Talent Beats Experience in Today’s Hiring World and Undervalues Older Workers
The Anti-Ageism Business Refrain
Despite the best efforts of anti-ageism advocates and not for profit organisations focused on positioning ageing in positive terms, it seems ageism remains on the rise within Australia. And it appears politicians, business leaders and the media don’t see this as a significant problem.
The recently released Australian organisation COTA (Council of the Ageing) 2025 State of the Older Nation Report is sobering for two reasons – its content and the lack of mainstream media attention it received. The Report notes: “There’s a broader story of a perception of ageism in Australian society. Older people don’t tend to feel that their value as an older person is fully appreciated by society or politicians, with nearly half (46%) agreeing they are less valued now than when they were younger.” Further, 54% of the older people surveyed agreed government policies do not meet the needs of people their age and 38% of older Australians report experiencing ageism since turning 50, most commonly in employment settings, in a trend that appears to be growing. The launching of this report and its concerning findings at a major National Press Club event by COTA’s Chairman Christopher Pyne failed to garner any media attention or government comment. Embracing the idea of the benefits of longevity continues to present a major challenge to our politicians, business leaders and media.
A constant refrain from anti-ageism advocates in the business space is that companies are ‘shooting themselves in the foot’ by not employing older workers given the incredible work experience and knowledge they can bring to the workplace. This experience, they argue can be a positive contributor to improving team performance, productivity and innovation. And this is absolutely true.
A recent Stanford University paper highlights a number of studies confirming the benefit of older worker experience. The following research is identified. AARP analysis reveals that firms with more 50 year-plus workers are more productive, not less: a 10-percentage-point increase in older workers is associated with roughly 1.1 percent higher productivity. 2020 OECD research also finds that age-balanced firms benefit from lower turnover and stronger team performance, driven by experience and knowledge sharing rather than technology resistance. Similarly, a 2022 study from Boston Consulting Group found that cross-generational teams outperform homogeneous ones when older workers’ judgment and mentoring are combined with younger workers’ digital skills. A 2022 meta-analysis also pushes back against the idea that older workers are less effective and found that teams perform better when members have a long tenure at the company, irrespective of workers’ ages.
Yet, despite these research findings, no matter how many times the point is made or repeated about the value of older worker experience, no matter who makes it and no matter in what forums this refrain is made, the result is the same – the message is not cutting through with employers. Business largely continues to ignore this refrain. Why?
In this month’s newsletter we think it valuable to examine a specific systemic obstacle we believe may be contributing to this problem. We maintain a major culprit for the ignoring of older worker experience is how strongly the notion of ‘talent’ is embedded in business thinking.
It’s Talent not Experience that Recruiters Target
Today, no self-respecting large business would operate without their own talent management system. Over the past 40 years the term ‘talent’ has become ubiquitous in determining who gets recruited, who gets on career development fast-tracks or who gets promoted. Today, we find the word ‘talent’ is casually thrown about as a workforce descriptor. We seem to overlook that more critically, ‘talent’ meaning currently represents an institutionalised way of thinking about people classification. Why does this matter? It matters, because recruiters are prioritising recruiting talent over recruiting experience. And whilst experience represents an element of talent meaning, it is often the least important criterion in the talent make-up mix.
How many times have you heard the old recruiter chestnut ‘experience gives you a ticket to the dance event but does not guarantee you will get a dance’? It looks like this sentiment is as true today as it has ever been. Work experience is connected to the concept of expertise and is generally understood as a positive business contributor. However, there is also a ‘Goldilocks and the Three Bears’ sense to what constitutes the ‘right experience’. Too much risks a potential obstacle to new knowledge development or a pre-occupation with living in the past, too little risks work mistakes or an extra coaching and mentoring management distraction. A school of argument also exists that in the digital world work experience value quickly depreciates as technological change make the past less relevant and learning agility a more valuable skill.
What is also inescapable is that the more work experience an individual possesses the older they are. Worker age then becomes a major consideration in whether an organisation perceives work experience as of value or otherwise in their talent considerations. To the current extent older workers are ignored in recruitment decisions or exited from organisations, then an actual discrimination against deep experience or expertise is apparent, despite the anti-ageing lobby arguing this is the huge strength of older workers. Rarely to date, have talent recruiters prioritised work experience relative to other social factors contributing to talent meaning as the driving decision-making factor.
