By René Carayol, 26 May 2004 08:50
COMMENT "We are chameleons, and our partialities and prejudices change place with an easy and blessed facility, and we are soon wonted to the change and happy in it." - Mark Twain
I know a number of head hunters and am always getting calls for some looking for information on the 'right' candidates. Just recently, in the space of a couple of weeks, I had forwarded two names to two different head hunters, both looking for a CIO.
Both jobs were in the private sector, and sounded quite similar. To paraphrase - and this will sound familiar - the organisations were looking for the turnaround of a very technical environment by a position that needs to be more commercial and customer-friendly.
Both organisations' IT had a "poor track record of delivery", resulting in them wanting a programme management specialist. The previous incumbents had left "by mutual consent". The roles would be reverting to reporting into finance director due to poor budget management.
There's more. The newcomers would have to be credible with the board. They would need to be the face of IT both within the business and externally, across an industry they should know. So naturally, they'd be required to have knowledge of and experience with large enterprise application offerings - Oracle, PeopleSoft, SAP to name the obvious names.
(And while I'm here, have you ever noticed that the requirements are always so similar at the most senior levels? Have you noticed the things that are never asked for: leadership and inspiration.)
Anyway, back to the story, I put forward these two candidates - both I had worked with in the past. One was a CIO of some standing. He had had two CIO jobs in the past and had fallen victim to the usual restructure after the appointment of a new group CEO based in the US who had decided to get rid of the UK-based board of directors and run with two executive teams only - one for the US and the other for the rest of the world.
He had received a very good compensation package and was now on the marketplace at 47. So he had a couple of months to recharge his batteries and he was ready for the battle again.
The other candidate - and you will have heard of this type of story before - was 32 years old. She had been a real high flyer at her first job after university with one of the UK's leading retailers and had been promoted twice in her six years with them. She left as a project manager of some standing.
She had planned her career very well and had moved to one of the world's foremost manufacturers with a stable of market leading brands. After six years there, she was now a direct report of the country CIO and ready to stretch herself with another organisation. Her CIO was very good but had only recently joined, so she would have to move on in order to get the 'stretch' she needed.
Initial reactions from the two head hunters were very promising. I also received a very good reception on discussing the potential roles with the two candidates I've described. They were both seen by the search specialists and both instantly put forward to the respective clients.
The first candidate was found to be just about the right person but the would-be employers were quite worried about his age. In fact, they remained so worried that they decided to look for someone "a tad younger" and, at 47, he was 'washed up and over the hill'.
The second candidate progressed to the final round of interviews. The shortlist came down to two but she was eventually parked until some time in the future because, at 32, she was just "too young".
The role was reporting to the group CIO in the centre, running a division of the company's IT, but with no or little influence on strategy, it was an implementation role. The brief had asked for "a senior IT professional who would be close to their first CIO appointment - this would be the ideal position to acquire the necessary experience". She was devastated, as the role was perfect for her. Even though her experience ticked all the required boxes, it was felt that she would find it hard to get the respect of 'the team' as most would be older than her.
Both of these decisions may work for the organisations involved in the long term but the rationale sucks, big time.
Both candidates suffered discrimination because those in the positions of power couldn't see beyond ages - whether that be too many or too few years in their eyes.
Is age a measurement of success? Absolutely not. The only measure should be contribution.
Traditional businesses, when seeing a great CV, tend to say: "You have worked in some great places, talk us through the places you have worked."
I believe that's an increasingly outdated approach. Progressive companies are more likely to say: "You have worked in some great places, what are you going to do for us?"
The battleground has moved back to talent. The only true way we can make our businesses distinctive and differentiate ourselves from increasingly aggressive competition is by having the best talent available. Therefore we have to be on the constant lookout for the best talent available.
The best talent available may well come in non-traditional packaging and from the most unorthodox of places but talent is talent. If the environment is not reflecting the changes in our society, then the chances are the best talent will not want to work there.
