I think many people cry "ageism" when there is in fact a legitimate reason not to consider a vastly experienced person for a role: people with more experience typically demand more pay for it, not to mention that taking a significant salary cut is something few people can afford to do once they get settled in to a lifestyle. If I don't need that much experience for the role I'm hiring for then I'll take the less experienced person every time in order to save cash.
Merely starting the interview process with someone who far exceeds the requirements for the role is a risk... my employees and I may waste our time interviewing this person just to find out their salary requirements are too high. I would say "too experienced" is a legitimate reason to reject someone from a role for this reason. This is especially true in the gaming industry, which is extremely competitive and has no shortage of young talent with low salary requirements that are appropriate for senior management.
I see some merit in your argument. However, there is a very strong trend in this industry to equivocate around titles and responsibilities. When "Senior Software Engineer" comprises everything from people with 2-5 years of experience to people with 15-20, it indicates something is fundamentally wrong with the way companies view the work they need done.
The fact is you're basically right: most companies don't want experienced people who will do a very good job and expect appropriate compensation for that work. They want people who can do the job just good enough to pass off products that are marginally adequate enough to bring in a target margin. If said people are also more inclined to be easily "persuadable" or awed/intimidated into putting more effort in for less compensation, even better. Such a condition naturally leads to the implicit age discrimination we see in our industry.
Also, if companies were more open about the salary and compensation packages they will offer with a position, it might more effectively deter the unwanted "seniors" from even expressing interest.
>> most companies don't want experienced people who will do a very good job and expect appropriate compensation for that work
Most companies can't afford experienced people who will do a very good job and expect appropriate compensation for that work. If they could, then hiring these people would be a no-brainer.
>> Also, if companies were more open about the salary and compensation packages they will offer with a position, it might more effectively deter the unwanted "seniors" from even expressing interest.
I agree with you here. I would never personally reject someone with an impressive background without first communicating to them the "reality" of the position they're applying for.
Strangely, you're describing ageism. Replace older/more experienced with women, and salary demands with pregnancy and family responsibilities, and you're at sexism.
Older people tend to have more job experience. Not even starting the interview process on someone because they have a lot of experience, means not starting the interview process for older people, which is ageism.
Rather make the offer if they earn it, even if it isn't in the range the person might seem to want. It's up to them to decide to accept it or not.
This is not ageism. I can judge a candidate based on her work experience. I would be just as quick to reject a 20-something with too much experience as a 50-something, and I would absolutely hire a 50-something with the right level of experience.
Don't get me wrong - there is an ageism problem in the tech community. If we take these arguments at face value though and don't make an effort to understand why a rational, unbiased person might appear to discriminate, then cannot effectively address the problem.
>>Merely starting the interview process with someone who far exceeds the requirements for the role is a risk... my employees and I may waste our time interviewing this person just to find out their salary requirements are too high. I would say "too experienced" is a legitimate reason to reject someone from a role for this reason.
I'm pretty sure this kind of thinking is exactly the problem and accurately describes ageism. You've made assumptions about someone based on their age and don't even want to bother interviewing them based on stereotypes that you think are true about older people. Of course, there are extremes to the "too experienced" situation. If a person with a Ph.D in Biology and Astrophysics applies to a job at McDonald's, then perhaps something is off. But you should still talk to the person and find out what's going on; not just assume.
I'm allowed to judge someone based on her work experience. This is not a stereotype, this is a fact on a resume put there by the candidate herself.
>> Of course, there are extremes to the "too experienced" situation. If a person with a Ph.D in Biology and Astrophysics applies to a job at McDonald's, then perhaps something is off.
Ok, so where do you draw the line? At what point is it not OK to judge someone in this way?
Merely starting the interview process with someone who far exceeds the requirements for the role is a risk... my employees and I may waste our time interviewing this person just to find out their salary requirements are too high. I would say "too experienced" is a legitimate reason to reject someone from a role for this reason. This is especially true in the gaming industry, which is extremely competitive and has no shortage of young talent with low salary requirements that are appropriate for senior management.