I just saw a post from a connection that stated that she had “37 years of experience” in her headline. I pondered messaging her and “gently” suggesting she highlight her other great qualifications, instead of this, but decided against it. People don’t often take kindly to people they don’t know giving them advice. Even if the algorithm doesn’t screen her out, the first human to see her profile maybe a 20-something junior recruiter. They may assume that she started her career in her 20s, and if she worked for 37 years, that would make her almost 60 years old. The hard reality is that not many organizations are hiring people in their 50s and 60s. It’s not right, but some people may assume that they only plan to work a few more years before retiring. When you write your resume, you should consider the perspective of the people that will be reading it, because you are writing it for THEM, not for yourself. Highlight things about your career that are in demand NOW. This is how you get recruiters’ attention. And I’m not sure that stating your “years of experience” is the accomplishment that it once was. People are looking for SKILLS, EXPERTISE and RESULTS. Don’t get put in the “other” pile before they’ve had a chance to see your brilliance. Grab their attention with how you add value to organizations, and don’t give folks a reason to think you are not a fit.
this is spot on. I always tell my clients to not put down information that will get them hit with age discrimination. We don't put 90s on resumes and we don't say 30 years of experience. you are a Seasoned professional
Yea. Was advised to fudge the numbers years ago. Nope. Wisdom comes with age. There’s a premium being paid for it. Claim your years!!
Science and engineering tend to focus on accuracy and problem solving. If the problem here is discriminating based on age, perhaps effective communication of goals is the problem. Let's say the employers are seeking the expertise of that applicant and they need someone to stay around for a longer term than the applicant wants to work. So, their goals are not aligned and they can agree it's not a good fit. If the applicant does want to stay longer, it seems that everybody wins. It also seems to me that this post is telling applicants to report information in a way that doesn't let the employers know their age. Encouraging that behavior supports employers in their discrimination against older workers. If employers want competent, skilled workers, sometimes they are older. They should try screening on other criteria, not age.
Agree, each person looking for work should include their superpowers —those skills they have mastered through the time they have invested in achieving mastery. While in your 20s and 30s, you will have a few, some more based on when they started working. Recently, a manager asked me, "How do you know all the stuff you do?" Other than answering, 'I have a particular set of skills,' I responded that it is due to the years I have invested in learning and doing the work. I am proud of my years of helping companies succeed. I have always given back more than the cost to keep me employed. I am in my mid-60s with nearly 50 years in my trade. What most don't know is that to get my first full-time job at a large company, I stretched the truth about my age and started working at 17 after graduation. Employers, don't discount the worker and the greater number of mastered skills. We have learned that the only way to grow is to be a lifelong learner. On one hand, hire a 20-30-something with limited accretive skills that you have to train, OR an experienced 40-70-something who is committed to learning and continuing to give back to the company and the employees they work with. Hire to train and leave vs hire to stay and train.
Ageism shouldn't exist. But it does. I always recommend dropping the focus from years of experience, and instead, highlighting your skill-set. That's what people hire for, after all!
It's good advice, but you are right... probably hard to receive.
The irony of some organisations assuming someone in their 50s and 60s only planning on working a few more years before retiring is that it's a fair bet that their younger workers are only staying a few years before they move on to another position elsewhere. That assumption about older workers would at first glance give recruiting organisations a semi-plausible excuse for rejecting older workers, but when we consider the statistics around average tenures in workplaces of younger workers it becomes clear that age discrimination is at play. It's just hard to prove at a level a court or tribunal can accept (balance of probability).
Thank you for this perspective
She should cut back to 20, like the rest of us.
Quality Assurance Technician | Expertise in Medical Devices, Manufacturing, & R&D | Data Analysis & Process Improvement
1wWhat I took away from this post is that companies do not want to hire people in the 50's and 60's because the people are only going to work a few years before retiring. Companies are so out of the loop that they don't realize a younger employee will only work for the company for a couple of years because of wage competition and lack of loyalty from the company.