What does the management in your company look like? Does it really reflect the society at large? Are you able to attract and retain the best people available without imposing the organisation's prejudices on prospective candidates?
Show me an organisation that has any '-ism' - be it racism, sexism or indeed ageism - and I will show you an organisation that has a whole bunch of ills, starting with an outdated, inward-looking culture that is in danger of being left behind by competitors.
Show me a progressive, fast moving and successful business and in the main we tend to find fresh, open and risk-embracing management who know that they need all the talent they can get, no matter what the packaging.
Employees are changing. Many younger IT staff today are Generation Xers who 15 years ago may have seen their parents rewarded for years of loyalty by being thrown on the scrap heap as part of 'downsizing', 'rightsizing' - call it what you will. The best will move job frequently and won't put up with organisations that don't take a progressive, even-handed approach.
Editor's note: See our full coverage of ageism in IT. Have you been affected by ageism in the tech industry? Please email your stories to editorial@silicon.com.
Comments
There are 5 comments. Join the discussion
1. anonymous
Spot on Ren?.
Ageism does work both ways in my experience, I've been passed over for challenging roles due to my 'young age' and lack of experience in a similar role (being early 30's at the time) in the past.
The variety of roles that I had worked my way through with previous employers being seen as not sticking to one thing for long rather than taking any challenge thrown at me, delivering results and moving on to the next one.
Bring in someone who's done it all before and watch as nothing changes.
I'm now working with a bunch of hugely talented twenty-somethings who have views, ideas and experience - sometimes beyond their years sometimes not but valid all the same.
I'm now in my mid-thirties, and am the 'old man' of the team...well, until we need someone else on board and they happen to be older than me ;o)
2. Stephen Rifkin
You need to read between the lines. The 32 year old female was moved along in the search because after numerous failed attempts at micromanaging the last holders of the CIO job the firm wanted to select a 'young', read malleable and cheap CIO who the CFO could keep under his/her thumb. The very fact that the 32 year old candidate was even in the running speaks more to her own aggressive career and not to any particular skill set.
Whereas the other candidate, probably more than qualified on paper would have also been a poor choice since he would have used some independent judgment - a cardinal sin in this firm.
In the end, often ageism is really about power and control and not about age.
3. Drew Edgar
Stephen Rifkin raises a serious & pertinent point.
Frequently the political juxtapositioning within a firm are the deciding factor NOT the quaility, ability, accomplishments or age of the candidate.
This is never more evident than in The "health" service or local/cantral government in the UK.
The preponderance of "Human Resource" departments - (people are NOT a resource to be consumed in the business process, they are if anything an "Asset" -) - merely serve to obfuscate the power politics through their "-isms" which conceal positive prejudicial discrimination.
4. TerryC
I agree with both Stephen and Drew but I wish there was a little more hard evidence as to the exact reasoning that is employed in the selection process.
I am in Marketing and in earlier years certainly suffered the "not enough experience" syndrome, however at 52 I am now getting the other end of the stick. There is little doubt in my mind that much of what we call ageism is to do with insecurity. Knowing how fickle employers have provved in the past, why would you take on someone whose skill, knowledge, and ability might be compared unfavourably with your own.
Equally, at the other end of the age spectrum, the comparison might show someone more dynamic than yourself.
No, it must be far better to go for someone "managable" and unlikely to rock the boat.
Incidentally, one marketing agency felt so concerned at my age (50 at that time) that they felt the need to enquire whether I thought I could keep up if the client felt like going out clubbing all night! I was actually so surprised by the question that I merely said "Of course!". However, I suspect I might be experienced enough to find better things to do with the night than bopping till I, or the client, drop.
5. Robert Young
An Economics night-shool course I attended some years ago pointed out that the level of wages was determined by what an unemployed candidate would take for my job. Matters have become more sophisticated with HR fingers in the pot, the 'employment protection' laws and 'social security' that are around but insecurity on the part of the haves ensures promising have-nots don't get to raise the threat level