Recent New Hires in the News, and What it Tells Us

We all know that ageism is alive and well at many many employers around the US, despite laws designed to protect workers over 40. And it's often a particular kind of ageism, a bias that seems to be most prevalent against job seekers for mid-level or entry positions, as opposed to very high level executive spots. This week's Wall Street Journal, at page B5, lists recent hires of note -- and of the 21 announcements, exactly 20 of them involved a person over age 40 getting a new job.

Many of these new jobs were promotions from within the company.... but an almost equal number were lateral hires for very top level management positions. Which leads to a question I never get a good answer to... if people over 40 are valuable enough, reliable enough, energetic enough to be hired for a very high level position, or to be promoted to a job where the level of stress is greater and the demands on them is far higher than what they've dealt with before, then how come those same employers won't hire people at that age for other positions at those same companies? If the employer will hire a CFO at age 52, then why is 47, or 57 for that matter, too old to be hired as a bookkeeper or comptroller?? The reason? There is no good reason... Ageism, like all forms of discrimination, is illogical and unfair.. but thanks to Macy's South, Vanguard and others, we are making some progress....

best
steven