Measuring relevant know-how: Age-wise or experience-wise?
There is a saying that I really like:
Do not judge a book by its cover
Which highlights that we should not be prejudgemental regarding the worth or value of something by its outward appearance alone as looks can be deceiving.
There have been times where just because someone is at the age of 40+, we automatically assume that he/she carries years of experience and therefore can do the job better.
Research from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) indicates a bias towards younger people in senior roles compared to older ones.
Perceptions towards those aged over 70 were more positive than towards those in their 20s, with older people viewed as being more friendly, having higher moral standards and as being more competent than their younger counterparts.
Denise Keating, chief executive of the Employers Network for Equality and Inclusion said:
We have seen a very high instance of age-related unfairness, particularly when people are selected for a new job or promotion only if their ‘face fits’, which unfortunately means some people feel that talent isn’t enough to overcome such prejudices
The question is how relevant is this experience? Can’t it be that you have a younger individual that has accumulated more or equal years of relevant experience?
In my exposure so far, you can be positively surprised by what a younger individual might bring on the table and deeply disappointed in others, where you had initially pre-assumed that deliverables will be of higher value.
Same goes when you look at it the other way around. Just because someone is younger, does not necessarily imply that they will be faster in delivering results than someone that carries some additional years on their back.
The point I want to make is that one shouldn’t always think in terms of black or white. There is reason in both scenarios so allow room to be surprised and start to love those shades of grey.
