The Value of Older Workers

At a recent evening spent with many of our contractors, some commented to me that they were frustrated by the number of roles they applied for but were unsuccessful in obtaining. The perception was that age – mid 50’s – very likely had something to do with it. I felt for this person because I suspect their perceptions, at least in some cases, reflected the reality. This is certainly not a view held by JacksonStone & Partners.

What is it that sees a younger person preferred over an older one when both have demonstrated similar ability to perform a role? Perhaps it’s a perception that older workers bring less energy, ideas that are outdated and struggle to use technology?

Job adverts often don’t help as they regularly feature adjectives such as energetic, dynamic, vibrant and flexible to describe the person sought and these are words that those who are making hiring decisions may more readily associate with a younger person. I’m not suggesting avoiding the use of these words but rather recognising that they should be applied directly to the person’s ability to perform in the role and not to a person’s age (which would be a clear breach of human rights).

If we use Statistics New Zealand’s description of the working age as 15-64, then over the years I can say I’ve interviewed many workers within this spectrum. Some who are younger have been vibrant and energetic; however, this description could also be applied to just as many older workers too. Others of those younger workers have been unimaginative, lethargic and inflexible, and again this description can be applied to others in the working age bracket, including those toward the end.

The fact is, those who fall within the working ages described above are slowly becoming a lower proportion of the population and by 2061 will comprise 58% of total population versus the 66% they represent today. The result of this is that employers will need to be more open to considering, not just those in the latter stages of the working age banding, but beyond into 65+, or they will face not being able to fill vacancies or having access to great people. One fact which may encourage them to take this step is that in New Zealand evidence exists to suggest that older workers are more productive (albeit slightly) than their younger colleagues. Other aspects employers may wish to also consider are that older workers are likely to be more experienced, and are seen as more reliable, loyal and committed.

As with much in life, balance is the key. If organisations can assemble teams of people representing a diversity of ages then they will benefit from the differing qualities that we each bring as we move through the various stages of our careers. Those who make hiring decisions – recruiters included – have an important part to play in ensuring older workers have a fair go when applying for jobs and that their ability to do the job, not age, is the prime consideration.

Source:

http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/population/estimates_and_projections/structural-change-nz-population-productivity.aspx

Confidence gets you places

Another weekend gone by and the Hurricane’s continue their impressive season by convincingly beating the Blue’s to go 13 points clear of the second placed Chief’s in the New Zealand Conference and top overall of the Super Rugby table. A team known for its attacking brilliance, they’re also renowned for poor performances that can come from nowhere. Part of the attraction of this team though is that when they’re playing with confidence spectators witness a brand of rugby that has huge appeal. It seems that when their confidence is high anything’s possible.

Confidence is a wonderful thing and is fundamental to success. Take successful people in any aspect of life and you’ll very likely find that confidence and resolute belief in themselves will be central to what they’ve achieved. Steffi Graf didn’t win 22 tennis Grand Slams doubting her ability to win, Steve Job’s didn’t half-heartedly launch the first ipod, Barack Obama didn’t apologetically announce his bid to become the Democratic nominee to contest the presidential elections, and our own legendary running coach, Arthur Lydiard showed an unwavering belief in the principals of his training as he produced a stable of middle distance runners that were the world’s best.

Candidates who have good levels of confidence stand out from those that don’t. It’s a trait that as humans we find attractive in others. Not only this, but confident people tend to display other attractive traits that go hand-in-hand, such as resilience, optimism and tenacity. Bring all of this together and you’re starting to face a person who has attributes that most, if not all, employer’s want in their team.

Five Classic Mistakes Managers Make When Hiring

Understandably, there’s plenty of advice out there for candidates on how to make a favourable impression on those who are hiring. It’s equally important, however that hiring managers portray their business’ in a way that’s attractive to candidates if they want to secure top performers who have the potential to add immeasurable value.

Here are some classic mistakes that hiring managers often make.

• They let their own prejudices and personal bias’s cloud their judgment. It’s human nature to like people who are similar to ourselves or who display behaviours that appeal to us. Selecting a person for a job because they display these attributes doesn’t necessarily mean you are hiring the best person available for the job. A competent hiring manager will remove from their decision-making any preconceived ideas they have and assess a candidate objectively against the criteria for the job.

