Why Are Experienced Employees Being Replaced? Let's Discuss the Real Issues and Solutions

Dear All,

This is a burning topic today. Most of the Indian industries and institutions are engaging in this rough practice whenever a new executive joins with innovative ideas and replaces many of the old experienced individuals to bring in new ones of his/her choice. This does not imply opposition to new people but not at the expense of others. These old experienced individuals perform exceptionally well when they join a new organization. This indicates that there is something amiss somewhere. What is causing this gap, and how can we address this issue effectively?

You are all encouraged to participate in this discussion to share your experiences and perspectives with others.

Yogesh Samanotra

I think Mr. Samanotra is right to say that our modern industries are trying to remove all old and experienced people under the guise of minor retrenchments. They believe that by getting rid of them, they are making changes, but eventually, the management of these industries ends up eliminating their own choices through these actions. Eventually, they find themselves having to make changes as well. This is because they are unable to adapt to the new culture.

Vandan Guha,
Mumbai.

Old people are really very smart, but they always fall into the hands of some cunning people who use them for their benefits. As soon as they think these people are not useful for them, they get rid of them without considering any other choice to retain them. Sometimes we do this to keep our new godfathers happy.

Janakiram

I have no clue about the industries in the market, but what I have noticed in my firm is that the experienced employees do not upgrade themselves with the new technologies. Also, they feel insecure when someone new joins, trying to avoid or ignore them, and behaving superior. But at times, when the new joiners come up with new ideas, they oppose them, overshadowing their contributions. In this process, the newly joined employees feel discriminated against and may choose to leave the organization or form groups with differences. The management does very little in this regard because they are emotionally attached to the senior employees, despite being aware of their lacking competencies.

Dear Sari,

It is not always correct to say that experienced persons do not upgrade themselves with new technology because they are not being trained with new challenges. Managers want them to be ready to face all new challenges, yet they often forget their role to train them. In the end, they tend to blame the old employees.

Sarla Mathur
HRD

Hi to all.

This is a good topic.

For example, I am the Managing Director of a mid-level company. One of the managers, with 7 to 10 years of experience in this company, has a salary of around 30k. When I consider and calculate everything about finances, my decision is to ask this senior person to resign, and I will hire a new person with 2 or 3 years of experience at a salary range of 10 to 15k. I am prepared to provide short training to the new person. Now, I am saving 15k per month for my company.

This is one reason...

I hope this is not wrong! Suggestions, please.

Pandu.K

Dear Pandurangan,

Please clarify your views in detail with good examples. This should not be based on the experience of one company/industry where you have experienced it.

Good luck.

Aarti Kher
Hyderabad
HRD Manager

Mr. Pandurangan,

It seems that you are also a sufferer and blaming others. Please stick with examples to clarify your basic view. This may be dissimilar for others.

Reeta Mahalingam
Kuwait

Hi friends,

I first should congratulate Yogesh for bringing up a good topic for discussion. There may be several reasons why organizations remove experienced people and hire freshers/new members in their place. However, I think the reason is that when you are new to a job/relationship, you are very vibrant, focused, and show only your positive qualities.

However, in the long run, inadequacies do creep up. I think it's the same with a boyfriend/girlfriend. They try to impress each other, so there won't be any problems when they start their relationship. But, in the long run, our negatives also become apparent.

I agree with Sari that most of the seniors tend to become complacent and insecure (it may apply to me as well). In fact, I think that not removing these so-called seniors is a problem in sick public firms. However, that's where our HR challenge comes into the picture. We should make every employee realize that not only does experience matter but also performance.

The HR role is an important one in this aspect wherein a performing culture should be defined, developed, and inculcated.

Regards,

Ravi.

Dear Esteemed HR Members,

"It's surprising to hear that experienced staff are being removed due to freshers," when the entire HR world is striving to retain talented and experienced individuals; no employer or HR person will attempt to separate them from the organization.

This discussion pertains specifically to the IT sector. In contrast, manufacturing units typically do not replace senior employees with freshers for trivial reasons.

This is my opinion; please correct me if I have misunderstood.

Regards,
Venkatesh

Thank you, Ravi,

You shed light on this topic well as the HR role is crucial in defining, developing, and instilling a high-performing culture. You clearly articulated the HR's role in changing the culture. Though changing the existing culture is not an easy task, it depends on what the company desires. Removing is simple, like eliminating all beggars to conceal the poverty line, but first, train them, give them autonomy, and then consider removal if they underperform.

With love, Mridula Sahani GM HRD, A Software Co.

