Ageism at the workplace - a few dimensions

Let me start with a recent personal experience.

Last month, a headhunter approached me for a Head of Communications role in a large company with several disparate brands in its portfolio. Not that I was actively looking for a job, but the temptation to find out where I stood in the marketplace after more than five years as an entrepreneur got me going at it with guns blazing.

After two rounds, of one hour and 45 minutes, one of the directors overseeing the marketing function practically offered me the position. In the two interactions, I had shared a number of ideas that they not only appreciated, but also graciously acknowledged their usefulness and wanted to urgently implement them.

A couple of days down the line, I got another call from the headhunter who wanted to know my date of birth. I told him and he promised to revert the next day. Then the trail went cold. Later, the headhunter shared with me in confidence that I was a bit too old for the profile!

Old? My foot! Buddha hoga...!?

That was the feeling that overwhelmed me for a moment or two. Let me add here that this article is not a requiem for my loss, as one might be tempted to conclude in a hurry. If you are the learner-type, you can find here a few epiphanies that you might have missed. And no, my bread and butter are not dependent on my having or not having a job. Thank you.

The questions that arose in my mind were something like this.?

Why did they not find out about my age before they wasted my time? Did they only want my ideas? How many other suckers such as myself have they interacted with? Who are the people who make such ‘inspired’ decisions about a candidate’s age in an organization? How are they permitted to make such decisions without knowing what lies on the other side? Did they really want a Head of Communications or some courier boy who would toe the agenda of the top management? Else, why call it a head of communications position? And many more…

These were rational questions, especially in the backdrop of the fact that I was at that moment taking an international refresher course (on measurement of PR and marketing initiatives), conducted by one of the world’s leading authorities! Senior communications professionals, from the US, the UK, France and even Ukraine (Yes!), were attending the prestigious 8-week course and we all had a good laugh when I shared the experience with them. But more about that in another article…

For now, let us try to examine where ageism comes from.?

Mistake not, but ageism affects across age groups. Youngsters face ageism as much as anyone else. Perhaps, even more. A senior professional can often get by because of his or her experience but for the young it often causes a really frustrating experience. In many cases, if not all, it even leads to loss of self-esteem and self-worth. As an Adjunct Faculty for IIMs, and as Guest Lecturer at a few other institutions, I have seen many extremely bright students who struggle to land the right jobs.?

So where does the problem lie? ?

When an entry level position opens up in an organization, the first instinct of the HR person is to hire someone who can “hit the ground running,” and not the brightest youngster available in his or her kitty. There is a nagging perception that new entrants into the job market do not know much, or that something is technical enough to be beyond their present capabilities. It can’t be further from the truth because these are usually jobs that require mastery over one of the various aspects of a function. More often than not, very bright youngsters can master these in a month or less, and do it three times better than an ordinary candidate with 3-4 years of experience.?

So why does it happen and how does it affect the organization in the long run?

One, it clearly shows that the HR of an organization is responding to situational urgencies. Need a person to do a small task? Let us get a person with two or three years of experience by paying a little more (the usual ‘person who can hit the ground running’ theory). Always responding to urgencies as a strategy also deprives organizations the ability to bring in new perspectives and the cutting edge knowledge that new entrants acquire these days. If the HR team can plan it well, they will have very bright candidates for half the money and bring in a lot of value add. But building a pipeline of talent is not everyone’s cup of tea, and requires both vision and hard work.

Two, the emergency hiring approach is also a sure recipe for destroying the equilibrium of the market and for aiding attrition. The youngster who is joining you on a higher salary is planning his next move from Day 1. That is also why mature organizations invest so much in creating a pipeline of talent, as well as in the learning and development function.

According to several very senior HR experts I discussed it with, there is a craze among organizations to hire employees who are 45 or below in a monkey-see-monkey-do manner, without understanding the dimensions of an organization’s requirement. I agree that every organization has unique needs and that hiring decisions need to be tailored to those. But I find it funny that a lot of mid-level (and loyal) employees remain stuck where they are, and suddenly find a younger person bossing over them.

Funnily enough,?some of the best people who run successful organizations such as Reliance, Tata, Infosys, Wipro, Accenture are well above 50, even 60, years of age.?

What is it then inspiring HR (or even the top management) of an organization to want to bring down the age bracket for senior level hires?

Here are a few possible answers.?

One, the trend seems to be emanating from privately-held organizations where the retiring owners are trying to quickly induct their children into their shoes. Very senior professionals come with a lot of experience-derived authority and can (arguably) inhibit the growth of the young scions with their presence and firm advice (unless one is a boot licker willing to toe the line of the top guy at any cost). But then, contrary to perception, and by inverting the same logic, wouldn’t it be a good strategy to bring in very senior professionals who can help young scions grow faster in their intended roles????

Two, if the young owners/managers also want their new communication ideas to be implemented, why pretend to advertise for senior positions? The new owners can always experiment with mid-level professionals, without the tags that rarely define a communications job in the true sense. In fact, your designations can play havoc with your mind, and it is easy to see this phenomenon in Heads of Communications (or HR, or Marketing) with 7-15 years of experience, bearing shiny chips on their shoulders. If these guys were truly capable of handling senior assignments, they would be with very large organizations, not wannabes. They suffer from an utter lack of humility, which in a senior professional is one of the most desirable traits. I think the time has come to formally teach it as part of our management programs.

Three, there is a perception that the processing speed of your brain can go down with age. Let us go with that fact (assumption in some cases). The problem is that such processing speed is of very little or no value in tough situations - such as a full blown crisis or tricky situations involving human interpretation - except in a very few. Really seasoned communicators make sure such a crisis never arises in the first place. The problem is that every Alec smart believes that mastering a language or two gives him or her the right to manage the communications function.?

Four, it also reinforces the fact that the HR guys in an organization do not really understand its communications requirement. If they do, they certainly do not know how to create job descriptions. For example, if you are looking for a senior professional (as senior as your budget allows you) to lead a function, you do not have to look for a head of communications. The designation may be a click-bait device, but it distorts market perceptions.

Why seniority especially matters in the corporate communications function is hardly up for a debate. As it affects every single dimension of business, the more seasoned you are, the better are your chances of being able to relate a situation to all other functions. But the HR guy’s agenda may be different.?

Let me share a funny story to bring home the point. The owner of an organization (call it X) really appreciates the fabulous work being done by Rohit of organization R. He/she wants to have Rohit, or a Rohit-like professional, manage the communications function of X. When he or she shares this desire with the HR Head, it is like aspiring for a Mercedes at the cost of Maruti! They simply may not have the budget to get a Rohit-like professional. So how does the HR person play it? They present a Maruti disguised as a Mercedes, instead of toning down the expectations of the owner. They also throw in great designations and spurious logic in the mix.

In conclusion, I am tempted to write what the organization rejecting me on the age criteria missed in the bargain. But that is the spiel for the next head hunter who comes calling. Until then, feel free to reach out to me to help audit and define your organization’s true communication needs. ??