.
I'm torn on this one.
I deeply value experience, and invested time in learning.
But, as someone that was once young,
and often frustrated at the stupidity I saw in various roles,
I know that "age" is the wrong proxy-metric.
>>>
I'm torn on this one.
I deeply value experience, and invested time in learning.
But, as someone that was once young,
and often frustrated at the stupidity I saw in various roles,
I know that "age" is the wrong proxy-metric.
>>>
>>>
It's the inverse of "time served"
(another thing that always irritated me - the assumption that because someone has done the job for X years, they are good at it!).
Some people are smart, others sharp, others invested time/effort learning/research years ago.
>>>
It's the inverse of "time served"
(another thing that always irritated me - the assumption that because someone has done the job for X years, they are good at it!).
Some people are smart, others sharp, others invested time/effort learning/research years ago.
>>>
>>>
Some people may have passive experience (family business, spent lots of time soaking up insights from someone in that role etc.).
Others are able to transfer/adapt what they have,
and apply it sideways to something else.
>>>
Some people may have passive experience (family business, spent lots of time soaking up insights from someone in that role etc.).
Others are able to transfer/adapt what they have,
and apply it sideways to something else.
>>>
>>>
The one thing I think "age" does give though (in some cases)...
... is perspective/insight into that generation/culture.
So ... may be ... people shouldn't take "age" at face value (or the time in a position/role),
and instead, look a little deeper/wider?
The one thing I think "age" does give though (in some cases)...
... is perspective/insight into that generation/culture.
So ... may be ... people shouldn't take "age" at face value (or the time in a position/role),
and instead, look a little deeper/wider?
Loading suggestions...