As Global Head of Research & Leadership Advisory at JRG Partners, this is one of the questions employers bring me most often, and my answer has been sharpened by seeing what separates the searches that succeed from the ones that don’t. Age is the bias employers exercise most casually and examine least, dressing up assumptions about older or younger candidates as legitimate concerns about energy or runway. Assessing energy, drive, and expected tenure is legitimate; using age as a proxy for them is bias, and the two must be carefully separated, because the qualities employers worry about are assessable directly, without the discrimination that age-based assumptions carry.
Key Takeaways
- Age bias is common in executive hiring and often disguised as legitimate concern.
- Assessing energy, drive, and expected tenure directly is legitimate.
- Using age as a proxy for these qualities is bias, and often illegal.
- The qualities employers worry about vary by individual, not by age.
- Separating direct assessment from age-based assumption is essential and fair.
The Disguised Bias
Age bias is pervasive in executive hiring, and it is often disguised as legitimate concern: worries about an older candidate’s energy or remaining runway, or a younger candidate’s readiness, that are really assumptions based on age. This disguise makes age bias feel reasonable, an employer is not being prejudiced, merely concerned about energy or tenure, when in fact they are using age as a proxy for qualities that should be assessed directly. Recognizing the disguise, that age-based assumptions masquerade as legitimate concerns, is the first step to avoiding the bias.
What Is Legitimate to Assess
It is legitimate to assess the qualities employers actually care about: a candidate’s energy and drive, their expected tenure and commitment, and their readiness for the role. These are real, role-relevant considerations, and assessing them directly, through evidence of the individual candidate’s energy, drive, and plans, is fair and appropriate. The problem is not caring about these qualities; it is using age to infer them. Assessing energy, drive, and expected tenure directly, on the individual, is both legitimate and more accurate than age-based assumption.
Why Age Is a Bad Proxy
Age is a poor proxy for the qualities employers worry about, because these vary enormously by individual, not by age. Older candidates can have abundant energy, drive, and years of intended contribution; younger candidates can lack drive or readiness. Using age to infer energy, runway, or readiness is not just biased and often illegal; it is inaccurate, because the correlation between age and these qualities is weak and swamped by individual variation. The individual candidate’s actual qualities, not their age, are what matter and what should be assessed.
The Legal and Ethical Line
Beyond inaccuracy, using age as a factor in executive hiring crosses legal and ethical lines: age discrimination is unlawful, and using age-based assumptions to disadvantage candidates exposes the company to legal risk and is unfair. The line is clear: assessing role-relevant qualities directly, on the individual, is legitimate; using age as a proxy or factor is discrimination. Staying on the right side, assessing the qualities directly while excluding age from the judgment, keeps the assessment both fair and legally sound, and avoids the discrimination that age-based assumptions constitute.
Assessing Directly, Not by Age
The discipline is to assess directly the qualities that matter, energy, drive, expected tenure, readiness, on evidence of the individual candidate, while deliberately excluding age from the judgment. This captures the legitimate concerns accurately and fairly, without the bias and legal risk of age-based assumption. Employers who assess these qualities directly hire based on who the individual actually is; those who use age as a proxy discriminate, inaccurately and unlawfully, against candidates whose actual qualities they never assessed. Separating direct assessment from age-based assumption is the fair and accurate approach.
What This Looks Like in Practice
In practice, assessing candidates fairly on age-adjacent concerns means evaluating the actual qualities that matter, energy, drive, expected tenure and commitment, readiness, directly, on evidence of the individual candidate, while deliberately excluding age from the judgment. The employer probes the individual’s genuine energy, plans, and readiness rather than inferring them from age. This captures the legitimate concerns accurately and fairly, hiring based on who the candidate actually is, and avoids the inaccuracy, bias, and legal risk of using age as a proxy for qualities that vary by individual.
The Mistake Employers Keep Making
The mistake is using age as a proxy for energy, runway, or readiness, disguising age-based assumptions as legitimate concerns, which is inaccurate (these qualities vary by individual, not age), biased, and often illegal. The fix is to assess the qualities employers actually care about directly, on evidence of the individual candidate, while excluding age from the judgment, capturing the legitimate concerns fairly and accurately without the discrimination age-based assumptions carry.
The Bottom Line
Assessing a candidate’s energy, drive, and expected tenure directly is legitimate, but using age as a proxy for them is bias, inaccurate because these qualities vary by individual, and often illegal, so employers must separate direct assessment of the individual’s actual qualities from age-based assumption. Do this well and the results compound: better hires, stronger reputation in the market, and a leadership team that raises the ceiling on everything else the company attempts.
Related Reading
For employers going deeper, see The Overqualified Objection, Recruiting Retired Executives Back Into Leadership, How to Interview for Coachability in Senior Leaders.
Frequently Asked Questions
- Q: Is it legal to consider a candidate’s age?
- A: No; age discrimination is unlawful, and using age as a factor or proxy in hiring exposes the company to legal risk and is unfair.
- Q: What can you legitimately assess?
- A: The qualities employers actually care about, energy, drive, expected tenure and commitment, and readiness, directly, on evidence of the individual candidate.
- Q: Why is age a bad proxy for energy or runway?
- A: Because these qualities vary enormously by individual, not by age; older candidates can have abundant energy and drive, and younger ones can lack them.
- Q: How do you avoid age bias while assessing concerns?
- A: By assessing the actual qualities directly, on the individual, while deliberately excluding age from the judgment.
- Q: Is disguising age bias as ‘concern about energy’ still bias?
- A: Yes; age-based assumptions dressed up as legitimate concerns are still bias, inaccurate and often illegal, unless the qualities are assessed directly on the individual.
![](https://www.jrgpartners.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/tanya-gallardo.jpeg")
Tanya Gallardo
Managing Director, Executive Search & AI Talent Strategy
Tanya Gallardo is the Managing Director of Executive Search & AI Talent Strategy at JRG Partners, leading C-suite and Board engagements across key growth sectors including Technology, Financial Services, and Manufacturing.
With over 18 years of experience specializing in disruptive technology leadership, Tanya is recognized as a leading authority on talent architecture for future-focused executive roles, such as the Chief AI Officer (CAIO) and Chief Digital Officer (CDO). Her expertise lies in accurately assessing the cultural fit and technical depth required to ensure a high return on investment (ROI) for critical leadership appointments.
Prior to her role at JRG Partners, Tanya held senior roles directing global talent acquisition strategies at a major publicly-traded technology firm, advising on organizational design and succession planning for emerging executive functions. She is a recognized speaker and contributor to industry events, sharing data-driven insights on executive compensation, leadership development, and the measurable business impact of C-suite talent.
