Age vs. Experience in the Workplace: Does One Really Matter More Than the Other?

Dear Seniors,

Does age matter in any company? I have a strong view that as long as the employee is capable, it does not really matter so much on the age. I'll still want to employ them. Does a younger workforce contribute more by being more creative and innovative? In fact, certain jobs need accumulated experience. I guess it all depends on individual performance that counts. Any views?

Partho

In this day, there are more issues about age than ever. Though admittedly it is not as pronounced as before, especially in the workplace, where the boundaries and age brackets are slowly disappearing.

In some companies, age is no longer an issue; in some instances, a candidate who is 65 years old can still apply for work and get hired. The UK has laws that are anti-ageism that are opening the work for those who are capable of doing the work, rather than just being the right age for it.

For the private sector, it really doesn't matter, but in government or public limited companies, age matters.

Regards,
Shine

Dear,

It cannot be a thumb rule for the type of job. Basically, it depends on the nature of the job. In some jobs, you require hard work, while in some positions, you require maturity. So, it depends on the nature of the job.

J. S. Malik

Interesting question!

Age should not matter as long as a person is contributing meaningfully towards the growth of the organization. However, there is another side of the coin as well. Suppose a company is fortunately having the maximum number of good performers who are getting old. They are kept in employment until they retire. In this case, what will happen to the younger population who are either capable of getting promoted or those who are awaiting their chance to get employed?

Keeping this aspect in mind, my verdict is to keep the 'contributors' but not at the cost of 'new ideas'. Because with the ever-changing business scenario, performance is as important as fresh ideas. There has to be an employment life-cycle; otherwise, the organizational growth can, at a certain point, reach stagnation, which may not be a good idea.

Prashant

Hi,

Yes, age is one of the criteria that we should keep in mind in the selection process.

However, the more important factor is the suitability of the candidate.

It would be accurate to say that the criteria for selection depend on the profile.

Regards,
Brijesh

Dear Partho,

Let's assume the following cases:

Case 1:

A team of technical members - between the age group of 25 - 30 is working on a critical assignment. They are well qualified and have been provided the same salary. They are all in the same grade.

One person resigns and for immediate replacement - the HR finds a 45-year-old person, who is extremely good with the job and has the required skills, with more years of experience. The person is in the same range of salary / or he is open for that salary due to personal reasons.

Now, won't this person have an assumed superiority in the team? Won't it become an issue for the other members to accept his views or even ignore because of his age or years of experience?

Case 2 (real-life example - victim: myself)

I have joined a company which has been in the textile industry for long, but never had an HR department. When I joined - and tried implementing a few systems (during the initial excitement), I had a person mock at my efforts and tell others, "This girl must have just been born when I joined the company. Now she is setting rules."

He joined as an assistant - and is still the same with an extended time office role.

I'd rather have a young determined person take care of time role and also have some extended work being performed by him/her. In this way - you are letting the younger generation grow.

According to me - if the person has extensive years of experience but has the same skill set, like any other candidate who has lesser years of experience - and if both have handled the same kind of projects - I guess the senior person has not grown much professionally - he has probably not been identified as a person who can move to the next role.

Nothing is wrong in hiring the senior person as the company/department can boast of the person's extensive years of experience. But what happens to the career growth/path that has already been determined for a person with so many years of experience?

Those are my views.

Age matters when experience is required. Suppose for a CEO/COO/VP position, we should not hire a younger candidate. A person with rich experience and sound knowledge of the market is necessary.

So, in my opinion, age matters and varies with the designation and responsibilities.

Regards,

Pankaj Chandan

Ash and Mr. Malik have given good inputs. I also feel that it's a relative thing and depends upon the organization. But I feel age should never be a constraint because you never know the human capabilities, and by not bounding to the age, we keep the doors open to people who do relatively well. But we also need to look at what cost we are doing this.

Even I have seen ads for CEO positions with experience ranging from 1 to 12 years. It's another thing that the likelihood of applications with less experience getting rejected will be very high due to the lack of experience. However, we also know many MBA freshers with minimal experience getting recruited even as VPs.

Our society, human tendency, and thinking have created a lot of boundaries. But originally, human capacity is infinite in all regards - learning, performing, etc.

Regards,

Age matters a lot in employment in the following cases - some unwritten rules of recruitment:

If there are individuals with a certain number of years of experience in the same functional profile (e.g., technical) within a similar age group, it is better not to hire someone who is more than 5 years older to fit in with the group. This helps avoid unnecessary interpersonal issues within members at the same level.

If the group requires maturity but has individuals with the same experience level, consider hiring someone older. People tend to respect age to some extent; therefore, a senior member by age will have a better chance of being heard compared to others within the same age group. However, it is essential for that individual to prove their worth to earn respect.

