AIBU to think this frustrating new work policy is age discriminatory?

[windygallows]

A few years ago a new HR policy at work decreed that job descriptions can no longer note years of experience and instead one can only ask for 'significant or relevant experience in...'. The reason for this is that apparently requiring years of experience discriminates against younger people who haven't done the time but may have relevant experience in their role.

One could also make a case that someone may have gained a great deal of experience in a short 2 years whereas someone else could have spent 10 years coasting, learning nothing at all. So fair point.

The problem is that in action this has become a tool for discriminating against older candidates. Across many business areas where I work almost all staff recruited have been in their 20s/early 30s and I have been on numerous group panels where we end up having to interview candidates with a huge variety of experience and the glossy, enthusiastic young people win over. (I don't always vote in their favour but in a large group tend to be overruled).

I could despair. It is very hard to find work as you get older (especially for women) and stupid policies like this demonstrate that there is no value in wisdom gained through length of time on the job. I really think that learning to manage, to deal with people, to lead projects and deal with problems comes with time and experience.

AIBU to find this frustrating and wrong?

What I mean if not clear about is that in 'requirements for the role' in any job, we are not allowed to request that the candidate has 'x years of experience.'

I don’t think you’re BU to be frustrated, but I don’t see how it’s discriminatory. It absolutely would be to say you need X years’ experience, as you’ve said, but by taking that out they’re levelling the playing field.

It does sound as though there may be some unconscious bias towards the younger people and if you think there is some discriminatory practice going on then you should definitely raise it, but in the policy I don’t think so.

My company doesn't ask for x years' experience for the same reason.

No I don't consider it discriminatory. It's up to the candidate to sell themselves in the application and during the interview.

So you think its discrimination to take into account someone's attitude and achievements rather than just how many years they've been doing something?

Your second paragraph says it all though. It's the experiences you can stand by, not the longevity of your experience.

Surely as a long-term worker you should have a breadth of experience to draw upon that would demonstrate to an employer just how strong a candidate you are?

I wonder if you're just trying to make excuses for having a weak CV.

I wonder if you're just trying to make excuses for having a weak CV.

Um, no. This isn't about me. I have no concerns about my CV.

Of course all candidates have to sell themselves and demonstrate how they meet the criteria for the role. And all interviews are a bit of showmanship.

But if you think there is no bias that happens in interviews - and there is bias against older candidates, particularly women - then I really think you're not living in the real world.

No this hasn't been allowed in my public sector organisation for years. How are your interviews organised, are they competency based? If they are then candidates will have to give examples of how they meet the job specification. And if the younger candidates are outperforming the older candidates in interviews then they should get the job surely?

YABU. It’s not discriminatory. And I don’t really understand your point about the interviews - they’ve all been picked because of the content on their CV, if a person who’s younger performs better during the interview then they should be chosen.

they’ve all been picked because of the content on their CV, if a person who’s younger performs better during the interview then they should be chosen.

I think you're missing the point. They are chosen based on the content of their CV, but in many instances the amount of time they've been in a role could be relatively short.

My point is that this is really about valuing the wisdom gained through lived experience and that there is something about years of experience dealing with problems, staff etc that doesn't appear to be valued.

YABU. It’s not discriminatory.

But what I'm saying is that it has a side effect which I'm now seeing tends to be hiring people of a certain age. There is already a lot of bias in the recruitment process and I'm not sure if this helps.

So you're saying that older female candidates perform better in your interviews but aren't appointed?

HR person here- the policy isn't discriminatory as people mentally are typically looking still for either X years or demonstrated experience which is more than likely taking X years to achieve .

What's happening in your company is more like unconscious biases taking hold

ilovesooty my observation has been that not requiring yrs of experience means younger candidates tend to be more likely to be shortlisted than older candidates.

And yes, I've been on large interview panels where I'm always flabbergasted that there is such a bias towards the younger candidate who hasn't said anything more compelling than the older candidates.

This is all anecdotal but I'm pretty sure that someone, somewhere will have done some research on this.

