I wonder how much of a barrier this is when a woman over 50 has specific, up to date, hard skills like those discussed on HN.
In other words, how much is discrimination and how much is investing in and managing an up to date skill set.
In other words, how much is discrimination and how much is investing in and managing an up to date skill set.
There's a guy at my work like that. 50s, lab technician. Very good at what he does, but he's been with the company for maybe 15 years and no doubt has a very good salary for a lab technician. He wants to leave but basically can't because there's no chance anyone will pay his salary for a new lab technician.
Except... he's not a new lab technician. He's a technician in a new lab, perhaps, but the technical differences can't be THAT great to justify starting him at a massively reduced salary.
Bigger issue is just how much value he can justify in a new employment situation in general. :/
Why people don't ask to put on paper what they expect is beyond me. And if asking such things during negotiation put you at disadvantage compared to other hires, so be it. You can't have the cake and eat it too.
And therefore be a lot less likely to recognize and take seriously the authority of a 25-year-old manager. In fact, in their mind they will probably think they should be the manager.
I've seen it happen and it wasn't pretty.
I think this is the crux of it. When most people hire someone straight out of college they're looking for someone with the potential to do great things. Whereas when they hire someone who's 50, they're looking for someone who has done great things. But since a lot of people reach 50 without having done anything especially impressive, applying what hiring managers perceive as being the same set of standards to both age groups leaves older folks less likely to get hired even without any conscious discrimination.
its age discrimination to imagine a bunch of traits that come with a hypothetical 50 year old that don't come up with a hypothetical 25 year old and then make a hiring decision based on those traits.
BTW, I'm not condoning this situation, I think it is bad. But unfortunately, this is still a very real situation that does influence people's decisions.
(And if all the people who are interviewing you are younger than you probably aren't getting the job no matter how well you do)
If you can't hire and manage people who are better than you at something (doesn't even have to be life experience or anything else age-related), you'll fail as a manager.
It's risky to ignore the real drawbacks of age though: health issues, less mental and physical fitness and flexibility and a theoretically shorter future in the company. In my former company, the best programmer had several strokes in his 50's. He's recovering, but it's a difficult situation.
You can't substitute experience with intelligence and youth. And people always look at the diversity debate through the lens of the individual (is it fair to the individual?), when diversity could be really beneficial to the team.
>Better able to manage Managing someone older than one's self isn't hard as long as one's management is competent. They've likely seen a lot before. But it's easy to fool someone younger that they're being managed well. It should be a highlight for a manager that they've been able to manage and retain, even inspire, those older than themselves.