Navigating the double whammy of a down market and ageism
The past two years have felt like an uphill battle — a constant cycle of applying for roles, navigating rejection, and questioning whether the job market values experience as much as it claims. Despite a track record of success and innovation, I’ve often encountered feedback that seemed less about my skills and more about my age.
For many professionals, a challenging employment market means sharpening skills by earning new certifications, staying current with industry trends, and expanding professional networks through targeted outreach and collaboration. It also means doubling down on efforts to stay competitive by demonstrating adaptability, mastering emerging tools, and consistently showcasing measurable results in their work. But when you’re over 40, like me, the hurdles multiply. It’s not just the economy; it’s ageism — a silent yet pervasive force — that adds weight to every rejection, every missed opportunity, and every moment I have to justify my worth to a world that seems unconvinced.
The trust I once had in traditional hiring processes has eroded. Over time, these processes have shifted, relying more on automated systems and generic screening criteria that often filter out experienced candidates. Additionally, an emphasis on “culture fit” and vague expectations can perpetuate age bias, sidelining seasoned professionals who bring depth and perspective to the table.
I can’t help wondering: Are decisions truly based on merit and skill, or are coded phrases like “culture fit” doing the heavy lifting for age bias? For instance, I once applied for a role that aligned perfectly with my skills and experience, only to be told that the team was looking for someone who would “grow with the company.” The implication was clear: my experience wasn’t seen as an asset but a liability, as if my readiness to contribute immediately was less valuable than perceived potential. When I receive a politely worded rejection, I question whether the choice was about ability or simply the assumption that a younger candidate might be more “dynamic” or “adaptable.” This suspicion has been fueled by the sheer number of instances in which my extensive experience — rather than being celebrated — feels like something I need to apologize for.
Yet if reason stands for anything, it should stand for the evaluation of evidence, and I have plenty of it. My professional history is documented, demonstrable, and verifiable. I have published widely read articles on FinOps and led content strategies that increased engagement by 30% across targeted campaigns.
My published articles, strategic content projects, and demonstrated aptitude with modern technologies like Hugo and Docusaurus aren’t just line items on a résumé; they are tangible proof that I’ve not only kept pace with technological progress, but also contributed meaningfully to it. If being current and capable were all that mattered, these achievements would speak for themselves.
But there’s more: my dyslexic thinking. Far from being a hindrance, it fosters a uniquely innovative viewpoint. Dyslexia often encourages unconventional problem-solving paths — ones that deliver fresh insights, creative solutions, and a storytelling approach that stands out in a saturated market.
For example, while leading a team tasked with overhauling a digital knowledge base, I applied my storytelling skills to restructure complex technical content into user-friendly narratives. This not only improved accessibility but also boosted user engagement by 25%, proving how a fresh perspective can create measurable impact across projects. Additionally, while working on a complex content strategy project, my ability to connect seemingly unrelated ideas led to a solution that streamlined messaging across multiple channels while maintaining brand consistency. This perspective allowed me to approach the task in a way that others hadn’t considered, ultimately exceeding the client’s expectations.
It’s an asset that should, logically, make me even more valuable. With age comes not inertia, but the fine-tuning of these traits into a formidable skill set that can see through complexity and communicate ideas more effectively to diverse audiences.
Reasoning through this situation, I reach a simple conclusion: The bias isn’t about ability or productivity — it’s about perception. My body of work and adaptive thinking style prove I am not only up to date but potentially better positioned than most to tackle evolving challenges. Ageism, if anything, ignores the evidence and resists the logic that I can still produce at a high level and solve problems from fresh angles.
I’ve been frustrated, yes, and at times even resentful. But I’m also certain that unwavering determination and the truth of my contributions will eventually cut through these biases.
After all, reason and evidence should guide hiring decisions more than age-based assumptions. Despite these challenges, I’ve proactively honed my skills by mastering new tools like Hugo and Docusaurus, expanded my network through targeted outreach to industry leaders, and consistently delivered impactful results, such as driving a 30% engagement increase in targeted campaigns.
This journey has reaffirmed my value. While the system may lag in its recognition, I’ll continue to build my path forward with resilience and innovation.
Will Kelly is a writer, marketer, and keen observer of the IT industry. Medium is home to his personal writing. He’s written for CIO, TechTarget, InfoWorld, and others. His career includes stints in technical writing, training, and marketing. Follow him on X: @willkelly.
