This is a tricky topic that is discussed daily on LinkedIn.
Age discrimination in the workplace with mid-level VP or director experience vs C-level.
Hiring based on skill, knowledge, and authentic experience (rather than age or a lower salary) ensures that a company gets someone who genuinely understands how to solve user problems and craft meaningful experiences.
Age discrimination in the workplace tends to disproportionately affect mid- and lower-level roles compared to C-level roles for several nuanced reasons. Let’s break down a few key factors that contribute to this disparity:
- Perception of Value at the Top: Senior executives like CEOs are often seen as strategic visionaries. Many companies value the experience and leadership acumen that comes with age in these roles. For these high-stakes positions, the extensive experience that someone 55+ brings is often seen as a net positive, providing a steady hand that can guide the company through challenges. At lower levels, however, experience is sometimes unfairly viewed as “less adaptable,” with the perception that older workers may struggle to adapt to fast-evolving technology or market trends, especially in fields like tech.
- Compensation Economics: Salaries for C-level executives tend to be high across the board, regardless of age, because they are expected to drive significant value and are accountable for overall business performance. However, mid-level roles, which are closer to day-to-day operations, often face more scrutiny overcompensation due to budget constraints and departmental cost-saving measures. This sometimes results in age-based stereotypes, where older employees in mid-level roles are viewed as too costly, given their experience-based salaries, and therefore less attractive to cost-conscious employers.
- Bias Toward Longevity in Lower Levels: At the mid- or entry-level, companies often look for employees who may stay long-term and develop within the organization. There’s an implicit bias that older employees in these roles may not offer a “long-term investment,” even though this assumption lacks evidence. Meanwhile, a CEO is generally seen as someone who can make a significant impact over a shorter period if necessary, even if they are close to retirement.
- Cultural Perception of Growth and Learning: The myth that younger employees are more “moldable” and able to “grow” within a role persists, especially in mid-level or lower-level roles. Older candidates are frequently stereotyped as “set in their ways,” many hiring managers may feel younger hires will better adapt to the company’s evolving culture or technological trends. In contrast, C-level positions often value the proven expertise that older employees bring and seek candidates with a track record, making age an advantage.
- Risk Aversion in C-Level Hiring: Ironically, the scrutiny of C-level hires is often more significant in terms of track record rather than age, with boards of directors focusing on mitigating risk and seeking candidates who have previously handled similar levels of responsibility. This focus on risk management means that experienced, older candidates may be favored due to their industry-specific knowledge and previous C-level experience.
- Systemic Bias in Hiring Practices: Ageism in hiring practices tends to be more overt at mid- and lower levels, as these roles typically go through more stringent hiring funnels and screening processes, where age-based bias can more easily infiltrate. C-level roles are usually filled through board appointments or executive search firms, where the candidate’s background and network often matter more than age.
Ultimately, the disparity stems from a complex interplay of stereotypes, budget considerations, and cultural expectations. While age discrimination is illegal, subtle biases persist, and they are more acutely felt in mid and lower-level positions than at the top of an organization. Addressing this requires a cultural shift where the value of experience is recognized at all levels, alongside more inclusive hiring practices that truly embrace age diversity.
Here’s why focusing on skill and deep expertise is critical in UX:
Experience Drives Empathy and Insight
- UX professionals with diverse backgrounds and proven skills are often better equipped to understand user needs and pain points. They bring tested methods for user research, usability testing, and design thinking that new talent might still develop. This empathy and insight can prevent costly design missteps and enhance user satisfaction.
Investment in Quality Over Cost Leads to Long-Term Rewards
While a more experienced UX designer may come at a higher salary, their strategic insights, process efficiencies, and ability to foresee potential issues often save a company time, money, and rework in the long run. Quality UX design ultimately increases customer loyalty and engagement, positively impacting the bottom line.
Innovation Through Depth and Breadth of Knowledge
Experienced professionals use a variety of techniques and tools and know how to adapt them to different contexts. They can challenge assumptions, connect the dots across projects, and bring innovative solutions that might not be as readily apparent to those with less practical experience.
Strategic Design Leadership
UX is more than aesthetics or basic usability—creating a cohesive user journey that aligns with business goals. Skilled designers bring leadership, guiding teams in making choices that improve user engagement and meet strategic objectives. This is especially valuable for companies building a robust, user-centered brand presence.
Cultivating a Culture of Quality
Hiring for skills and expertise rather than cost encourages a culture prioritizing quality over quick, low-cost solutions. In a field as user-focused as UX, this means delivering genuine value to users and fostering a team inspired to uphold high standards.
These seasoned designers are more than worth the investment, as they bring value beyond what might be reflected in initial costs.