Don't get worked up. We're not at the point of settling scores between generations yet. We're far too busy trying to keep our businesses afloat in a world where work changes faster than trends on TikTok. But perhaps it's time to ask a slightly uncomfortable question: what if the ‘risk’ associated with hiring a new employee is no longer where we think it is?
The question may seem surprising, but the employer's role is also to reduce risks before bringing a new employee into the company.
Let's simplify the context a little... For decades, the discourse around recruitment has emphasised youth as a guarantee of dynamism and profitability. It is synonymous with digital agility in an increasingly digitalised world, mobility, adaptability, and the promise of a long and fruitful future. For managers, it represented a kind of comprehensive insurance.
However, this trend is gradually reversing. Youth is no longer necessarily synonymous with health, availability and resilience. The search for meaning, psychological fragility and difficulty balancing private and professional life are all factors that contribute to worrying levels of absenteeism. Managers feel increasingly helpless in the face of this phenomenon.
The figures speak for themselves: according to recent data from Securex, sick leave is skyrocketing among 25-34 year olds. Between 2022 and 2024, medium-term absenteeism (one month to one year) jumped by 25%, and long-term absenteeism (more than one year) by more than 40%. This is unprecedented. Young people, long perceived as a guarantee of availability and resistance to stress, are now showing increased fragility: early burnout, existential quests, demands for work-life balance. For managers, this can sometimes be a real headache.
In this context, older employees are being seen in a new light. Long labelled as ‘inflexible’, “expensive” or ‘unadaptable’, they are now proving to be a quiet force and a valuable source of stability in an uncertain environment.
Of course, they are not immune to life's ups and downs, but their experience enables them to maintain a more stable and resilient working relationship. Their life experiences, the highs and lows, give them a rare ability: to stay the course even in times of crisis or uncertainty. For a company, isn't this a form of profitable pragmatism?
The daily lives of managers illustrate this reality: managing prolonged absences, redistributing tasks, avoiding team overload, and maintaining motivation. In this context, a senior employee who is able to pass on their expertise, stabilise processes, and act as a ‘backbone’ becomes a competitive asset. Loyalty, a resource that has become rare, takes on strategic value here.
Once implicit, almost natural, commitment now seems to be a rare resource. Young people do not reject it, but they do make it conditional. Conversely, senior employees continue to associate work with responsibility and continuity. Their stability, far from being rigidity, is akin to a valuable resilience for work collectives.
So, shouldn't commitment and loyalty – rather than age – be a key indicator for recruitment?
Of course, they are not immune to life's ups and downs, but their experience allows them to maintain a more stable and resilient working relationship. Their life experiences, the highs and lows, give them a rare ability: to stay the course even in times of crisis or uncertainty. For a company, isn't this a strength?
It is not a question of pitting one generation against another. Companies need all the energy and complementary profiles they can get. Together, they form an essential balance between boldness and experience, innovation and reliability. This intergenerational alliance, often underestimated, can become a real lever for collective performance.
Of course, not all seniors are pillars of wisdom, just as not all juniors are free spirits in search of meaning. The reality is much more nuanced. Age does not define motivation, commitment or adaptability. What matters is attitude, willingness to learn, curiosity and how each person fits into a team.
Systematically dismissing older people for fear of cost or lack of adaptability is not only ethically questionable, it is also a risky strategic gamble.
So, leaders, let's be cautious and take the risk of hiring differently!
Aurélie Vrebosch – Daoust Outplacement Manager
You may also be interested in this article: Assessment to retain talent