A recent post on ageism highlighted an intriguing point: Donald Trump is 78, and Kamala Harris is 60—yet both have been trusted to vie for or hold the most demanding job in the world. Regardless of personal views, their positions demonstrate that age isn’t necessarily a barrier to capability, leadership, or ambition.
This raises a glaring contradiction: if age isn’t disqualifying for leading a global superpower, why do many workplaces hesitate to hire candidates in their 50s or 60s for less demanding roles?
The Double Standard
In politics, age often signifies wisdom, experience, and resilience. In recruitment, however, it can be perceived as a drawback. Older candidates are dismissed for being “outdated” or less adaptable, while younger professionals are viewed as more innovative or dynamic. Yet in reality, age often brings a wealth of knowledge, stability, and the ability to mentor teams through complex challenges.
Breaking the Bias
The success of leaders like Trump and Harris should challenge us to reconsider outdated stereotypes. Age isn’t a barrier to adaptability, ambition, or effectiveness—and the workplace should reflect this. Organizations must focus on skills, experience, and potential rather than assumptions tied to age.
Moving Forward
If we trust senior professionals to lead countries, there’s no reason they can’t excel in corporate, creative, or technical roles. Age diversity isn’t just ethical—it’s essential for leveraging a full spectrum of talent. Let’s ensure our hiring practices reflect that.
Comments