents and how that will affect their ability to do the job properly in their eyes. Finally, there is absolutely no doubt that employers are screening potential new candidates on age, whether too young or more likely too old. And there is no doubt that ageism is rife in the workplace, we can all cite experience of this.

What About Employers? Don't They Have Rights?

Has this all gone too far? What about an employee who exhibits unacceptable behaviour or poor performance and when questioned about it 'plays the race card'? Suddenly the person becomes 'protected species' within the workplace and the law overly protects people on some of the flimsiest of premises, making it incredibly difficult and expensive for employers to manage their business effectively.

What happens when a business hits bad times and cuts have to be made fast in order to survive? Unwieldy, protracted and almost self-defeating processes have to be invoked and suddenly survival for the rest of the employees because the cuts don;'t have the desired effect fast enough becomes a real threat.

The Quest for Talent

Personally, I see such poor techniques for recruitment in both hiring executives and recruiters that I have grave concerns that prejudices do play a huge part in the process. I think that employers do not spend enough time defining the talent they require for roles that will fundamentally affect their future profitability because they have preconceived ideas on what sort of people they want to employ in the main. They have a closed mind approach which defaults to 'Tick Box'. That suits the recruitment industry as it makes it simple to phrase adverts, search on keywords and it makes filtering at interview easy. It ensures numbers are kept high.

Meanwhile 40% of all executive recruits will fail within the first 18 months. Nobody knows fully what the figures below that point are but in the sales environment I see many firms use their 'quartile measurements' to continually isolate low performers and that usually is 20-40% of the sales staff underperforming at any time.

When you start thinking about how much those mistaken hires are costing the business in terms of lost opportunity cost and wasted money, it really does pay to emphasise skill, knowledge, leadership, innovation, creativity, and talent above things like knowing their sexual preferences, marital status, religious beliefs, political stance or date of birth. Talent rises above all those factors and is worth looking for.

Finally, Some Tips For Job Seekers

- Make your CV look professional - well laid out, everything spelt correctly, chronologically correct and your best achievements highlighted
- Make sure you can corroborate all you put in your CV - do not 'ham it up'
- Have references ready and briefed
- Be punctual for interviews
- Dress 'business ready' as if you want the job - first impressions and appearance count
- Do your research - make sure you know about the employer's business and read news about them
- Have your personal 'Value Proposition' rehearsed - make sure you are clear about what you can do for the Company
- Make impact - have your personal 'Value Statement or Elevator Pitch' ready and stated early
- Be confident and clear - don't mince your words, say them with confidence
- Attitude - walk into each interview as if a) you want the job and b) you can get it
- Reference your past - draw upon your knowledge and skills you have learnt at other jobs, courses or qualifications that directly augment your suitability for the job and help illustrate your answers to questions
- Don't waffle or tell stories - make any anecdotes short and keep to answering the question
- Ask questions - when you are invited to ask questions, have some well-thought ones prepared and even if they have been partly answered already, ask them again and for clarification
- If asked questions about your age, sex, sexuality, marital status, childcare arrangements, race, religion, political views politely decline to answer the question - if pushed simply state under law you do not have to answer such questions
- If you are at all worried that discrimination in the selection process has occurred ask for written clarification as to why you were not selected and you may also ask to have access to any and all interview notes taken. If you suspect discrimination has occurred from the answers and notes, seek professional guidance
- If you have independent assessments such as psychometric test results or a Professional Profile, make sure you take copies to leave with the interviewer
- Always ask 'How have I done?' and 'What are the next steps?' at the end of the interview
- If at the end of the interview you still want the job, tell them you do and why. Say how you 'feel' about the company and the job and re-state your 'Personal Value Proposition'
- Tell the interviewer what you thought of them - compliment them if you can
- Follow up the interview quickly with either a call or better still an email summarising your feelings, re-stating your enthusiasm and 'Personal Value Proposition' and again ask for next steps.


In the mass of candidates out there, it really is important to make sure you stand out. Calx Europe has eBooks and runs professional courses to help candidates get the jobs they want.

For more information please call 0207 193 2356 or write to info@calxeurope.com - today.