During the recent IESF Regional Meeting in Budapest, members were invited to reflect on a topic that remains highly relevant, yet still too often overlooked in executive search: ageism in executive careers. In her guest session, Andrea Juhos, HR expert, explored how age-related assumptions continue to shape hiring decisions at the senior level, often in subtle and indirect ways.
Her contribution challenged participants to consider their own practice more critically. How often do candidates over 55 reach the final shortlist? And when they do not, what is actually driving that outcome? Is it the market, the client brief, the board’s expectations, or the interpretation of those factors along the way?
Ageism in Executive Search: Often Implicit, Rarely Harmless
Ageism is seldom explicit, but that does not make it any less influential. As defined by the World Health Organization, it refers to stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination directed at others based on age. In executive recruitment, it is often embedded in assumptions and language that appear neutral on the surface.
Terms such as “dynamic leader,” “digital mindset,” or “long runway” may sound harmless, yet they can function as coded signals that narrow the field before a candidate is assessed on actual capability. In that sense, ageism is not always visible in formal criteria, but it can still shape outcomes in very concrete ways.
This is particularly striking when viewed against broader demographic and professional realities. People are living longer, retirement ages are rising, and executive careers increasingly extend into later stages of life. Yet senior candidates continue to receive fewer calls from headhunters and often face longer search processes, despite the fact that organizations frequently say they value experience, sound judgment, and tested leadership.
The Responsibility of Executive Search Professionals
One of the strongest themes in Andrea Juhos’ session was the role of executive search professionals as active interpreters of the market. They do not merely respond to demand. They influence outcomes through the way they take briefs, define selection criteria, construct longlists and shortlists, and introduce candidates to boards.
This places real responsibility on the profession. A more age-inclusive approach does not require lowering standards. It requires sharpening them. Instead of relying on broad and potentially biased descriptors, the focus should move toward specific leadership capabilities and demonstrable value.
Andrea highlighted three particularly relevant shifts in this process:
- First, coded language in briefs should be questioned rather than accepted at face value. When a client asks for someone “dynamic” or “future-oriented,” the more useful question is what concrete capabilities, behaviors, or experiences they are actually seeking.
- Second, candidates should be assessed on criteria such as experience, curiosity, learning ability, resilience, and energy level, irrespective of age.
- Third, experienced candidates should be positioned not simply as “senior,” but as leaders who have navigated transformations, managed complexity, and led through crisis.
Experience, Adaptability, and Leadership in the Age of AI
Another compelling dimension of the session was the connection between age, leadership, and the increasing role of AI. Andrea Juhos noted that in a business environment shaped by technological acceleration, experience and soft skills may become even more important competitive advantages, provided organizations are willing to recognize them.
This point is especially relevant in executive search. AI will undoubtedly change how work is organized and how decisions are supported, but it does not eliminate the need for judgment, adaptability, relational intelligence, and perspective. More likely, the advantage will lie with leaders who can work effectively with AI while also bringing the maturity and contextual understanding that technology alone cannot replace.
That makes one assumption increasingly difficult to defend: the idea that age is somehow the opposite of agility. In reality, age tells us very little on its own. The more meaningful question is whether a leader continues to learn, remains curious, and can respond effectively to change.
Beyond Assumptions: Reframing Age as Value
The closing message of the session was both simple and important. Age should not be used as a shortcut in evaluating executive potential. It is an incomplete proxy, and often a misleading one.
As Andrea Juhos remarked in a memorable closing line, age may matter when it comes to wine and cheese, but not when assessing leadership potential. Behind the humor sits a serious point. In executive careers, what matters is not age itself, but the depth of experience, the capacity to adapt, and the ability to lead through complexity.
For executive search professionals, this is a timely reminder. If the profession is serious about identifying the best leadership for today’s challenges, it must be equally serious about questioning the assumptions that may prevent that talent from being seen in the first place.