I can’t share details because this situation is still developing, but the gist of it is that a seasoned exec (in c-suite role with well over three decades experience) was recently written up as ageist and in need of reeducating by a regulatory mandated consultant. He voiced the opinion that one of his direct reports with less than half as much experience needs additional experience before he will be ready to assume the c-suite job to which he aspires. The very young consultant took offense and stated that the exec exhibited ageism. That report went to the ceo and board of directors, as well as to the regulatory body that required the review of the company’s sr. execs. The company will no doubt require the exec to undergo sensitivity training in order to keep the govt. agencies happy.
Dh & I will be seeing our friend this weekend and the main topic of conversation won’t be summer vacation plans. I’m wondering if dh could be next, since he’s no doubt said something similar about a few eager 30 yr. olds who think they’re ready to jump a few rungs on the ladder.
Is it no longer appropriate for a boss to say that one of his/her staff needs more and broader experience before moving up to a much higher job? Is that now actionable?
I would assume so, and those professional development goals would have been outlined in the direct report’s annual evaluation. I know both individuals and they have a good working relationship. It’s not as if the direct report has complained about his career being stalled. The complaint stemmed entirely from the exec voicing an opinion to the consultant that the DR would be better prepared for the C-suite in 5+ years than he is currently.
I think there’s also some value in living through some experiences rather than just reading about them.
If he expressed it to the consultant as needing “5+ more years”, rather than pointing to specific skills or sections of the development goals that need to be expanded, or some things that the candidate hasn’t yet done, I can (sorta) see how the consultant leaped to the wrong conclusions.
And yes, we have all gotten much too politically correct and much too sensitive to perceived slights when none were intended.
“You are too young” is different to me than “you are lacking in experience.” But yeah, probably best to list particular skill sets which can be measured or evaluated in some way.
I think ucb is onto something. No complaint from DR, but written up by consultant for ageism, when experience and not age was cited. Makes me wonder if the company wants to find dings against the more seasoned (costlier) person.
When I got out of school I was top of my field knowledge-wise. I was young and smart and ready to go. Went to work with old (I thought they were old anyway–changed my tune on that!) people who had a lot more experience than me but weren’t necessarily up on new stuff. It took me a couple years at least to really appreciate the value of real life experience and what a difference it makes The older I got with younger people in my employ the more I found myself “saving” them from errors not of knowledge but from lack of experience. History is good. I had bosses that at times I thought were the stupidest people alive in some situations and then found out they just “knew the ropes” and were looking out for me as well as the organization.
Which is why I have to ask how old the consultant is. An old consultant probably has learned a few life lessons and can tell the difference between ageism and wisdom.
@Chevda and @Nrdsb4 , that’s a very good point. The need to develop specific skills, including some soft skills, could have been a better reply rather than needing X more years of experience.
@ucbalumnus and @mominva , there’s definitely something in what you suggest, too. This person outranks dh, but he’s privy to total comp and it’s significantly higher than his. There are some huge jumps from Sr. VP to Exec. VP to Sr. Exec. VP. I also know this person expressed frustration with the CEO and board for not taking action on some problems that later came back to bite the company (not so dumb as to say “I told you so” but has pointed out the cost of their inaction.) That didn’t exactly ingratiate him with the clique of players at the very top.
I have reminded dh, when he’s expressed annoyance with some of his staff who think they know everything, how he felt at 30 -35 when he believed he wasn’t taken seriously enough by the greybeards. Wish I could have said the same to our friend, but it’s too late now.
Also, a consultant who is in the business of finding what may be instances of illegal discrimination may have an incentive to overstate marginal cases, in order to show that hiring him/her was “worth it” and possibly drum up additional business.
I don’t know the consultant’s exact age but was told maybe 30 or a bit younger. There were other consultants from the same group who also conducted interviews. All are probably 24 - 32, based on what I know of the consulting firm from another relative. The exec is >60. As I understand it, the focus of the interviews was supposed to be skills assessment and management effectiveness. The bias charge seemed to come from left field. I heard today that another exec was similarly accused, too, but don’t know if by the same consultant.
These folks are not in a highly technical field, medical field or other industry in which being up to the minute is of utmost importance.
Sounds like another case of people finding something to complain about.
I know a few managers who are basically stuck with certain underperforming employees (in minority demographics) due to fear of reprisal on the basis of racism and/or ageism. They are essentially powerless.
Corp cynic here - trumped up accusation because c-level exec is going to be dismissed. Looking for anything and everything to discredit him before being ousted. If I were him, I’d be looking for alt employ and/or good lawyer.
@amandakayak, dh told me this evening that contacting a good lawyer was the advice he gave today. If this person leaves, “voluntarily” (paid to “retire”) or otherwise, then I expect dh will decide to grant my wish and take early retirement. Given recent awards, publications, conference talks, etc., I think the two of them could also do some consulting in their area of expertise if they wish. The other exec would probably enjoy that and be good at it. Dh would not care to travel much.
one there is an entire industry (figuratively speaking) built by lawyers who sue for alleged discrimination…they are basically the same as the workers comp lawyers who sue to settle to get fees and the insurance companies almost never challenge for fraud …it is a cost of doing business for workers comp insurance companies.
and many times when a person puts out a claim of racism,sexism,ageism etc it is often a brilliant move if you have somebody at a large corporation who is playing a “chess” game and needs a little smoke and mirrors.
companies run in fear of these things and start purging to prove they are not whichever thing/s has been claimed. (the truth be dammed the witch hunt and purge must be done)
also…if it was really a case of ageism it would not be “reverse ageism” it would just be ageism.
I think that some younger people [sometimes] do not recognize that their experience is incomplete, and that they may not even be fully mature yet. I had an instance on CC–I know, no real life consequences–where a student who worked in an admissions office was (in my view) being quite callous about another student who was rejected by the “top” school in question. I suggested that when she was older, her viewpoint might have changed. The reaction was more-or-less “How dare you pull age on me?” But I still think it is true. And it seems to me that an undergraduate might be more likely to recognize changes in viewpoint with more experience and more time than would a 35-year-old.
A rather highly placed friend (younger than I am, actually) was remarking to me recently that some of the younger people who had worked for three years in his office were becoming impatient and wondering why they did not have his job already. He is so highly placed and so widely experienced that it would be totally preposterous for someone with three years of experience, all where he is now, to have his job.
As far as ageism or reverse ageism–the protections in employment law that I know are written specifically for older workers, who have traditionally been in danger of being replaced due to their “advanced” age. (There is a lower age limit on claims of “ageism” in the law that I am familiar with, and it can’t be invoked on the grounds that one is too young, even if one is across the age line.)
I agree with those who have suggested that this is office politics, and perhaps a higher-level management strategy. It is useful to know that one has to frame comments very carefully, when there is a genuine issue of experience. It is also fairly annoying.
“(There is a lower age limit on claims of “ageism” in the law that I am familiar with, and it can’t be invoked on the grounds that one is too young, even if one is across the age line.)”
you are referring to the EEOC rule of 40+
but you can sue for whatever you want, the EEOC just will not take part in your lawsuit. you can sue a person for wearing ugly socks or whatever other reason. you just need to get your own attorney. whether the case gets tossed is another issue. I just read about a frivolous suit that has been going on for years that would make your head spin! (non employment related)