By default, all important portfolios should be held by slightly older individuals. While younger individuals can also prove their worth, the question arises: do you have the patience and time to wait and observe?

Regards,
Geet

Dear Friends,

I think we are entering into the period of baby boomers, and as per the US, the first batch of baby boomers started in 2006. It is estimated that employers will consider employing a large number of the workforce above the normal retirement age, which is 65, and the retirement age will be extended. Therefore, more and more companies will have to accommodate and employ candidates above 60 years with flexible or reduced work timings. This could be a result of the low birth rate due to nuclear families, single parents, divorce, and other reasons.

Thus, I feel that age is no longer a constraint to employ a candidate if he/she is eligible and can perform essential functions. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Is India also facing such a situation? Can someone provide input on this?

Thanks,
Shahed

"Does Age Matter?" is a good question. My response to that, as someone who came to the UK when I was 28, changed fields from Electrical Engineering to Industrial Engineering at 40, moved to teaching at 48, retired at nearly 66, and still works as a guide for researchers without charging, is that it all depends upon the situation.

Without giving details of the scenario, it is difficult to say whether age matters or not. For example, if it requires physical effort, after a certain age, the adage "Spirit is willing but the body isn't" comes into play. Otherwise, it's what one knows and can do that really matters. However, as others have opined, keeping people of pensionable age in paid employment may adversely affect the employment opportunities of youngsters. It may also be less economical, as more experienced individuals get paid more for jobs that could be handled by juniors (where there is a pay scale, like in the civil service and in teaching).

In the UK, some stores employ older people as they are more flexible in work patterns (part-time working, weekend working, etc).

It may also be worth reading the article by Mark Desner and a Scholarly research article abstract, both found at the following URLs:

- [Link outdated, removed]
- [Link updated to site home]

Simhan

Hello,

I really think that in this era of new employment strategies and a greatly changed scenario, age definitely makes a difference. If you think about it deeply, you will always find that a person with a younger age has an edge over an aged person.

Let me give you an example. Whom would one prefer when it comes to selecting a person for longer terms, more confidence, inquisitiveness, and assertiveness? Maybe a person can have more experience, but he must be smart enough to use his experience at the right time and in the right place. If you just consider that the persons have the same mental ability, preference should be given to the younger one having avid creativity.

The efficacy, endurance, and performance will have an edge over ample work method, brooding while working, and a dearth of productivity. Please revert back if you or anyone else thinks otherwise with points to discuss on the board.

Do you really think all youngsters are creative and older persons are not? You only need to see the number of youngsters who are pursuing their MBA and ask for guidance on citeHr to understand that all youngsters are not creative.

I wonder whether you read my message above!!!

Hi, Fellow Friends!

Good to see an interesting topic about age being a factor for employment in specific. At the outset, let me answer the same at a larger perspective by questioning you all, as to how many people have understood the concept of "equal employment opportunity"? Every company talks about it, and you and I discuss the same at a knowledge level, conceptual level, and implementation level, yet we are all at ground zero.

First of all, age has nothing to do with any professional organization; it is all about the survival of the fittest. Geeta has touched on maturity, and I appreciate her, but for all other things, that is rubbish. I don't agree with Chandan's reasons; I need to question him about the average age group of people coming out of IIMs, XLRIs, or any other such academics.

I am concerned with Asha that only numbers talk about what will happen next. I empathize with her. All said and done, it's all about our output.

It all depends on the management and employees as to how far we can take this age factor and define the same for our company, making a difference to our organization at a larger level.

So, rather than finding faults, let's find alternative right solutions in the common interest of our organization. And that is what we are here for as HR folks—to find a common solution.

I hope to receive solutions for this topic rather than feelings, experiences, or complaints.

Regards,
RK.

Hi Fellow Friends!

Good to see an interesting topic about age being a factor for employment in a specific context. At an outset, let me answer the same from a broader perspective by questioning all of you - how many people have truly understood the concept of "equal employment opportunity"? Every company discusses this, and yet, at a knowledge, conceptual, and implementation level, we are all at zero.

First and foremost, age should not play a role in any professional organization; it is all about the survival of the fittest. Geeta touched upon maturity, which I appreciate, but as for everything else, it is rubbish. I do not agree with Chandan's reasons; I need to ask him about the average age group of individuals graduating from IIMs, XLRIs, or similar academic institutions.

I am concerned with Asha, who only focuses on numbers. What happens next? I empathize with her. In the end, it all comes down to our output.

It all depends on the management and employees on how far we can consider age as a factor and define it for our company, making a difference at a larger organizational level.

Instead of pinpointing faults, let's strive to find alternative and correct solutions in the common interest of our organization. That's what we, as HR professionals, are here for - to find common solutions.

I hope to receive solutions on this topic rather than just feelings, experiences, or complaints.

