As a former Human Resource Manager, I’ve always understood the value of experience yet, in my early 50s, I’ve faced the same subtle (and sometimes not-so-subtle) barriers, age as a deciding factor, even when my knowledge in technology and leadership far exceeds that of younger candidates.
I recall an interview for a senior position where a young colleague cynically implied we were competing for the same role. I had to clarify that I was applying for a more senior position than him and yet, I didn’t get the job. Likely due to ageism.
Meanwhile, another troubling pattern emerges where - society encourages the elderly to accept being “too old,” “senile,” or “useless,” even "forced" to set up their own organization or business.
Ageism is literally age discrimination, quietly happening across industries, even in places where older leadership is fully accepted, or even preferred.
Double Standards in Leadership vs Employment
It’s ironic, Prime Ministers, Ministers, Directors, Chairmen, CEOs, many serve past 60 or 70 with no questions about their capacity.
Yet in corporate hiring, especially for middle-management or technical roles, candidates above 50 often face subtle or direct age filters.
Question: If age doesn’t disqualify someone from running a country or agency, why does it disqualify them from a managerial or specialist role?
Ageism Disguised as “Polite” Questions
Many have faced this in interviews:
“What year did you graduate?”
“How many years of experience do you have?”
“Are you able to adapt to new technology?”
These questions are coded ways to guess age. In many countries, they’re recognized as covert age discrimination, but in Malaysia, they are often normalized due to lack of explicit legal protection in private sector hiring.
Older Leaders vs Older Employees
Companies often think differently:
- Leadership roles: value experience, networks, reputation
- Operational/technical roles: wrongly assume age = lower speed, less adaptability, shorter runway
Reality: People in their 50s and 60s often bring stability, loyalty, institutional memory, and strategic thinking younger teams lack. They also job-hop less and deliver consistent results.
Institutionalized Age Bias in Financial Institutions
When banks limit loans up to age 58, it sends a message:
“After this age, you’re too risky, even if healthy, employed, and capable.”
Policies like this reinforce ageism, despite life expectancy now being 75–80 and many people working beyond 60.
The Bottom Line
Yes - this is discrimination.
No - it’s not justified by data.
And yes - it contradicts the way governments and corporations celebrate older leaders at the top while ignoring older talent at the ground level.
Age should be seen as an asset, not a limitation.
No comments:
Post a Comment