Should age go before skills?

[GundamXXX]

Im just wondering what the general feel is about this question.

Ive been working in several companies where we had new managers who were young, 20-25, and alot of the older employees were pissed that they had to take orders someone half their age.

Now I dont see an issue myself as Im a young manager myself having run a youth hostel at the age of 23 where most of the backpackers were over that age and some locals twice my age and they had to take orders from me.
Most of them didnt mind and the ones that did didnt show it to me.

But my moms friends and all are really pissed of that a 'greenie' is made manager before them etc etc

I also know on my current workfloor when they needed new teamleaders alot of people feel passed over when my employer brings in totally new staff from the outside, when some of the inhouse applicants are working there for several years and have loads of experience in the job but arent good enough appearantly.

In my opinion neither age nor experience comes before skill and if a 25 yo is better at a leading a department then a 40 yo who knows all the ins and outs and has been working there for 20 years, then the 25 yo deserves the job.

Please vote and elaborate and dont feel shy to share personal experiences

 

[Guild McCommunist]

Doesn't exactly seem like EoF worthy to me, but whatever.

Older people don't have more experience a lot of the time. The world is changing rapidly. Stuff that older people were masters of even a decade ago are now obsolete and useless. When you're younger you grow up to learn how to change and to go with the flow of change. It's just evolution. I'm not gonna bother hiring the 50 year old sales manager who was a master of sales "back in the day" compared to the young hot shot who knows the ropes of sales today.

It's not exactly ageism but it's just the way people are grown.

 

[Monkee3000]

Doesn't exactly seem like EoF worthy to me, but whatever.

Older people don't have more experience a lot of the time. The world is changing rapidly. Stuff that older people were masters of even a decade ago are now obsolete and useless. When you're younger you grow up to learn how to change and to go with the flow of change. It's just evolution. I'm not gonna bother hiring the 50 year old sales manager who was a master of sales "back in the day" compared to the young hot shot who knows the ropes of sales today.

It's not exactly ageism but it's just the way people are grown.

No it's Jeunism.
Jeunism is the discrimination against older people in favor of younger ones. This includes political candidacies, commercial functions, and cultural settings where the supposed greater vitality and/or physical beauty of youth is more appreciated than the supposed greater moral and/or intellectual rigor of adulthood.

 

[Cermage]

skills come before age if you ask me. whats the point of of appointing someone has next to no leadership skills as a manager when there is someone half their age and does the position of manager extremely well. just because a person is older doesn't necessarily mean they are wiser/smarter and vice versa.

sure it may rub people the wrong way that they are taking orders from someone who is younger, but ideally you want a workplace that can perform at its best and if an employee or two can't see that the younger person does the job better than they do, they don't deserve to be there tbh.

 

[naglaro00]

If age goes before skills bye bye gifted children

 

[syko5150]

I'm a business owner and i will always hire someone who knows what they're doing i don't care if they're 18 or 60 doesn't matter to me as long as i can count on them to do what needs to be done

 

[GundamXXX]

Im glad that most people agree with my point

Some people voted Experience before skills, anyone want to elaborate?

 

[DarkWay]

it SHOULD be skills before anything else but as I've found over and over again here where I live "experience/age" ALWAYS beats skill I find it extremely hard to get a job here 1 because I'm young and not very exprienced out in the field of work and 2 because I "look different", personally I think it sucks and needs to be changed

 

[Danny600kill]

For me it would be skills but experience does have a slight effect

First lets get age out of the way, this means nothing, being 93 doesn't make you a good gymnast? Age contributes to nothing except for the fact that you may not be able to do everything physically you use to be able to do.

Skills is the most important thing, but then experience would come into play a little, If I were a business owner I was disregard the age depending on what business, some businesses need certain age staff for example places like Top Man need younger people as that is the image they are trying to get across. You look at people based on how equipped they are for the job, then if you have two candidates with close skills then you take the one with the experience just for the face of he/she knows what they are doing from the word go and if they have had good feedback from previous employer then he/she should have the advantage

Again some businesses need a certain age staff as this is part of the image they are going for, you wouldn't want to go into a trendy clothes store for teenagers and be served by an old women who has no clue about fashion. Its the same concept with places they take people on who may not be the best at the job but are interested and know about what they are selling ect like if you go into a place like Game/Gamestation or Gamestop then you want the person behind the counter to know about games and consoles so he can help you decide or help you with a problem

So it's not really about skill and experience on there own but a mix of the two. Yes if you had to you would base on skill but in the real world someone is always had more experience in the work place and so if they meet up to the required skill as well then they should chosen

 

[jlsyber]

Skills are way important than age!

 

[zuron7]

I say it's a mix of age and skills.
Particular skills should be picked up only upon age.
It's not good to do everything at a very young age.

 

[FAST6191]

Allow me to muddy the waters a little but before I do- dead mans shoes* is a concept that can be shown to work or at least not overtly mess things up but one that is far from fair in my opinion. I will put out the thought that such things need not be best practice but either risk management or scapegoating depending on your chosen viewpoint- something that is coming to the fore with background checks now including questionings and the like.

*perhaps not entirely suitable as a point of comparison as it does not deal explicitly with the original question by way of ignoring older workers and younger ones coming fresh to a company.

