The under-40’s: They ain’t got nothin’ on us

The under-40 set doesn’t have a thing on the 40+ group when it comes to getting the job done. Of course, there is that odd under-40 that can do something pretty spectacular in their career but they are few and far between. (My friend’s daughter, Andrea, in her 20’s, is one of those whiz kids; she can sell ice to Eskimos – I know, cliché, but hey, as I write, it’s not even 8 am on a Saturday so give me a break.) Yet, have you noticed in job postings, typically under “Requirements” or “Qualifications”, at the very bottom of the ads, where a company requests: “Minimum 3-5 years experience”, “B.A./B.S. plus 1 year experience”, or, my personal favorite: “1 year of successful sales (or marketing, finance, etc., etc.) experience”? Do I get to pick the year?

I am beginning to wonder if these job postings are not shills planted by the government to assure the 14.5 million+ unemployed that there are jobs out there – it’s just that you’re not getting yours. Probably because you have 6 years of experience.

I did a little research on ROI (for the under-40, that means “return-on-investment”; not to worry, this info comes with experience) when companies hired “seasoned” workers as opposed to those who still need to ripen. An interesting study on the aging workforce comes from the University of Vermont School of Business Administration (wait a minute, isn’t that where there are a lot of under-30’s?) where they examined the Days Inn hotel chain and their hiring practices. The hotel chain realized a much greater ROI from hiring older workers, those over 40, versus younger workers. They found that older workers were more accurate in their work, demonstrated greater loyalty, and had lower absenteeism rates. In fact, and according to the study, the cost to recruit and train an older worker was only 35% of that spent on younger workers, $618 vs. $1,752. Now that’s not small potatoes.

Alright, so self-justification and a buck thirty (or four bucks) will get you a cup of coffee, as they say. So, what to do if you’re over 40 and trying to position yourself for a new or existing career and you have more than 3 years experience (or, one terribly successful year as some employers want)? Start talking math. That’s right. Companies want to know what you can do for them that is going to make them a whole lot o’ money. And I don’t care how much you hated math in school. A sure-fire way for employers to sit up and take notice is when a job candidate can justify, in dollars, why they should be hired over someone who can’t.

There ain’t nothin’ like experience.

Is it a skill or a competency?

Do you know the difference? When we think of people closing a sale, digging a great ditch, or generating concise financial reports, we may believe these activities demonstrate an individual’s competency when, in actuality, these activities demonstrate a skill. Skills are typically the things we tend to focus on when writing resumes or during interviews. We do this with the belief that hiring managers are more interested in what we can do (the skills we offer) within a narrow scope (a specific job) as opposed to what we are capable of doing (our competencies) across the organization. However, if you’re wondering which is more important, the answer is: Both.

If you are good at sales, is this because you demonstrate initiative and have strong leadership skills? Are you able to dig great ditches because you have a penchant for getting things done the right way? When preparing financial reports, are they concise because you are unwavering in your diligence? All of these represent competencies that can be transferred to other areas within an organization.

Especially now, when organizations are cutting staff or not hiring, in order to keep pace, companies may be more apt to look inward at existing employees who possess competencies needed to achieve goals. And, for those organizations looking to bring on new employees from the outside, candidates who are able to showcase skills and competencies can gain a leg up on their competition.

The Psychological Contract: The Tool to Find the Right Fit

When working as a business coach, one issue employees would raise was that they did not feel like they quite fit with the organization. It wasn’t that they lacked the skills to perform the job but that they frequently felt at odds with their manager, team members, or the corporate culture. They wondered how they, or their employers, could have missed that they were not a good “fit” during the interview stage. These were bright, articulate, and experienced individuals with successful track records at other organizations. In their current position, however, they were suddenly like fish out of water, trying to find ways to fit in. This is a dangerous proposition for organizations and employees as the more time and energy an employee spends in trying to adapt, the less likely they are to align their activities with corporate objectives.

Bring in the psychological contract. The psychological contract serves as the foundation for what an employee and employer can expect from their relationship outside of the job description or stated duties. While the actual contents of a psychological contract may differ from company to company, it is a tool employers can use before an employment agreement is made. It addresses areas such as management’s expectation for employees to work overtime, how employee family matters during work hours will be tolerated, or how organizational communication is conducted. The areas to be considered can be exhaustive.

You can read more about psychological contracts in an article I wrote at: http://www.bocaratonchamber.com/clientuploads/pdfs/november.pdf

A more in-depth examination of psychological contracts can be found at: http://www.cipd.co.uk/subjects/empreltns/psycntrct/psycontr.htm