Again, when anti-ageism advocates promote the value of age inclusive workforces, they face the existing obstacle that ‘talent’ management is a process of exclusion. If talent is to represent more than a general descriptor of a workforce, then by its definition for one person to be deemed ‘talent’, others must be classified as ‘non-talent’. And no matter how much recruiters or HR professionals proclaim the ‘objectiveness’ they build into their recruitment decision-making processes, ‘talent’ determination remains about the perception of others. ‘Talent’ ultimately is an assigned label to some individuals based on the views of talent decision-makers within the organisation. This has little to do with purely work experience value.
The Ostensible Business Reason for Employing Talent
‘Talent’ is often understood to be perceived as certain individuals possessing unique human capital which can be directed to creating added organisational value. Ostensibly, ‘talent’ is seen as a driver of improved business performance. However, academic literature reveals the importance of ‘talent’ to organisational performance is overestimated as there is a lack of strong evidence to demonstrate its utility. In fact, business performance is less to do with the individual than with the operation of the organisation as a whole. A global survey of HR professionals by the management consultant firm KPMG in 2014 conceded there was little evidence that linked exclusive talent practices to improved business performance. If the business case for the importance of ‘talent’ is questionable, then the continuing popularity of talent management as a workforce management strategy could then be suggested to be for more non-rational than rational considerations.
Another Less Discussed Reason for Why Talent is Preferred to Experience
And again, this is where the research gets interesting because it suggests that organisational fit and cultural alignment is more important to employers than matters solely concerning productivity. The importance of talent to a business may be more for cultural compliance purposes than just improving performance. If this is the case, then despite older workers possessing valuable work experience, given this is focused against business performance rather than cultural alignment, then the probability of increasing older worker recruitment remains low, as culture is generally all about preserving the existing social status-quo. And as the cultural status quo in many large organisations appears to favour younger rather than older workers, older worker experience is not the game-changer it should be.
Organisation fit is the ‘talent’ marker for perceived individual cultural alignment to an organisation’s values and operating methods. Our PhD research identified this as a more important criterion to HR managers in assessing talent than work experience. The social criteria of organisational fit and individual potential were rated by HR professionals as the most critical talent signifiers. We are not alone with this insight. A study of over 200 interviews with Polish HR professionals and senior managers found potential, personal commitment and fit were the three talent non-negotiables with ‘potential’ the most critical element. Further Australian research confirms similar findings with technical expertise and experience found to be the least important talent criteria.
Anecdotally, we are seeing the diminution of experience relative to other talent factors playing out in the recruitment market. Recruiters and career outplacement firms are now frequently recommending older workers disguise the extent of experience they possess, to appear both more contemporary and ultimately younger to potential employers in the first instance. And unemployed older workers are doing this. They are prepared to undervalue the precise asset we in the anti-ageism brigade advocate is their secret weapon and huge bonus for the workplace. We argue this is further evidence of how the impact of a recruiter preference for ‘talent’ is dictating hiring decision-making to the detriment of older workers.
Recruiters it seems, place a high priority on the creation of homogenous workforces in the belief this is a contributing factor to effective group performance and the desired goal of improved productivity. Recruitment decision-making appears to prioritise cultural similarity over increasing workforce diversity, with any similarity in outlooks or lifestyle between interviewer and job candidates acting as a strong indicator of group membership and criteria for inclusion. Further empirical research acknowledges that managers favour people with whom they can establish a social connection irrespective of their productivity.
And social connection is an outcome of individuals believing they share similar beliefs, attitudes and outlooks with others. Simple demographic characteristics such as race, gender and age are heavily used by individuals as a short-cut to assuming social connection as they are held to be the strongest predictors of group formation in organisations. So, if your recruiting team primarily consists of younger people, then the possibility of younger job candidates better connecting during the interview process is a real possibility even when they probably possess less work experience than a potential older candidate.
How often do we think of an organisation’s recruitment activity as an instrument of ‘social engineering’ to ensure preservation of the existing institutional environment?
Talent as a Code Word for ‘Young’
The upshot of all this is the notion of talent as a vehicle for the normalisation of ageism within workforce management. We maintain that the term ‘talent’ now represents an acceptable way to say ‘young’. The prioritisation of ‘fit’ over ‘experience’, ‘potential’ over ‘track record’, the emphasis on cultural alignment over performance, the preference for workforce homogeneity over workforce diversity all highlight how in today’s business world talent management systems are no friend to the older worker.
We already know the use of AI in recruitment decision-making has been shown to discriminate against the older worker. But to what extent do the AI algorithms reflect inbuilt organisation talent criteria to base their assessment on? Again, how often do we hear any questioning of the operation of talent policies and systems in the discrimination against older workers by anti-ageism advocates? Rarely, if ever. We maintain our view that the existence of talent management policies and practices remains one of the greatest obstacles to the rehabilitation of the older worker’s reputation and recognition of the true value of experience.
