"50 is the new 30", "age is just a number" and "age is all learn" - great ideas all, but do they work?
Working life favors young and hungry guys who are ready to set themselves up for the challenge, the types of creators who have the "drive" characteristics that are easily perceived as young. On the other hand, age and the experience it brings may be ignored by thinking that an older employee would have automatically somehow fallen short of development and could not learn new things.
Similarly, when young people are under intense pressure to be born digital figures because they have a mobile phone in their hand, it is easy to think that the fifties or sixties could not be as much. Bias is funny but common. While the development of a "dialogue" requires more than just the latest mobile slips on the phone, any profession requires practice to be a master. Why, then, is age and the experience it brings with them not seen as a greater asset in working life?
If the employee has the required skills and evidence of their work and skills until the very last days, what makes it easier for a recruiter to lean on a younger employee? Do you think that as you get older you will no longer be enthusiastic or able to drive things through because the experience may seem like prudence and calmness? Features that are especially useful for major change projects that many organizations are currently working on.
Usually, when the organization is being reformed - which is now much visible - it is often where "new blood" is sought from outside the house: it is necessary to ventilate dusty operating models and bring forth new ideas. Too often, however, this "new blood" is also perceived as a young age, and it is forgotten that a senior expert might be what is needed. Unfortunately, experience when it is a feature that cannot be learned at school or is not guaranteed by a short career. In your long career, you can also make mistakes and learn from them - something that companies should see as an investment when an experienced employee is hired.
The idea that a career should only move vertically has become dusty, especially in expert work. If an employee has not reached a certain position before forty, he or she may be labeled a failure, even though there may be a conscious decision to slow the pace, for example during peak periods, or a desire to gain horizontal experience of various positions before applying for management positions. One would think that a fifty-year-old who had a lot of backlogs and strong experience would be a big shout out to organizations: the focus is on work and commitment is probably better than younger people who understandably seek knowledge from different organizations.
Is age just a number at your workplace or maybe a slowdown?