I just think a policy that is meant to avoid discrimination has actually aided another type of discrimination.

namechangedforanon Of course there is implicit bias but I do really feel that this specific policy means that it's possible to be much looser in choosing candidates to shortlist from a CV (since relevant experience is pretty subjective) and time after time I see how panelists tend to shorlist younger.

So for example I've seen one person who was supposed to have 'significant press experience' be offered a role with 6 months experience at a newspaper. But he was a good talker. If you haven't 'done the time' then it makes what is relevant hugely subjective and up for bullshitting, frankly.

YABU

A set number of years experience discriminated against younger candidates and also against those who have been out of the workforce due to children or other caring responsibilities (mostly women).

That’s not to say there isn’t discrimination against older candidates. However implementing an arbitrary number of years experience isn’t the answer. I would suggest more awareness of unconscious bias and training in overcoming it. Maybe having some of the panel listen to a recording of the interviews so they’re not basing their opinion on appearances (of course there’s still prejudice based on candidates name, accent, etc) or otherwise “blind” to irrelevant appearances

I suspect there is a higher correlation between broad competency at a role and length of experience than there is between broad competency in a role and selling yourself enthusiastically in an interview. CVs and interviews impress people, but interviews, particularly, have been shown time and again to be poor ways to hire. They are tiny snapshots of someone's abilities and can't hope to cover the vast range of experience someone actually picks up while working.

But I'm also not keen on the years of experience thing in job requirements. There are lots of people who do coast in a role and requests for x years of experience tend to be fairly lazy catch alls that are often used in lieu of thinking about what skills are really required. Having worked in tech for a long time it becomes painfully obvious how rote the requests for experience are when ads come out requesting 5 years of experience in some tech that's only been around for 2 years.

Closer, I don't think a day long training in implicit bias eradicated all bias.

In some instances the fact is if you are young and haven't done time in a role you haven't gained enough experience.

Also I hate that 'relevant experience' is so subjective. Next time you have surgery do you want to be operated on by someone who has been doing that surgery for 10 yrs or someone with 'relevant experience'?

Boom. Good points. Agree that in some sectors like tech years of experience is less meaningful. But of course there are many jobs in which doing time does really correlate to greater knowledge and performance.

It's discriminatory that you can't discriminate any more?

Jesus wept.

Oh Joan that's not what I'm saying. Read the full thread.

*they’ve all been picked because of the content on their CV, if a person who’s younger performs better during the interview then they should be chosen.

I think you're missing the point. They are chosen based on the content of their CV, but in many instances the amount of time they've been in a role could be relatively short.

My point is that this is really about valuing the wisdom gained through lived experience and that there is something about years of experience dealing with problems, staff etc that doesn't appear to be valued.*

But...you say yourself in your OP One could also make a case that someone may have gained a great deal of experience in a short 2 years whereas someone else could have spent 10 years coasting, learning nothing at all. So fair point.

So no, I probably don’t get your point. Because surely this is what the interview is to weed out? And I think this is probably very dependent on what roles you are interviewing for.

Is it possible to drill down a bit further than "significant press experience" to the specific scenarios that experience might help you deal with, and the specific skills you might have gained?

One effective method for reducing bias is to agree clear scoring criteria beforehand (this is fricking hard work btw) - because without that, people weight whatever their fave candidate did best as most important.

Fave boy did a great job at welly wanging but disappointingly poor at frooble splorfing? Clearly welly wanging is essential. Whereas if you have all painfully agreed to weight frooble splorfing as 3 times as valuable as wanging before the interview, when the points are totted up, what's this? Ms Fortysomething was streets ahead? Oh. Er. Well, would be awkward to say no, we can't give it to an old bird so I suppose she'd better get the job.

I know someone of 30 who lists a whole string of blue chip Fortune 500 companies he has “worked closely with” and “consulted for”. In reality he temped for a couple of weeks in an admin role. They are good at bigging themselves up.

I think that it’s a good policy. People with many years of experience can discuss that and use it at interview to convince interviewers to hire them. Young people who don’t have a certain number of years’ experience aren’t precluded from applying or being considered.

I do agree though that there is an issue with women and older people facing hiring discrimination. I just don’t think allowing discrimination against another group is the way to solve it.

@cucumbergin that made me laugh 😂 but also an excellent point!