Dear Friends,

I fully accept Ravi's comments on the importance of HR handling such a situation. I commented only from my company's perspective. In the present scenario where HRs are struggling to retain senior employees, why would one want seniors to quit? It varies with companies and their culture.

In my case, our seniors are not only incapable but are not ready to undergo any training. They also oppose recruiting freshers. In fact, most of the time, they safeguard themselves with their own references. This situation is not only causing stagnation but also influencing others. There is no HR department, only one HR, and it is not easy to oppose seniors who are emotionally attached to management.

I do not have any negative grudges against my seniors. In fact, we all are on good terms. However, that doesn't solve the purpose. I am worried about the upcoming projects and only want competent employees.

Thanks to all the members.

I have a suggestion for SARI and members alike, although I know it's difficult. To demonstrate our value, we need to earn the trust of our management by thinking innovatively.

I believe everyone would agree that the primary goal of any company (excluding NGOs) is to generate profits, and it is widely accepted that the key to sustaining profits is consistent performance over time.

Focus on your usual tasks until you gain the trust of your management in a strategic way (don't claim it's impossible – remember, your so-called seniors have achieved that). Do this without affecting your relationships with other employees. In short, be tactful, my friends, and everything will fall into place. Avoid implementing new ideas without management approval. Otherwise, you might invest effort in a project only for the idea to be rejected, leading to frustration.

Come on, friends, focus on impressing your management. As an HR professional, I shouldn't communicate in this manner, but that's how businesses operate.

Sorry if I am mistaken.

Regards,

Ravi.

The gap is:
Lack of understanding leads to:

1. Resistance to change by the old experienced persons.
2. Reluctance to learn the new things by the old experienced persons.
3. Lack of teamwork between the new and old experienced persons, between executives and the old experienced persons.

Solution:
Executives should be responsible for understanding them and making them understand the new consequences in the present business field.

Hi!

I truly agree with you. Change is the spice of life. Every organization needs change. So, it may be considered a change that new employees are introduced in the organization. But this does not mean that old employees do not hold any importance in the organization. They are the carriers of organizational ethics on the premises. They are the light for the organization as well as for the new recruits. And last but not least, "Knowledge moves with people," so if any employee leaves the organization, then an ample amount of knowledge has moved out from the organization.

In my opinion, old employees should also try to shun away their stubborn attitude towards the new recruits. If they are seniors to the new recruits, then they should maintain their reputation by behaving in an elderly manner but not like a hard taskmaster.

Thanks & Regards, Anupriya Bhattacharya

Hi,

This is a really nice question.

It is a hire and fire culture.

This is long-term payment for short-term results at the cost of trust, morale, and experienced employees.

One interesting aspect is that new people are recruited for their new ideas, but both senior and junior employees are evaluated on the same basis - competency-based evaluation. Sometimes, this is not fair because seniors have molded themselves and their thinking according to the organizational culture and past experiences. The perception of seniors on any issue might not yield immediate results, but it can lead to wise long-term decisions.

When an experienced person leaves, it is a loss for the organization as the employee takes with them experience, knowledge, and ideas about future development. Time is money, and it takes time for new employees to take on the responsibilities of experienced individuals. This results in a waste of time as others need time to adjust to the regular and smooth functioning in the absence of the senior employees. Additionally, it psychologically affects other employees. They might develop a fear of a similar future for themselves, carrying the anxiety of losing their jobs and experiencing low morale. This directly impacts organizational growth negatively.

For an organization, both people with new ideas and experienced individuals are equally important. Through proper career planning and team-building, there can be a nice blend of new concepts and experience to achieve results. This can be accomplished through clear communication of short-term and long-term goals, expected results, and roles of each team member. Seniors should be given a short time span to prepare themselves and adjust to the new culture. This will help develop trust, mutual understanding, and cooperation.

Swati

Hi Swati,

Thanks for giving your valuable views on my contribution. I totally agree with you.

Both old and new employees hold equal importance in the organization. They should understand their roles clearly and work accordingly.

Regards,
Anupriya Bhattacharya

Agreed, Venkatesh! We see inclusion of freshers and young employees, but there are no signs of 'removal' or 'mini retrenchment' as posted by some members. We face a problem of scarcity of personnel, be it young and inexperienced or old and experienced. Is the issue about giving more authorities to the young generation, ignoring the existing staff?