• They forget that candidates are assessing them as a potential employer as much as they are assessing the candidate. Top performers often have a number of opportunities available to them, which means hiring managers have to compete with other organisations to secure their talents. This fact is all too frequently lost on those making hiring decisions and can result in them not doing enough to attractively ‘market’ the opportunity to the candidate.

• In an ideal situation, panel interviews are all held on the same day. If this is not possible then the next best alternative is to hold them within as short a period of time as is practical. Holding interviews over a short period of time helps ensure the first candidate interviewed is not disadvantaged relative to candidates interviewed last, because their performance has faded in the minds of those interviewing. I recall hearing about an interview process where the shortlisted candidates were interviewed over several weeks and felt for the poor candidate who had to go first. As it turned out, half of the candidates withdrew from the process after accepting competing offers due to the drawn-out time-frame – hardly a surprise.

• They allow the results of a selection tool used in the latter stages of the process, such as psychometric testing or reference checks as the deciding factor of whether or not to offer the role to their preferred candidate. Both of these ‘tools’ have validity, but should always be used in conjunction with the parts of the process used to assess a candidate i.e., competency interviewing, presenting to the interview panel, a work sample test etc. If all the other indicators suggest the person is right for the role then this should be balanced against the one indicator that raises a concern.

• Once interviews have concluded, a mistake hiring managers sometimes make is a lack of decisiveness in confirming their preferred candidate. It’s in the interests of everyone for a decision to be reached quickly. This reduces the chances of a competing offer for the preferred candidate coming into play, and just as importantly, allows the unsuccessful candidates to move on and focus on other opportunities.

If your goal as a hiring manager is to hire the best person available to you, which it should be, then recognising that top performers are sought by other organisations and not making the mistakes above will increase your chances of the achieving this.

Mistakes Candidates Make and How To Avoid Them

During my career in recruitment I’ve met a significant number of candidates.  Most of them present themselves very well, but there are some that don’t.  Here are my observations of some of the mistakes candidates frequently make and how you can avoid them.

1. They request information about the role or ask for a copy of the job description when the information they are asking for is already available i.e., online. Making contact with the hiring manager or recruiter can be a great way to help you stand out, but it can backfire if you ask for information that is readily available as this could be perceived as showing a lack of initiative.  A job description, where the role is based and an overview of the type of experience required can, on most occasions, be found online.

2. Their application doesn’t include a covering letter. A covering letter (or lack of one) tells you a lot about a person.  A covering letter that is well written adds “colour” to an application, can reveal the personality of a candidate, and articulates their motivation for applying and why they believe they are a strong fit.

3. They arrive late to interview. This one’s easy – do everything possible to not arrive late. If it does happen then at the least be very apologetic and ring to say you are running late.  You will salvage your application and remain in contention if you offer a profuse apology and give a genuine reason.  I know interviewers and panels often keep candidates waiting, but two wrongs….

4. They dress inappropriately. The best advice I can offer here is to mirror the dress of those interviewing you.  This helps build rapport and helps create a perception that you’re “one of them”. If you’re unsure what to wear it’s perfectly acceptable to ask.

5. A lack of preparation. If a candidate hasn’t properly prepared themselves then this will be apparent to the interviewer.  Do your due diligence on the organisation, the job you’re applying for and those interviewing you.  The internet makes this easy so there’s really no excuse for not being prepared.  Be sure to have some intelligent, considered questions to ask the interviewers at the end and make sure your questions are not all about ‘what’s in it for you’.

And finally….

6. If you are unsuccessful in your application, accept feedback in the spirit that it’s given in. Very occasionally I find myself going around in “circles” explaining to a candidate why they weren’t offered the job.  Calling a candidate to deliver bad news is never easy no matter how many times you’ve done it.  A candidate “throwing their toys” by saying “it’s their loss” or “I wouldn’t have taken the job if it was offered to me anyway” won’t put you in a good light.  Sure, ask for constructive feedback, but try to be magnanimous in defeat.

Next time I’ll look at the biggest mistakes people hiring make. There are many.