Improving Working Lives - except for older workers?

Hi Anna,

I think this is both an age and gender problem. It still seem that women are ‘past it’ at an earlier age than men. Men in their late-50’s are employable; women less so.

Agreed, Teresa. Where women take time out of work for caring or hold their careers back during that period they're often hit with the 'double whammy' of being too old to fit into traditional career structures.
This is one of the things we have to change, isn't it, as we embrace both longer working lives and older workers.

Yes. At some point, the world of work drifted away from ‘experience’ towards ‘qualifications’. I know I’m generalising, but experience now seems to count for little and the bit-of-paper is king. I have met (and, unfortunately, employed) several who had bits-of-paper coming out of their ears, but once on the job just couldn’t relate academic learning to the real world. The older a person is the greater the experience, but also the less likely they are to have the latest bits-of-paper.

I suppose it’s the old problem of wanting to quantify the qualitative.

Yes. At some point, the world of work drifted away from ‘experience’ towards ‘qualifications’. I know I’m generalising, but experience now seems to count for little and the bit-of-paper is king. I have met (and, unfortunately, employed) several who had bits-of-paper coming out of their ears, but once on the job just couldn’t relate academic learning to the real world. The older a person is the greater the experience, but also the less likely they are to have the latest bits-of-paper.

I suppose it’s the old problem of wanting to quantify the qualitative.

The huge number of people who post about getting into HR and have CIPD 5/7 but no experience don’t seem to agree things have drifted that way ...

Hi Teresa

I've noticed you've posted a few disparaging comments about having a "bit of paper" as you term the CIPD's professional qualifications. I do feel that's a little insulting to those who have spent much of their personal time, and in many cases, a considerable amount of their own money to get qualified.

I am very much of the opinion that practical and relevant experience is often more desirable than a qualification on its own, and I have posted here about the worrying trend of badge collecting HR qualifications and expecting an HR Manager role to fall into place due to this. However if you are serious about HR, generally gaining experience and a professional qualification are both important. Especially if you are making a career change, employers may expect you to show commitment to this by undertaking the relevant academic study.

Hi Annabel,

I am most apologetic if I have insulted you in any way. That was not my intention at all and I am sorry. I though I had made it clear that my problem is with the employers - obviously I hadn't.

My comment about the 'bit of paper' was not aimed specifically at the CIPD's qualifications, but rather qualifications in general. Having done much in the way of formal education myself (from both sides of the fence) I know the time, effort, money, and sometimes personal costs involved in getting any 'bit of paper', from a GCSE to a PhD or from a fork lift truck licence to a Nobel prize. I would never disparage anyone for any personal development. I celebrate them.

When I started out in business (centuries ago...) paper qualifications were less common and employers looked for someone who had walked the streets of that job - who had worked up, who knew it inside-out, yes - who had experience. Now paper qualifications are extremely common. I've just done a bit of surfing on the .gov site and I'm amazed: in 1980 over 77k people in the UK got a first degree. In 2011 this was nearly 351k - an increase of 450% over a time span that saw the population rise by 11%. This makes life much easier for employers - yes, that is primarily the HR dept - as you can now quantify the qualitative. 

In the theme of this particular discussion forum thread this is important. We're talking here about older workers, those who probably  worked their way through the experience route rather than the qualification route. In this they are now at a disadvantage as not only are they competing against younger people but also the bit of paper - whatever type or level that may be. You cannot discount an old A over a young B because of age, but you can if A doesn't have a particular qualification but B does. This form of choice-supportive bias is probably (hopefully) unintentional, but the chance is there.

Personally, I have the experience but I also recognise that in order to quantify this I'll need the specific bit of paper, which is why I'm now doing my Level 5. Hopefully, at the end I will be both qualitativable (if that's a word) and quantifiable!