- Hiten

Swati's comments are as follows:

"For an organization, people with new ideas and experienced individuals are both equally important. With a proper career plan and team-building, there will be a nice blending of new concepts and experience to achieve results. This can be accomplished through proper communication of short-term and long-term goals, expected results, and clarity on the role of each team member. Seniors should be given a short time span to prepare themselves and adjust to the new culture. This will help develop trust, mutual understanding, and cooperation."

Both experienced and mature managers, as well as young and dynamic ones, are necessary. It is HR's responsibility to assist them in adjusting to each other's strengths and weaknesses to deliver optimum results to the organization.

Jeroo

Dear All,

Please think over the following points:

1. Why does grass seem green in a different corner from where you stand?
2. Why do we hate those who are nearest to us?
3. Why do we ask for a guarantee of new products?
4. Why do we take care of our new items?
5. Why do we want to listen to a new person?

There are more questions similar to the ones above. Ask yourself the answers to the above. In my opinion, you would find the answers to the questions at hand.

Regards,
L.C. Pal

In my opinion:

Answers:

1. Grass looks green until you reach that corner. When we reach the corner, we feel like we are at the same place in a different corner.
2. Because we are aware of their feelings and weaknesses.
3. Because we have not used it before and have doubts.
4. Sometimes items are not usable, and sometimes they are not in fashion.
5. Because we expect to hear something new that we have not heard before.

Dear All HR Fraternity Members,

At the outset, this question is a very general one and cannot be considered as a trend or the new style of Human Resources Management that is rampantly applicable here.

No prudent management will make decisions to remove experienced hands to replace them with new hands solely based on age, whether it be for blue-collar or white-collar jobs. It will always be based on the value addition brought by the individual to the organization.

I am saying this with the understanding that this concept is more or less applicable to middle/large organizations and not small organizations with 30/50 personnel or turnovers less than 20 Cr per annum.

However, whether young or old, everyone needs to understand that:

1. They need to adapt to the changes happening around them,
2. Be a multiskilled person rather than a single skilled/value-adding professional,
3. Never think or act like, "Okay, it's done. I'll see it tomorrow,"
4. Be flexible, adaptable, and a contributor to the organization.

With this approach, if someone is not providing services to their organization, whether young or old, they will certainly lose to a better candidate.

That's my experience of 27+ years in HR, and I am still going strong!

Ravindra Waghmare, Mumbai.

Yes, Yogesh, I completely agree with you. In modern times, a good number of organizations follow this trend in order to bring the cost down. Though it may be good from the organization's point of view, what about the social/individual aspect view? We should not forget that we all will come under the experience category sooner or later.

Today's life is more unsecured when we become older. This should not happen.

:(

Rakesh Gupta

Dear all,

I am thankful for the participation of learned people like Ravi, Sari, Rajeshwari, Mridula, Anupriya Bhattacharya, Swati, L.C. Pal, and Ravindra Waghmare in my topic, "Why remove experienced persons to bring new ones?". I also agree with some of their views, such as one must be result-oriented, positive, and adaptable to new cultures. Good and modern companies are making efforts to develop cross-functional teams (CFT), where individuals have the opportunity to showcase themselves with innovative ideas. Additionally, the process of multi-skilling provides opportunities for individuals of all ages to explore new fields. Both experienced and new employees have their own strengths, and they can be valuable assets if they collaborate effectively as a team.

With best regards,
Yogesh Samanotra
Delhi

Yogesh Samanotra

I oppose bringing new faces in place of the old.

Do you think that all the old are not good and all the new are the best?

It depends on a person to person and their involvement in their incumbency.

The only point is that the senior or the elder should upgrade their knowledge in the field they are working in, and if possible, extend it outside their field of work or even in their hobby to the best advantage of the organization.

I am now 60 and working as a senior-level middle management supervisor.

At the time of my entry into my cadre as a clerk (Though with Pre-University qualification at the time of my entry in 1967 by wrong guidance, I joined below the level of Clerk), I developed my knowledge in all fields, and even when I was working as a clerk, I was consulted for major issues of the organization.

Later, when the computer was introduced in 1985, I developed my knowledge in computers on my own, and now I am considered one of the best at handling computers. I even do a few hardware repairs, software repairs, and am considered the best FOXPRO programmer during 1990.

All the programs developed by me are still in use in entire Tamil Nadu.

What I suggest is whether a senior or a junior, if their potentiality is not good, they should be sacked.

You have agreed that when seniors join a new organization, they shine. What does that indicate? They possess very good knowledge, and only because of new faces, their importance or identity is lowered.

Regarding remuneration, your argument of employing a new face with less may be correct.

But be cautious, these new faces will always be in the mood of seeking better opportunities, and at that time, you will face the problem.

