It’s very easy to rule out the recruitment of good staff based on their age.
Young candidates are often not considered due to the idea of them being inexperienced. We all know that we had to start to learn our trade at some point and it is a fact that younger staff can bring vibrancy and enthusiasm to their roles and invigorate your staff base.
The flip side of this is the older candidates; after reaching the age of 55/ 60/ 65 these candidates can be sometimes be overlooked due to employers’ fears that they may not stay in their role with the company very long, possibly deciding to retire after a few years.
The fact is that both these groups have valuable skills to offer. The younger candidates bring a fresh approach and open minds. Older candidates bring a wealth of experience, proven new ideas, a reassuring track record. Both groups bring a new energy to your team.
With the government increasing retirement ages, it’s never been more true that a candidate at the age of 60 cannot be considered to be ‘over the hill’. If you are thinking along these lines, think again. Are you really going to let your competitors recruit your perfect staff member to boost their business (and profits) simply because you were biased?
A candidate at the age of 60 still has at least 8 years to dedicate to your business and, when you consider that staff between the ages of 16 & 36 historically only stay in one job for an average of 4 years & 4 months, why would you rule out taking advantage of all that experience?