I have a hypothesis (based on personal experience) that this observation of concurrent fire / hire is an effective means to shed the expensive 50+ age group (current Gen X‘ers) and replace with newer, lower paid staff.
I have to be honest that I've seen a lot of this myself. It did not hit me personally in a blunt force manner, but I did feel myself occasionally throttled while younger candidates were accelerated. In one case, I was seconded to London (which to be fair turned out to be a superb experience I am grateful for) instead of being given an interim site-level role, which I was told would remain vacant due to company policy. No sooner I moved, the policy was waived so a candidate half my age could take the interim role. I felt the subtle presence of a pretext in that instance but chose to set it aside. Looking back, maybe it was a fight worth picking.
I know many others both personally and professionally who feel the same.
I have a hypothesis (based on personal experience) that this observation of concurrent fire / hire is an effective means to shed the expensive 50+ age group (current Gen X‘ers) and replace with newer, lower paid staff.
I have to be honest that I've seen a lot of this myself. It did not hit me personally in a blunt force manner, but I did feel myself occasionally throttled while younger candidates were accelerated. In one case, I was seconded to London (which to be fair turned out to be a superb experience I am grateful for) instead of being given an interim site-level role, which I was told would remain vacant due to company policy. No sooner I moved, the policy was waived so a candidate half my age could take the interim role. I felt the subtle presence of a pretext in that instance but chose to set it aside. Looking back, maybe it was a fight worth picking.
I know many others both personally and professionally who feel the same.
Superbly written and agree with every word.