Instead, talk with the senior about all your problems and settle the issue.

With wishes

Sengailingam

There are a number of reasons why old is replaced by new. However, what seems to be the main reason is this - new cost a lot less! The longer you stay with a company, the more expensive you become to retain. Thus, companies now tend to replace old hands who cost more for new hands who come in at a lower rate.

The other reason is education - how many of the old hands have MBAs (this seems to be 'the' degree of the moment - the flavor of the month!) It doesn't seem to matter that they have no experience.

General Motors in the late 80s, early 90s, decided that their employees needed to be upgraded... life experience, loyalty to the company, and hands-on experience did not matter. Out they went, and in marched the MBAs with no hands-on skills, etc. Prior to this, GM was the top earner/employer in the world. Within 2 years of the change, GM lost its market share, and even Chrysler stepped ahead of it. By the time GM admitted to itself the big booboo it had made, it was too late, and GM has as yet to climb back to its old position. Of course, there will be stalwarts who will refute this, but deny it as much as you will the fact remains as proof.

This is not to say that MBAs have no place in this work world... banish that thought. What I do say is this experience and life skills should be acknowledged and retained. But to do so, you have to pay. And back we are at the beginning... experience is expensive!

P.V.Quinn

Hi Friends:

The topic is really very sensitive. What we all do is follow the western technology, their trends, and their ways of living. We have forgotten the importance of loyalty and sincerity. The culture now is "do it and move on" which has made the new generation quite conscious about loyalties long stays despite being paid much for their job.

I think we, as eastern thinkers, should very prudently follow this practice. The old people who actually could not add up anymore and hinder the growth of an organization can be taken away very gracefully which could be finding better opportunities for them outside or their tasks be shuffled in order to reward them for their loyalty not forgetting their past contribution. Setting a retirement age could help a lot for these people to move out gracefully.

Please note that when there is too much comfort level in any organization for an employee, it should set the alarm bells ringing. As we all know, the only constant thing in this world is change. Therefore, each employee should always embrace and keep the learning curve and creativity moving up at regular intervals to add value and sustain productivity and innovation for the organization. In one line - change management would stop this practice.

Sanjay

Hi Yogesh,

First of all, I would like to congratulate you for raising this topic for debate. The primary concern for management is financial stability, followed by resolving issues without disputes. This often leads to the consideration of retrenching older employees.

While the older workforce brings experience, it is important to acknowledge that they may work at a slower pace and lack flexibility compared to younger colleagues. Younger employees tend to be faster and more adaptable, following instructions from their superiors. However, conflicts may arise due to ego clashes among experienced employees. To bridge the generation gap, it is advisable to incorporate younger individuals rather than solely relying on traditional experience. I hope that all experienced individuals can understand and support this perspective, as it is essential for the progression of the organization.

Regards,
Cgnanij

Because the removing of old people and bringing the new ideas, i.e., people, is good for a company. The old people working in the company have limited views and ideas in their work. They don't know the market value or where they stand. That's why the company wants new people with fresh ideas in the organization to stand in a good position.

However, there is a drawback to new people with new ideas joining the company. We first have to assess their activities to see if they align with our work and if they are confident. This is crucial because we have to share all the company's secrets, documents, etc.

On the other hand, old employees are very faithful in their job.

Regards,
Rajnish

But I faced a problem because of old people. Basically, I have 1 year of experience, even though I know something good in the construction industry. So my GM recognized me and kept me as middle management. However, in my other department, GMs who are all 50+ used to trouble me a lot. If we made some calculations in Excel and gave printouts, he would check the same again using calculators! In this worst case, elders can give way for current cutting-edge technologies to save time (I meant youngsters).

Regards,
Indhu

I feel everybody has ego. When new generation joins, they think these people are outdated. But if you go in depth, you will find they have all the solutions if you give them respect. What we do is work in a smart way and find shortcuts, but I have noticed they have vast knowledge in all subjects. Tomorrow, we will also grow old and would not like to be treated as outdated.

Old is gold. I accept it, but young people should not be demotivated. Old people always say, "Your age is less than my experience." Experience should be measured in quality, not quantity. I really admire old people. They should not underestimate new people.

Regards,
Indhu

Dear Pandurangan,

Yes, you may save some money for your company in the short run. However, you may be losing some attributes that come with experience only. Although, if you provide training to a new person, what guarantee is there that the new person will stick with you for a longer period? If not, then your recruitment costs will increase. Additionally, you will need to spend much time with the new recruit, helping them make decisions on critical matters that the old person could handle continuously and without taking much time. This could break the mutual trust between employees.

