A Diverse & Inclusive Future: Hiring for Skills, not Birthdays

Dear Corporate Friend,

Ageism…a controversial topic these days. Much like other similar taboo stories, ageism is not something people openly discuss. The difference here is that, from where I see it, all other “delicate” topics have been brought in the spotlight recently while this one is being left behind. It’s great that everyone focuses on diversity, inclusion, religion, women, etc but who will address this matter?

I hope the answer to the above question is: “everyone”. This is why today I would like to dispute ageism and all its different forms and facets. I’m hopeful that the message can be carried forward and touch as many people as possible so that one day, we’re able to kill these practices and head towards a more exciting future.

There are so many different views on this topic but I would like to start by mentioning the difference between equality and equity. You might be able to quickly picture this by thinking about the generic depiction of the 3 people, different heights, sitting on 3 identical chairs. Because of their height, one reaches to see everything, one struggles and one doesn’t see a thing. To make it even more obvious, Google says:

“Equality means each individual or group of people is given the same resources or opportunities. Equity recognizes that each person has different circumstances and allocates the exact resources and opportunities needed to reach an equal outcome.”

What this tells us is that people are all different and so should their careers be. I think it’s fundamentally flawed to assume that just because 2 or more people had the same past experience, they’re supposed to have the same future one as well. This is the first component that I want to highlight today: the frequent perception amongst managers that just because they reached a certain role/level in X years, this means that everyone has to have the same longevity before reaching that role or they are not ready yet.

Now, as usual, don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying everyone should become a CEO in 2 years. What I am saying is that I believe not all situations are identical and we should analyze each one, case by case, and determine if the person is ready for the respective role or not, regardless of the number of years in a role or even the number of years in their life. Surely if we look up all those long HR presentations, there ought to be a bias in there referring to this.

I would love to see people open up more and really think things things from the perspective of “what is the best approach here” as opposed to “we are doing it this way because this is the rule”. Remember, even if the rule is correct, what’s to say that the person who created it didn’t forget to mention a certain exception? Are we of the utmost certainty that the rule is fully comprehensive and there is no scenario that might have been missed? I would surely think again before answering “yes”.

If that were the case, then how come there are some extremely gifted children that graduate from university at 12-15 years? Surely you heard about at least one of these cases in the media. They are genius children. So if we apply the same approach to their case, it would mean we would have to force them to go through all stages of kindergarten, school, middle school etc etc when in reality they already cracked who knows what physics theory. Isn’t that a complete waste of time? We would be boring them to death and we would surely not be benefiting from their incredible intellect.

Over the course of the past 10 years, I’ve heard many times discussions between managers and/or HR saying X person might be "great and all" but they’re too young, they can’t be a manager at only 25 years…or 27 years. I was always puzzled. Besides the obvious fact that age has nothing to do with skills, I don’t even understand why 27 years old would be considered too young. Many 27-year-old people have families and children. I, for one, started to work when I was only 18 years old. Why would my experience at 27 be equal to another 27-year-old person’s experience who might have started their first job at 26 and a half?

That’s just sad…

I’ve seen amazing 25-year-old people with all the needed skills to grow, be a manager and much more. I’ve also seen 45-year-old people that were still not ready to advance to the next level. Maybe they will be or maybe they will never be. However, the number is irrelevant here and I just wish everyone would see this.

In my professional life, I’ve been to so many interviews and I experienced ageism. I was given such strange feedback's. One time I was told I’m perfect for the role but not now, in 2 years. Eager to learn and be better, I embraced the feedback and asked what could I do in this interim 2 year period to make sure that, when over, I do have all the required skills to get the job. To my utmost surprise I was told that I didn’t have to do anything, I just had to wait for the years to pass by.

And it doesn’t end here, there are more completely astonishing situations. Once I was told that I am not a suitable candidate for a role which I perfectly matched because the requirements are x years and I only have y (difference being, again, 2 years). So I checked all the boxes, I had absolutely all the requirements in the job description and even more, but, just because of those 2 years, I became completely irrelevant?

Great recruiting skills indeed... Using this logic, quite soon, all companies will be left without a CEO because nobody will have the exact age and number of years the role is posted for.

At the risk of repeating myself: people are not the same! Only 1% of all population is extremely rich so they must be doing something different. Only 4% of people are very successful in life.

For all you recruiters and hiring managers, next time you have this thought and before discarding a person that can be a perfectly good candidate, please just pause and think about the following question:

If it was Elon Musk, would you refuse him a promotion just because he only has 6 years of IT experience and not 8? Or just because he is 27 and not 33?

From my cubicle to yours,

The D.