Why are the most qualified people being ignored?

WHY ARE THE MOST QUALIFIED PEOPLE BEING IGNORED? COULD IT BE AGEISM?

Let’s talk about ageism, not in a dusty HR manual kind of way, but in the real world, where it’s creeping into conversations, interviews, and decisions at an alarming rate.

I’ve noticed a growing trend:

- Say something based on experience? You’re “out of touch.”

- Raise a caution? You’re “stuck in the past.”

- Suggest a better way? You’re “not embracing change”

In fact, these days, it seems that being over 40 is practically considered a red flag in some companies. Yes, 40 …not 60, not 70… forty. That’s just about the age your frontal lobe finishes developing, isn’t it?

The younger generations (and I say this with affection… mostly) are all for inclusion, until it comes to age. Then, weirdly, they become quite comfortable with a flippant derogatory remark.

This bizarre logic seems to suggest:

- More years = less relevant

- Grey hair = grey matter failure

- Experience = resistance to change

But here’s the thing: some of the best professionals I know are in their 40s, 50s, 60s and beyond. They’ve been there, done that, fixed it, broke it, and rebuilt it better. They don’t need to “pivot fast” because they already know what works.

So, my questions are:

- When did age become a liability, not an asset?

- Why are we ignoring people with the exact experience companies need?

- And how do we turn this around—before businesses lose out on their strongest candidates?

Let’s not forget—experience doesn’t make you outdated. It makes you informed.

And a good idea doesn’t have an expiry date.

Thoughts? (Especially from those over 40, some of whom will be surprised that I have included them)