For profitability, you need to consider expanding the business rather than cutting the salaries of your staff. You need to think aggressively.

Regards,
Soham

Hi Yogesh,

This is a very good topic. However, I cannot agree with your point 100%. It depends on each situation and the strategy of that particular industry. When they are replacing an experienced person with a new person who has less experience, there are a lot of factors that management needs to consider.

I am not saying that you are wrong, but what I am trying to say is don't come to a conclusion that everybody is doing the same thing. Sometimes experienced individuals are not able to take up the challenges, and sometimes they are not able to upgrade themselves. On the other hand, new individuals are often enthusiastic and ready to take on challenges. In some cases, new individuals might have new ideas, but due to a lack of practical experience, they may not perform as expected.

Therefore, it is a two-way street, and a decision needs to be made that is appropriate at that point in time.

I hope you agree with my analysis.

Thanks,
Usha

In my point of view, both seniors and juniors should be mixed equally. Only young blood can't achieve anything. We give proper respect and feed technology to seniors to adapt to their current situation.

K.Ram

I am working in consultancy in recruitment for 1.5 years, but I want to change my job because I am interested in working in a generalist profile. Please suggest how I can transition to a generalist role.

Shailesh Roy

I totally agree with Sari and have occasion to experience the same against an older senior HR manager who has been with the company for 42 years. I have left that organization as the company management will not change HR systems, procedures, or HR practices.

Regards,
Lakshmi

Dear All,

This is a burning topic today. Most of the Indian industries and institutions are engaging in this rough practice whenever a new executive joins with new ideas and replaces many of the old, experienced persons to bring in new individuals of his or her preference. This does not imply opposition to new people but not at the expense of others. These seasoned individuals perform very well when they join a new organization. This indicates that there is something amiss. What is this gap, and how can we resolve this issue effectively?

You are all requested to participate in this topic to share your experiences and perspectives with others.

Yogesh Samanotra

Then I have one more related question for you. Who, in your opinion, is considered old? What should be the appropriate retirement age, if any?

Dear HR professionals,

According to my point of view, we have to retain the experienced manpower in our organization. At the same time, we need to allow fresh blood. Only then can we cope with the present scenario.

We cannot hand over responsibilities to the freshers all at once. Simultaneously, we cannot let go of the experienced manpower because they can predict the future more accurately than the freshers.

In conclusion, we must retain experienced employees and also welcome fresh talent into the organization.

Take care.

Regards,
Gokul

This is a nice topic of discussion.... Old managers or employees carry what is called BAGGAGE on their back. It may probably be because of their experience or something else. New ideas or innovativeness somehow lack to a certain extent due to this reason. Most firms will not undertake any training programs for their line managers to update them. Bringing fresh blood reduces costs; they are well-versed with current trends, carry more or less nil baggage, trained, etc.

Seniors, please comment....

Chitwan: ?

Dear All,

First of all, I am thankful to all of you for participating in this burning issue of our society. Let me clarify that old persons are undoubtedly experienced people. Some may be slow because of their age factor, but they are enriched mentors for newcomers. Newcomers are quick, which may make them less inclined to listen if they disagree with certain points or do not like something. They often work under pressure due to certain management policies. However, good management fosters teamwork and collaboration.

Simultaneously, we acknowledge that some elderly individuals can be perceived as a liability to management, while some new employees can also be inflexible. Consequently, we have observed that some teams consistently deliver excellent results, whereas others are frequently dismissed by top management for various reasons.

Some may agree with my opinions, while others may not, but the truth remains the same. I am eager to hear more opinions on this topic along with any constructive proposals.

Regards,
Yogesh Samanotra

Hi Sanjeev,

"Old" here refers to individuals who have served in a company for many years, experiencing both the highs and lows that come with time, typically more than 15 years. Additionally, you may want to consider individuals who are over 45 years of age. Regarding the retirement age query, this is also a topic open for debate. In my opinion, it should be up to 58 years.

Yogesh S.

Old employees should also be willing to change their attitudes and update themselves according to the evolving organization. However, the fundamental ethics should remain the same. Ultimately, both new and old employees should strive to work for the organization.

Nowadays, new employees often prioritize personal gain over the well-being of the organization. They tend to be more self-centered and money-oriented, neglecting the broader interests of the company.

