|
I feel it really is. I do not understand why, suddenly the age becomes so much crucial to the recruitment. If one reads advertisements one finds that what ever may be the level of a position age criterion seems to be much low. The trend is to keep the age levels too low.
One reason could be the old relation and/or equation of Designations and Job profile or Role definitions are diluted substantially. The complexity of Roles and its relation with the designation have been distorted a lot. Therefore, at times, they are misguiding.
Secondly money equivalent of a Role has increased substantially. An employee who is handling much complex role in old economy is being paid much less compared to similar role being paid in new economy. This is second distortion that has taken place.
Age which is an indicator how old is your physical body it does not indicate anything else. At best, though the percentage reality is very low, it could also be an indicator of reflexes of body. Age is never and can not be an indicator of health, energy, intelligence, depth of knowledge and experience, potential, ambition, capability to deliver goods, competency, ability to sustain and withstand under pressure, etc. This could vary from person to person inspite or independent of age.
This myth that, younger the person he is more capable of delivering the goods has been disproved and blown.
The gap is only of exposure. The employment opportunity in its complexity, variety and numbers is more these days as compared to olden days. The facility, mechanism, availability of information, speed, choices and alternatives have improved a lot. Competition is equally hot.
Corporate is reviewing its policy of recruiting younger people on crucial positions, bias against existing employees especially those who have crossed a certain benchmark age levels, cutting thin so much that the organization becomes weak, feeble and risk prone, etc.
Anyone who is responsible for recruitment should review his frame of reference with reference to above. Mathews
|