Regards,
RK.

Dear RK,

You have not provided any solutions either. As I mentioned earlier, it all depends on the situation.

I know of a person whose hobby was repairing watches and clocks. He was employed by P R & Sons of Madras as the Head of their Watch Repair section in the late 60s after he retired at the age of 60 from a government job. This is undoubtedly an exception. Thus, it all depends on the company, its policies, etc.

Similarly, in the show business in the UK, Bruce Forsyth is around 80, and he is one of the best presenters of programmes. Regardless of the programme he is asked to host, he does a marvelous job. When the same programmes have been hosted by youngsters, they have been flops.

Simhan

I completely agree that it depends on the situation.

In my case, as I mentioned earlier, when I joined this company, no one was ready to listen to whatever I had to say (age factor). I understood that clearly and had to discuss with the management about hiring a Head of HR for the whole group because certain things will have to be done only by a senior person. Now they have hired and things seem to be getting in shape.

Age does have an influencing factor.

My previous MD is a very young person from a reputed group. He is guided by people who worked with his Dad, while his dad was earlier taking care of the business. Now these ex-employees act as his mentors - and on the whole, they have middle-aged (above 40 yrs - 50 yrs) people working as the Head of each division.

Age also defines aggressiveness. If you look at Maslow's theory - after a certain age (assuming that the person grows professionally in the same way), needs/motives change. It may not be money - it may be self-esteem!

After understanding the needs/motives - try matching people in the correct stage of this growth. Maybe due to some reason, a person at 50 is still in the need stage. At this point, you should compare the existing group's motives. Adding the "Senior" person should in no way reduce the working efficiency of the group.

In the same manner, when there is already a group with higher level motives (also senior by age), and if you include a person who is much younger than them, it will not serve the purpose. As the senior people may not feel like accepting the younger person's views (my case).

Dear members,

I read all responses very carefully and evaluated by experience of 8 organizations and the balance between aging employees and youth employees.

As per my observation, all organizations need a mixture of old experienced employees to foster intellectual capabilities in the organization and to transform young employees' strength into an asset for the organization. Youth graduates are not straight from the jacket to fit into the business of any organization because they need the shelter of experienced people who guide them with tricks of the trade, and over time they grow as mature professionals. Formal education or degrees do not substitute for experience; therefore, every organization needs experienced people in crucial positions to balance the business risk and venture.

The organizations without old and experienced employees struggle to stabilize their business consistency and growth because they lack experience capital and practical expertise, preventing disasters like Satyam Frauds.

In one company where I worked in Africa, we used to keep old experienced people at the top of the hierarchy in the core business management group who advised management on strategic aspects and preventive measures from arising threats.

Youth employees used to act as second fiddle, expediting the process and stimulating the business environment with their creative and innovative skills.

A combination of both makes a lot of difference, and an old experienced employee is a business imperative and becomes an asset, not a liability.

Regards,

Rashid

It depends on the nature of the job and the company profile. Is it a PSU or private company? Mostly, PSUs give importance to age.

Dear Friends,

There are two sidesof the coin

Age matters not only in the government sector but also in private sector .how I tell you,
Experience comes with the time, and the number of situation you come across the more skilled you become. Normally the private sector mention the age criteria in job vacancies that candidate should be ideally of this much of age and this much years of work experience, and work experience comes with the age.

Can a vice president of any big company be 25 years old?
Can a marketing head of any big company be there without no of years of work experience?

There are three things, which are very important that is
Knowledge, skills and attitude –this combination is called the COMPETENCY.
The competency matters and that too at what age you have.

I give one example of Indian Institute of Management Indore,

One student who is just 25 years old has got three years of work experience in S/W got the international placement of 63 Lacks and on the other hand one other students of IIM-I got the placement of 20 lakhs at the age of 30 or 32, so now here there are some conflicting points like.

The first student is more successful because at the age of 25 he has got good package and international exposure and his chances of growth is more but what about the other students …I just mean to say that
WHAT YOU GET AT WHAT AGE.

This example is for the ideal one. There are very few who actually reach to IIMs, and then what about the average ones, they reach the higher position with age and time only.
Like one Harvard alumni or IIM Alumni can become the Vice President in any good company but the other MBA's from average colleges may take several years to take to become VP.

When we take the example of private sector, which is always in hurry to make the profit and believe in cost cutting, Private sector believes that they should be getting the suitable candidate with the remuneration decided by the company. When they get suitable candidate they hire in that case AGE does not matters.
The AGE can be lesser that what is required for the position but cannot be more.

The condition depends upon the industry-to-industry, and country-to-country to country
Like in Japan, the age and the seniority matters while in US the competency matters.
The condition also matters with, what position a candidate is applying and that position requires what??? Expertise or only smartness??

Soniya

Friends, age is just a number. What matters in business is delivering results.