The factors behind replacing older employees are various. Lack of interest in doing the same monotonous work, office ambience, work pressures, and high expectations from older employees as they are supposed to know everything. Past bad experiences work as mental blocks towards acceptability amongst peers and management. Lack of initiative, as they are aware of where it will lead, so efforts are less. Whereas a new entrant in the system needs to prove his/her worth, is full of initiatives, and has no fear of consequences. He/she is not even aware of the consequences and reactions of seniors and peers, so is always willing to deliver and bring revolutionary changes.

New joiners are excused for mistakes/ignorance for at least three months. However, an older employee may receive a warning for an error. It's all about expectations, aspirations from self, employer, and employees. A changed attitude helps in the survival of older employees. Cheers!! Neeti

Does your “Old people” have grown so old that they have stopped “Learning” or are they still updating themselves and learning? Are they willing to challenge themselves everyday and willing to compete with youngsters or they are just sitting on their past laurels and success.
To me as a person and as a HR Professional age is not a criteria to judge if the person has grown old or not, as long as they are performing, taking challenges and beating their own targets. But, if they are just sitting on their past laurels and are not willing to learn new things...then (irrespective) of their age, it's time for them to go. They have already been paid, awarded, rewarded and recognized for their past performances, achievements and success.

Hi all,

Nowadays, everyone is moving ahead with the competition. Therefore, everyone sees the profit if they find that kind of efficient manpower at a lower salary. They will opt for that instead of paying experienced individuals and incurring training costs. Businessmen look for profit in the way they obtain it.

Hi Sanjeev,

I think you are a very well-secured man, and your letter shows that you are biased against older persons in favor of the younger ones. I am enclosing a copy of Swati for your information. Please go through it word by word. Swati says:

"It is a hire-and-fire culture.

This is a long-term payment for short-term results at the cost of trust, morale, and experienced employees.

One interesting aspect is that new people are recruited due to new ideas, but seniors and juniors are evaluated on the same basis, i.e., competency-based evaluation. Sometimes, it is not fair because seniors have molded themselves and think according to organizational culture and past experiences. The perception of seniors on any issue might not yield immediate results, but it is a useful long-term decision.

When an experienced person leaves, it is a loss for the organization as the employee takes their experience, knowledge, and ideas about future development with them. Time is money. As new people take time to assume the responsibilities of experienced personnel, it results in a wastage of time because in the absence of seniors, others need time to ensure regular and smooth functioning. Additionally, it affects employees psychologically. They might develop a fear of facing a similar future situation. They will carry the fear of losing their jobs and have low morale, directly impacting organizational growth negatively.

For the organization, individuals with new ideas and experienced personnel are equally important. With a proper career plan and team building, there will be a nice blend of new concepts and experience to achieve results. This can be accomplished through proper communication of short-term and long-term goals, expected results, and clarity of the role of each member. Seniors should be given a short time span to prepare themselves to adjust to the new culture. This will foster trust, mutual understanding, and cooperation.

Alina Sam

HRD Manager"

Hi Sanjeev,

I think you must reply in a well-mannered way. Why are you questioning old practices in a hateful manner? Are all the HR Managers in your company below 30 years old and trained well from institutions that they do not need new training? Are all the senior persons in your management only young individuals? Please reconsider the issue at hand before responding.

Boby

Dear Alina,

I am not against old people, but I am someone who encourages "Continuous Learning." People should be able to challenge themselves, their skills, their achievements, and their past performances every day. The day they stop learning is the day they stop living. Age is not a problem. One can be 100+ and still working in a company, and one can be 40+ and sidelined in their company (Forced to take VRS). It is about learning and updating yourself all the time.

You have Dr. Manmohan Singh, who is 75+ and the Prime Minister of the country.

You have Amitabh Bachchan, who is 65+ but can compete with anyone half his age.

Then, you have Sachin Tendulkar, who is just 34 and is asked to take VRS.

Age is no barrier. The barrier is mental.

I hope I am clear in my expression and views.

Regards,
Sanjeev

Hey, I don't think age is a big barrier. "For experience, there is no substitute." One has to look into the competency level of the candidate but not age. As a recruiter, I have seen clients rejecting profiles of competent techies only because of age factor. "The old guys do 'learn... relearn... and unlearn' principle, or else how can they survive in the industry for a long time?" It's all about company policy and the nature of work, so they go for young guns.

Regards,
Nidhin

Dear All,

I believe that organizations should have a combination of old and new people. It is a mix of people that helps in organizational growth; we can benefit from the experience of older, more seasoned individuals by involving them in new projects. There is no doubt that new or freshers are more energetic and innovative. There should be a balance of old and new people. It is the duty of HR professionals to bridge the gaps between the old and new employees. We can organize meetings or town halls to facilitate communication and understanding between these groups. This is an essential part of employee relations and organizational development.

