For some reason that I don’t completely get, a little gray hair and a smattering of experience in different technologies can create a beneficial bias for companies when they are renting brains instead of buying them outright. It may have something to do with the tendency for consultants to be vetted from higher up in the management chain where the silver foxes live.
I can explain this. It's a very old idea. The truth about the young hires is that they're cheap and the work they do isn't very important, but they're hired based on the potential to rise a level or few.
From an executive perspective, you don't hire juniors for the work they'll do, because it's usually not of high impact of value. You hire based on the probability that they'll be high-impact employees later. It's impossible to predict this at the individual level, so you're building a portfolio.
Of course, in 2015, the one-company-for-life model is pretty much dead and most people who get executive positions get them by job hopping at the first sign of an obstacle. Likewise, companies invest very little in their junior employees and tend to hire top-level talent from outside. So the biases from the old days don't really make sense.
If someone's 40 and still a junior or mid-level engineer, the assumption is that he's "too old" to become a high-impact employee in 5 years. It's completely ridiculous, these days. He could have been doing something else, like trying to make it as a novelist or working in a dive shop. It's a hold-over from the employment-for-life, gold-watch era.
For the consultant, he's not selling himself on some hazy "future potential" factor, so no one cares how old he is or (more relevantly) how old he'll be in 10 years.
Very few people actually think that young, junior programmers are more skilled or better at their jobs than the 50+ badasses. The issue is that the young juniors come with a 5% chance of being a high-impact, executive-level employee in 10 years. Since the people making big decisions are executives who tend to discount the importance of everyone but executives, this still matters... even though the one-company-for-life model is pretty much dead.
I can explain this. It's a very old idea. The truth about the young hires is that they're cheap and the work they do isn't very important, but they're hired based on the potential to rise a level or few.
From an executive perspective, you don't hire juniors for the work they'll do, because it's usually not of high impact of value. You hire based on the probability that they'll be high-impact employees later. It's impossible to predict this at the individual level, so you're building a portfolio.
Of course, in 2015, the one-company-for-life model is pretty much dead and most people who get executive positions get them by job hopping at the first sign of an obstacle. Likewise, companies invest very little in their junior employees and tend to hire top-level talent from outside. So the biases from the old days don't really make sense.
If someone's 40 and still a junior or mid-level engineer, the assumption is that he's "too old" to become a high-impact employee in 5 years. It's completely ridiculous, these days. He could have been doing something else, like trying to make it as a novelist or working in a dive shop. It's a hold-over from the employment-for-life, gold-watch era.
For the consultant, he's not selling himself on some hazy "future potential" factor, so no one cares how old he is or (more relevantly) how old he'll be in 10 years.
Very few people actually think that young, junior programmers are more skilled or better at their jobs than the 50+ badasses. The issue is that the young juniors come with a 5% chance of being a high-impact, executive-level employee in 10 years. Since the people making big decisions are executives who tend to discount the importance of everyone but executives, this still matters... even though the one-company-for-life model is pretty much dead.