Secondly you may well find yourself facing something of a generation gap- the concept of a job for life is next to non-existent for those under 30 and perhaps only witnessed rather than experienced for those under 40 and while there are many implications vis-à-vis training, secrets and forecasting I shall forgo discussion of those as it is at best tangential. My point here is that it could well have nothing to do with whether something is actually fair but the mindset involved.

Re: clothes. I am very much the last person to speak to on such matters (clothes help prevent nakedness, keep me at an acceptable temperature, help me function and prevent injury when I fall over) as I view fashion as a long running con game but for the likes of decent clothes the older people that have served me and mine have invariably been better. This might be more to do with when it is not jeans and tshirt it is a fitted/tailored suit of some form but I am sticking by my example.

You also have additional problems re skills in that there is a difference between general skills and specific skills- with general skills usually comes a often sought after ability otherwise known as adaptability* although then you also have to question whether you need that (although it is somewhat of a predatory employment practice see people being trained for one specific task rendering their loss/replacement not all that troublesome) for the given line of work or even project (how many of you playing the IT/technology/engineering game have won/lost contracts and the like because you did or did not know the latest buzzword technology and flipping it around won/lost based on a broad knowledge).

*ex cannon fodder grade military are a great example here- until you get beyond cannon fodder levels adaptability is not all that sought after and indeed is often quashed by (basic) training in favour of ability to follow orders- one of the reasons I have no great love for the military.

Following that you also have to question if being a boss/manager is a step up in the workforce especially in skilled arenas- something that is increasingly reflected in pay and conditions not to mention the examples of people being promoted "up" (or sideways) to get them away from the floor and thus revenue streams but retaining/trapping whatever you want to keep internal. By way of further example go have a look at how many company founders still retain or have the ability to retain control of the company but instead elect to stick someone else in charge and manage a team/wing/division. In the case of the OP there is a third talking point in that the young manager is perhaps more likely to stick it out than the older people (the cost of an employee is more than just their wages even if you do not afford extra training and the like) providing a better return on investment.

I could probably tap out a bunch more talking points but it seems I have to run. As it seems to be the done thing "what I do"- nobody including me quite knows (bills tend to be of the "services rendered" variety) but I get called in regarding matters of employment as part of it all.

 

[Forstride]

I'd say experience before skills, because if you have experience, you most likely have skills (Assuming you mean work experience by that). If I was to hire someone, I'd want them to be able to perform their task(s) efficiently, and not have to ask questions and possibly not get the job done because they haven't performed in a real work environment using their skills. I participated in this one computer repair/assembly competition a few months ago, but I hadn't done much to prepare (I did what it said I was going to be required to do in the competition, but there was more than that apparently). I knew what to do, but I had no prior experience, so I was confused about if there was a certain way they wanted me to do a task, or if they wanted me to *insert task here*. There was also a fault on the host's part (The first computer I put together didn't even work prior to the competition, and the replacement they gave me had a faulty part, and they didn't know), which made me nervous and frustrated, because there wasn't a lot of time to finish the rest of the tasks. I did place 3rd though.

The age part doesn't matter to me, because some people are more skilled in a certain work field than others of a different age. A good example is the technology field. More and more younger adults and teens are becoming more interested in technology as it advances because it appeals to them, and they can figure out how to use certain devices (Computers, phones, PMPs, etc.) quicker than those of older age (Assuming they've never had education and work specifically with technology). Of course, maturity comes with age, and you need to be mature and professional with a job, but I know some teens and young adults that are more mature than some adults I know.

TL;DR: Experience > Skills > Age

 

[Panzer Tacticer]

This 48 year old would rather work for someone that actually has DONE the job before. Skills implies has done the job before though so poll might be flawed in thinking.

Training does not equal skills nor experience. You can take your college grad and shove them eh. Let them get some experience first.

As for age, if you have experience you is cool regardless of whether I am older or not.

I will listen to a person that actually has done the job before. Granted, just because you have experience, doesn't mean you have any skill.

I reserve the right to fire an experienced worthless person.

 

[benjaminlibl]

TL;DR: Experience > Skills > Age

Exactly what I would have said, only worded better.

 

[Forstride]

TL;DR: Experience > Skills > Age

Exactly what I would have said, only worded better.

That was for people who didn't feel like reading my long post.

Anyway, I was just discussing this with my programming teacher, and he agrees with me. I doubt other professionals would though, since they'd probably say age is more important.

 

[benjaminlibl]

TL;DR: Experience > Skills > Age

Exactly what I would have said, only worded better.

That was for people who didn't feel like reading my long post.

Well, yeah, I meant your whole post, I just didn't want to quote the whole thing.

 

[GundamXXX]

WEll ofcourse epxerience plays a part in any promotion but if you take my example of my work were several people have experience within the company, the programs, the work and with other employees, I still think skill takes a higher lead because just because you have experience in a certain line of work doesnt make you a better person in a said promotion.

I mean, you can be a fantastic gfx designer and have all the experience in the world with all the tools, that doesnt make you a suitable contender for gfx lead designer does it?


Offtopic; I had some talk with my new boss about this and she loved the discussion were all having

PS. she agrees with skill > exp > age