In an overpopulated country like India, age does matter, but in the rest of the world, it is not such a problem. Countries like Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and most of Europe require a migrant workforce from Africa and Asia because they do not have sufficient manpower. Therefore, in these countries, age does not matter, and aged people are welcomed to work.

This question is only valid for countries like India and China, which are socialist countries and are overpopulated.

Regards,
Bhajiya

Age does matter for certain posts, but if an organization has to hire one person among two candidates - one who is young and the other who is mature - then the organization will definitely choose the person who is mature. Because in this recession, it does not want to waste money on training the candidates. So, I feel that it will go for the one involving less cost.

Dear seniors,

Why would telecom and FMCG companies not be interested in hiring employees with backgrounds in insurance or pharma for marketing and sales roles?

Hello friends,

I am doing my internship in a retail company in HR. Recently, we terminated an employee who was a minor, i.e., she didn't complete 18 years of age, but she was wrongly hired. She could only be taken back after a year. Is the employer justified in doing so? What's your take on this?

Thank you.

Age, I would say, matters depending on the type of job and the skill sets required. These days, it hardly matters. In the private sector, there would be no issues at all. However, in the government sector, age does matter.

Age matters, especially for women. Most of the time, married women between the ages of 26 and 30 struggle because employers try to avoid hiring them due to concerns about maternity leave. Setting that aside, age should not matter at all.

From the perspective of recruitment, age does play an important role. No company would want to hire, for example, a 45-year-old person with 15 years of experience for the position of an HR Manager. Practically, age, experience, and designation should move in tandem.

Ash and Malikji have provided good inputs, but let's take an example based on cost:

For example, a company recruits a VP/COO/CEO who has a wealth of experience, abilities, and competencies. However, as mentioned by someone regarding American laws, presuming that he is 65 years old, it is implied that he won't be able to run (not literally), hustle, and be as enthusiastic as his job description requires.

Now, let's talk numbers:
Assuming the salary of VP/COO/CEO is, say, 70 lacs per annum.
Age: 65 years.
Experience: 40 years.
Has anyone considered that if he is hired, he will need a workforce to work under him, leading to an increase in hierarchy and implied increased costs?

Now, let's consider another example:
Suppose the person is hired for the same position.
Salary: 50 lacs
Experience: 25 years.
Age: 45 years.

Although he has half the experience of the previous case, he is more enthusiastic, zealous, open to ideas, quicker in learning, and decision-making while being rational. He can work even without the additional workforce required in the previous case (because he has a personal growth path to pursue), ultimately saving costs for the company.

In my view, if the person is competent enough and can handle the same workload compared to a more experienced candidate, age should not be a barrier.

I hope this perspective may provide another insight into the topic to consider.

Regards,
Zalak Dave

Hi,

It may be and may not be. There is no hard and fast rule regarding this. All depends upon the kind of job.

Age has a definite impact on employment and effectiveness. Certain posts require a maturity level and understanding that have a direct relationship with age. Some positions may not be suitable for older individuals as factors such as energy levels, risk-bearing attitude, and compatibility with the group demographics become relevant. As HR professionals, we need to understand the requirements clearly and without any psychological barriers.

Moorthy

As long as the individual is ready to serve the company and bring in growth, she should be absorbed into the company. Young blood definitely has the fire, the hunger to achieve better in tough situations, and hence becomes the choice of many business development organizations. Age can matter but not fully. There might be very few jobs where industry experience for some years is needed. In such a case, a rookie, even though they have potential, cannot be hired. In such a case, we can take a chance of hiring the rookie for a longer probation period (but cannot take a chance during the recession as it might turn into a cost rather than profit). This does not mean that age becomes the criterion for rejection. A balanced approach to selection has to be taken to get the right fit, be it young or elderly; the ROI of the company needs to be computed.

Thanks, Nandini

All depends upon organizational culture and policies.

Organizational policies: If you have ever read TOI (Ascent), in some of the posts they have given age limits. Persons below a certain age are not qualified for the interview. It depends upon organizational policies. Some posts require maturity, such as a person who has worked at the officer level being directly promoted to a manager; in such cases, there may not be much maturity in decision-making. This is why some organizations have strict policies regarding age limits.

Organizational culture: If the organization's employees are too mature to support an underage person whom they have to report, then I think there will be no issue in hiring a person who is underage.

Regards, Abhijeet Sawant

The law of our land prohibits employment under 18 years of age. Hence, your employer is justified in terminating her services. But this situation has to be handled carefully so as not to break the confidence of someone who is just entering or will enter the corporate world. She must be clearly told that due to an oversight this appointment has happened, which is illegal, and that she can be on board only when she completes 18 years of age. See her off in good humor. And yes, remove all traces of this appointment from your official records.

Prashant