Regards,
Gauri

Hi,

There are too many differences. This topic seems to be divided between favor and against new versus older employees. I have the following opinions -

1. Old is gold. Exactly the same is applied to human beings. Patience, understanding the situation in gross, mental stamina, and the rich experience in work as well as of the external environment are a boon to any organization.

2. I appreciate the new ones also. Because of enthusiasm in a new job, advanced technical knowledge, adapting to new technologies very fast, confidence in work, and good physical stamina are some of the basic qualities of new employees.

But now my question is why we should compare the old versus new employees. We must understand that these are two hands of the organization. It all depends on the higher management as to how they utilize their employees to achieve the objectives of the organization. This is mainly the role of HR in an organization who make policies and develop an amicable culture in the organization by taking various initiatives such as training, motivating, and taking care of the employees.

Regards,

D P S Chauhan

Dear Yogesh,

To my knowledge, the older employees present in the organization tend to have their comfort zone, while new employees entering the organization try to create their own comfort zones by introducing new ideas that may make their work environment more comfortable. This difference in approach is one of the reasons for the significant gap between the old and new employees.

I welcome any corrections if I am mistaken.

Regards,
K. Jayavel

Dear All,

First of all, I would like to congratulate Mr. Yogesh for bringing up such an interesting topic for discussion.

I found Mr. Sanjeev Himachali's comment the best one, and I also agree with him 100%. I have observed in my organization, a web development company, there are 2 senior individuals (my MD refers to them as the dinosaurs of the organization :wink:). Out of these two individuals, one is willing to learn new technologies, very hardworking, but lacks managerial skills. The other is a very good manager, handles a team efficiently, but is reluctant to learn any new technology or implement new systems.

Now, the management is considering removing the 2nd person or finding a replacement for him because despite being a good manager, he has not updated his skills with time. I must say, this senior person has been loyal to the company, has witnessed the ups and downs, has handled crisis situations. However, in this world of cut-throat competition, to safeguard oneself, one has to continuously learn, unlearn, and relearn.

I agree with Mr. Himachali that if an older employee is willing to learn and contribute even at the age of 50, no organization should have a problem accommodating that person in the system.

This is a debatable issue, and I have just presented my views. I do not intend to challenge any other views put forward on this post as I liked most of the comments and replies on this topic.

I would once again like to thank Mr. Sanjeev Himachali for a wonderful post.

Thanks and Regards,

Indrani Chakraborty

Dear All,

The topic is very interesting, and I would like to say that removing experienced persons depends on organizational requirements and the perception of the management to make such decisions. This is not the scenario in every organization; still, a few companies give utmost importance to experienced employees and seek their advice when making crucial decisions.

In my organization, experienced individuals are valued, indirectly causing the company to miss out on new talent. Not because old individuals are prioritized, but because the seasoned employees are accustomed to preferential treatment and believe they deserve higher pay for the same job. This results in increased costs for the company, paying more to a highly compensated individual rather than hiring someone at a lower salary.

It is common for older, experienced individuals to resist change; they are often inflexible towards policy or climate changes within the organization. On the other hand, new employees tend to be more adaptable to evolving organizational requirements.

When there is a need for young and energetic individuals, especially for specific positions like in a retail showroom, it is better to hire a young and fresh candidate instead of trying to make an experienced person adapt to the necessary changes.

The topic can be conflicting, depending on the organization and its requirements.

Suchitra

Thank you to Sanjeev and Indrani. Both of you explained this topic in a new manner. This shows your maturity on this specific topic. There is no question of cost, experience, or fear, but we should think in the same manner that one should be an asset and not a liability to the management.

Yogesh S

Hi All!

I personally believe that we, as HR personnel, should have a proper plan for hiring new and fresh people and managing their interaction with the old and experienced employees. The main point we need to convey to our boss or CEO is that we must assign these experienced individuals the role of a "mentor" or "coach" to establish a relationship with new employees, facilitating a blend of the educated and experienced classes.

The educated class holds significance as they bring new technology, creativity, methodologies, and more. However, they lack experience and an understanding of the realities of the corporate world. On the other hand, the older employees have gained knowledge through their experiences, which may lead to slower career progression but provides invaluable assets, such as experience. It is crucial to translate and transfer their experience to the newcomers.

Additionally, new employees may complain that the older generation is strict and reluctant to share knowledge. My response to this is that the more respect and trust you show towards the older employees, the more they will be willing to teach you.

