![Do you patronise older workers by saying they are 'too qualified'?](/web/20170429183709im_/http://www.smh.com.au/content/dam/images/g/h/r/w/4/5/image.related.articleLeadNarrow.300x0.gvt99v.png/1493245035527.jpg)
Is there a dumber recruitment knockback than "you're too senior for the job"?
Everyone knows that's corporate-speak for "you're too old and we don't know how to manage you". Or "our organisation is too stupid to harness the skills of older workers".
I thought about workplace age discrimination after reading a Fairfax Media opinion piece this week. The author, Charmaine Weeks, wrote about her job-seeking frustrations. Recruiters told the 62-year-old that she was "too senior" or "would be bored in the role".
I've heard similar comments too many times before from older workers who are keen to start the next stage of their career and cannot get past recruitment consultants in the job-application process. Workers who are experienced, energetic, loyal and skilled – and invest extra effort in their job.
What's your view?
- Have you missed out on a job because you are supposedly too senior?
- Have you been told you would be "bored in the role"?
- What are the silliest reasons you have received for not getting the job?
- Do recruiters discriminate against people because of age?
Too many Australian companies, and the recruiters that represent them, patronise older workers with template-like responses that they are "too qualified".
What garbage. If they had more foresight, recruiters would see an opportunity in snaring older workers who have decades of experience, skills and a wide professional network.
Or, better still, recruiting an older worker who is motivated and ambitious, but not looking to trample their peers to climb the corporate ladder. Someone who is working partly for the money and partly to stay engaged in the workforce and develop their skills. Someone who genuinely wants to be part of their organisation and give back more than expected.
Why is being too senior for a role a recruitment shortcoming? Surely, the opportunity is to build a bigger role around the older worker and harness their skills, without paying the type of salary that somebody with their experience normally commands.
Top entrepreneurs have a knack of surrounding themselves with staff who often have deeper technical skills or experience than the founder. They don't reject candidates because they are "too senior" or "too qualified" – they know those skills fill in gaps in the organisation.
And who can say experienced workers will quickly tire of a job that, on paper, looks beneath them. I have encountered many who find a new professional spark when they move jobs or industries. Nothing is tiresome about their job; compared to a slow death watching daytime TV or waiting for the phone to ring from recruiters, the new role is exciting.
How can one expect a twentysomething recruiter to understand the work and life experiences that a sixtysomething brings to a job?
Ironically, it is younger workers who seem to tire easily with their job. I know several Millennials who "job-hop" every 12 to 18 months, sometimes because a better job is on offer and often because their current role loses its appeal as work drudgery sets in.
Yet companies overlook older workers who are used to working for longer for an employer, in favour of young workers, some of whom change jobs every 12 months.
Companies only have themselves to blame. Too many outsource their recruitment to firms that rely on young consultants. Or they have internal recruitment teams that use platforms, such as LinkedIn, that are not always the best avenue for older workers.
How can one expect a 20-something recruiter to understand the work and life experiences that a 60-something brings to a job? Or the motivations of someone who is semi-retired and wants to supplement their income with part-time or contract work.
It's natural for young recruiters, or managers doing the hiring, to favour candidates with whom they relate easier, even if that younger candidate is not the best person for the job. Why don't more recruitment firms have older recruiters scanning applications and interviewing older workers?
My business has a had a terrific experience using older workers who are highly skilled, loyal and happy with part-time work. It beggars belief that more businesses do not do the same.
I suspect it comes down to fear and ignorance.
Fear that someone who has decades of experience will know much more than his or her manager and spot their shortcomings.
Or ignorance that older employees are harder to manage, unable to adapt, struggle with technology or lack professional ambition and a capacity to take on harder tasks. None of this is backed by empirical research; it's age stereotyping at its worst.
Australia needs a broader debate on the benefits of workplace diversity. Not just gender and cultural diversity, which big business goes on and on about (often in a self-serving, promotional way). But about issues such as age diversity and what stops older workers getting a fair hearing in the recruitment process.
Some older workers I know no longer apply for published jobs or send resumes. They know that too many recruiters look at their age and put their resume in the "you're too senior for the job" pile. It's unethical, unfair and uncommercial in an ageing society.
0 comments
New User? Sign up