Happy to be Proved Wrong
We would love to be proved wrong. We encourage recruiters and HR professionals to contact us and help us understand if we are missing something in our view of talent management’s business role. We would appreciate understanding the extent to which ‘experience’ is prioritised as the most critical element in your recruitment decision-making.
In considering how robust our view might be we ask you reflect on the following questions:
How often is your Talent policy reviewed and what is the trigger for such review?
To what extent are factors other than ‘work experience’ important in determining your hiring of talent?
How many professional or managerial have you employed on a full-time basis in the past 2 years?
How many employees 50 years of age and over are formally recognised as high performer/high potential employees in your company?
How many employees 50 years and over have been promoted in the past 2 years?
How many employees 50 years of age and over are on your talent development programmes?
How many employees 50 years of age and over are identified as longer term replacements for your critical roles in career succession plans?
Some Final Comments
Dismantling the existing talent management regime will not be easy. Today’s recruiters, HR professionals and their bosses or mentors have developed their careers under the ‘talent’ is king thinking environment. Indeed, our research reveals that most HR professionals have internalised a ‘mental script’ reinforcing a specific meaning of ‘talent’. Letting this ‘script’ go is challenging. HR career success in part is contingent on successfully sourcing and developing ‘talent’ for the respective employing organisations. Recruiting businesses are also uncomfortable challenging the ‘talent’ status quo given the potential to upset existing client relationships or ongoing revenue generating activity. Thus, taking the lead to change existing thinking around ‘talent’ will be uncomfortable, risky but also courageous. Unfortunately, leadership courage is not currently in huge supply.
Yet we know the labour market is undergoing immense change as demographic and AI impacts influence labour supply. Recruiting strategies that have historically ‘worked’ for organisations may not be fit for purpose in the future. We count ‘talent management’ and its focus on exclusion and cultural compliance as a system requiring renewal.
McKinsey identifies organisations of the future will need to be more inclusive and diverse in their workplaces, emphasising the criticality of intergenerational connectivity to future business success. The World Economic Forum understands traditional recruitment methods will be require adaption as companies need to engage more mid- career and older skilled workers. Science is also revealing that older worker experience may become increasingly valuable in a fast moving and fragmented operating world, as older adults based on their life experiences are better able than younger ones to detect patterns in associations and more successfully predict future outcomes based on them. Existing thinking on ‘talent’ may become an increasing business risk the more the world changes.
We maintain experience gained through work and life matters represents a business dividend when effectively engaged. Experience should be celebrated not dismissed. Eliminating an emphasis on talking about ‘talent’ is more than a semantic exercise, but a practical exercise in rethinking the skills and capabilities organisations need to adapt to a fast-changing business environment. Older workers can play a vital role in contributing to sustainable business success. We, in the anti-ageism lobby, could be playing a stronger role in helping businesses understand the short-comings of their existing ‘talent’ thinking and assisting them in implementing more inclusive work practices that acknowledge the potential value of all people irrespective of age. Who’s up for the challenge?
Not sure how to get started? We can help you understand whether your existing talent approaches are possibly producing ageist outcomes and ways they can be adapted to establish age-inclusive outcomes that deliver improved performance. As a preliminary step we can also help you appreciate the business opportunities the emerging 50 years and over age group could represent and the questions your senior managers should be asking to take advantage of this change. It's a winning proposition for your organisation.
References
COTA: 2025 State of the Older Nation Report
Swailes, S. (2016). The cultural evolution of talent management: A memetic analysis. Human Resource Development Review, 15(3), 340-358.
Pfeffer, J. (2001). Fighting the war for talent is hazardous to your organization's health. Organizational Dynamics, 29(4), 248-259.
Rivera, L. N. (2012). Hiring as cultural matching: The case of elite Professional Service Firms. American Sociological Review, 77(6), 999-1022.
Hennekam, S., Peterson, J., Tahssain-Gay, L., & Dumazert, J.-P. (2019). Recruitment discrimination: how organizations use social power to circumvent laws and regulations. The International Journal of Human Resource Management.
Hessell, T (2021). ‘Talent and Age: How Do Human Resource Manager Meanings of Talent Influence Their Perceptions of Older Workers?’ PhD Thesis. University of Newcastle
Coleman, A. (2026). Why More Companies Are Recognizing the Benefits of Keeping Older Employees. Stanford Centre on Longevity
World Economic Forum. (2024). Longevity Economy Principles: The Foundation for a Financially Resilient Future Report.
McKinsey. (2026). The State of Organizations Report
Levitin, D. (2020). Successful Ageing: A Neuroscientist Explores the Power and Potential of Our Lives.
