Ageism in corporate world : It’s a Goldilocks paradox

 Those of us who have been in the IT sector for any number of years have probably observed the Goldilocks paradox at work. According to the popular fairy tale, “Goldilocks and the Three Bears,” little Goldilocks tries the three bowls of porridge and sets aside the big bow as it is ‘too hot,’ the second as ‘too cold’ and eats the porridge from the third bowl that it thinks is ‘just right.’

Tech recruiters and hiring managers are like little Goldilocks, wanting their candidates neither too young, nor too old, just the right age. The media and analysts have been focused on the high turnover in IT sector, but a closer look shows how this Goldilocks paradox is playing out – the demand is highest for those with at least a few years’ experience in a specific technology, gradually tapering off for more experienced candidates who are likely to be higher paid, hitting a glass ceiling at the top.

One of the reasons for this is the cost to company (CTC) that candidates expect. Indian IT has evolved an archaic “Years of experience and salary” formula that recruiters seem to use, with an equally obtuse number of two-hundred thousand rupees for every year of experience. By this formula, a candidate with 10 years’ experience will be expected to draw two million in annual package, while the one with 7 years can expect only 1.4 million. Negotiating an exception can be a contentious and long-drawn affair.

Ageism at the bottom of the pyramid

Recruiters and their filtering software are quick to reject graduates with little or no experience, creating a vicious cycle – young techies unable to obtain relevant experience without the first job, while most entry level jobs require experience. A viral twitter post from Sebastián Ramírez (@tiangolo), the creator of FastAPI succinctly highlights this paradox

“I saw a job post the other day. It required 4+ years of experience in FastAPI. I couldn’t apply as I only have 1.5+ years of experience since I created that thing.”

I saw a job post the other day. 👔

It required 4+ years of experience in FastAPI. 🤦

I couldn't apply as I only have 1.5+ years of experience since I created that thing. 😅

Maybe it's time to re-evaluate that "years of experience = skill level". ♻

— Sebastián Ramírez (@tiangolo) July 11, 2020

The glass ceiling at the top

At the other end, the glass-ceiling for experienced (read older) tech workers is also equally pronounced. Most recruiters are unwilling to evaluate candidates with 15 or more years’ experience creating an implicit bias against older workers. Social forums like Quora, Reddit or even LinkedIn groups frequently debate the question over such ageism with a common theme: when is a person ‘too old’ to be hired at a tech company? Are folks in their forties or fifties considered ‘too old to hire’?

Having explored a job-change while in my forties after relocating back to India a few years ago, I am probably well-qualified to answer this question. My job-search was unique in another way – unlike many of my peers out to showcase their credentials in managing ‘large,’ teams, I was essentially selling my skills as an individual contributor, albeit one who could help organizations navigate a breath of technologies.

It took me a few months of serious networking, contacting hiring managers and recruiters before I began getting calls for interviews. The feedback was simple: my peers were all “IT Director” level folks who could showcase their project or team management skills; so, I had to emphasize my business partnering skills and the knowledge of a breadth of technical skills.

The way forward – get over the conscious bias

The IT industry is maturing, especially in India, where there are over 5 million people in the IT–BPM sector. The average age of professionals has steadily been increasing over the years. By some accounts the average Indian techie is between 27 and 30 years old, which also happens to be the sweet spot where the industry is seeing a hiring frenzy.

It is time for hiring managers and recruiters to set aside their blinders and look beyond the Goldilocks paradox. Doing so will not only ease the pressure on hiring; but casting a wider net for talent will also drive a more inclusive and diverse work environment.

Originally published in  Express Computers 

What do Parag Agrawal, Satya Nadella and Sundar Pichai have in common? They were Enterprise Architects before they became CEOs

  The announcement about Indian born tech executive Parag Agrawal taking charge as the CEO of Twitter generated a considerable buzz, with the media and digerati examining various aspects of his background. Agrawal’s Indian heritage got considerable media attention, and so did his stellar academic pedigree.

Agrawal joins the list of Indian-born CEOs at global tech giants like Satya Nadella and Sundar Pichai whose ascent to the top is in large part attributable to their experience gained in architecting their enterprise’s transformation. In a sense they were Enterprise Architects with a strong business acumen who took on larger business leadership roles.

I’ve been practicing the art and craft of Enterprise Architecture (EA) for over a decade and see a distinct pattern at these tech companies that have nurtured tech talent into executive roles. EA is a conceptual blueprint that defines the structure and operation of an organization. A well-defined EA blueprint should determine how an organization can effectively achieve its current and future objectives aligned with its corporate strategy.

Case in point: Architecting the enterprise strategy

Sundar Pichai joined Google in 2004, where he led the product management and innovation efforts for a suite of Google’s client software products, including Google Chrome and Chrome OS and Google Drive. As Google’s Product Chief, he went on to oversee the development of other applications such as Gmail and Google Maps. After leading a series of highly visible transformations, Pichai was selected to become the CEO of Google, and its parent company Alphabet.

Microsoft’s CEO, Satya Nadella rose to the top after he successfully pivoted the company to the cloud era. Nadella is credited with bringing Microsoft’s database, Windows Server and developer tools to its Azure cloud, which has become the mainstay for public cloud adoption at global companies. Under Nadella, the revenue from Cloud Services grew from $16.6 billion when he took over in 2011 to over $20.3 billion before he was elevated to be the CEO of the Redmond tech giant. The transformation and the business insights Nadella gained help Microsoft stay relevant as the world was moving toward the cloud.

A similar pattern can be observed at Twitter where Parag Agrawal is credited with leveraging is his strengths in data and analytics to influence engineers. During the 10-year stint at the social media giant, Agrawal built strong relationships across the organization and lead the re-architecture of the technical infrastructure that had been cobbled together to keep pace with Twitter’s stratospheric growth. His background in transforming the core architecture, coupled with relationships built across business positioned Agrawal to take on the top-job after the founder-CEO Jack Dorsey called it quits.

Distinct pattern

The pattern here seems distinct at tech companies where product-engineering and fast paced solution development drives the business. The business is closely interwoven with software development, and those with an ability to comprehend the complexity while also scanning the external landscape seem to excel.

In the online forums and Q&A sites where I am active, technologists muse about the career path towards Enterprise Architecture and beyond. While many techies and EAs spend their careers shaping strategies for business units, a few in technology companies are taking on broader roles shaping the course of their enterprise.

Originally published in  Express Computers