I attribute my success to a few individuals in my life, with a significant contribution to my professional development coming from "Zahoor-ul-Haq Sheikh (late), Ex-Chairman, Planning and Development Board - Punjab," and the living legend "Syed Hussain Haider." They have taught me a lot because of the respect I hold for them and my willingness to listen to their advice.

I have applied this approach and have truly enjoyed the experience while learning a great deal.

Try this out......

Regards,

Haroon Ahmed Shabbir

Lahore, Pakistan

Well said, Venkatesh. As an HR Manager, we are finding it difficult to retain talent and experience.

Whereas the discussion is replacing experienced with freshers. However, this is also a good debatable topic.

Mine is an orthodox age-old company. Their communication skills, ideas, presentation are rather poor, obviously since they are stuck with one company for the last 10-15 years, especially in these types of age-old companies.

It is natural to feel these guys are not improving and are poor in many aspects, especially when business is going down. HOWEVER, we find this is entirely wrong.

For example, we have one Manager-Accounts who has completed his B.Com (not even qualified for a manager's post) and has been working with this company for the last 10-15 years. He knows the ins and outs of the company. We all know his communication skills are poor, he lacks teamwork, and sometimes even plays politics. However, to replace him, even a fresh Chartered Accountant demands Rs. 20-30 thousand per month. Despite bringing such a candidate, we are not sure what his performance will be. We tried and failed also. We took a stand not to experiment and replace the existing ones unless we are a hundred percent sure that the newcomer is so talented, proven, and this old guy is really useless and a headache.

The exact remedy is not to replace these old guys. The answer is how to rejuvenate these experienced people, improve their communication skills, and involve them more in teams.

Hi,

Currently, we are transitioning to a more diverse workforce, which includes the ability to hire and fire employees. However, some people believe that India cannot undergo significant changes due to the emotional attachment Indians have towards their work and various aspects of life. Please avoid demoralizing individuals by replacing experienced personnel with new hires.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Hi,

At the outset, I must say that this is an interesting topic and a very relevant one at that.

An organization consists of experienced and inexperienced people, old and young people, people with old-fashioned ideas, and so on. It is incorrect to say that all experienced people are old-fashioned and resistant to change. I know of many experienced persons who have changed with the times and have kept themselves abreast of the latest goings-on. Certainly, all companies have to be forward-looking, especially in this time and age, and there is no place for people who cling on to sentiments of yesteryears.

I believe that experienced people are an asset to the organization for obvious reasons, but they must change with the times - if they don't, I am afraid that they may have to be moved out. This is especially true in new-age industries where things are changing at a rapid pace, and whoever cannot cope gets left behind.

I hope that I have been able to shed some light on the topic in question.

Regards,

Vasudev

Replacement is not a solution. In fact, it can be the wrong way in processing. You could have the nuances of the process understood by a senior person within the organization rather than a new entrant. It's much more feasible to empower an employee and get the best out of him, which will surely add to the business. New employees should be welcomed into the company, but not as replacements. They will surely have some brimming ideas and fire in the belly, but we just can't rule out the fact that they could be replaced, and the business will reach new heights. Please comment.

Hi friends,

I would like to invite your comments on bitter experiences with new acquaintances and old friends.

Alina Sam

I felt this is certainly very true that there should be a combination of old employees and the new ones. Since they are very experienced, they have the right temperament to make the right decisions in upcoming situations. I feel the fresher should listen properly and learn from them. The fresher should not lose their temperament.

I felt very nice to read all the comments on removing experienced persons to bring in new ones.

Regards,
Sweta

I feel that from a company's view, it's good to hire new people because they can adapt to a new environment easily. It is as simple as wanting new talented players to join the Indian Cricket team for a better future for our team.

Similarly, a company needs to consider its future by making choices that are beneficial in the long run.

Comments, please...

Dear Sender,

Please clarify the name of the industry where you have observed the same to enable us to reply to you suitably.

With regards, L. Kumar

I agree with the views of Sari. In these days, there are tremendous changes in industrialization. Although old employees have vast experience, they don't have proper knowledge about new machinery, industrial relations, and other related factors due to their education. As a result, they can't handle everything properly. The only way is to give them proper training, but the management or, we can say, high-level authority would not like to spend money and their valuable time on training old employees. So, they consider carrying out the business with new employees. Nowadays, many institutes provide good education to students according to requirements. Students these days are also very intelligent and can think higher than older people. I believe this is the main reason to replace old employees with new ones.

Thanks