Imagine opening a toolbox and deciding which tool to use based on how long each one has been there.

The newest must be the most innovative. The oldest must be nearing the end of its usefulness. The one that has been in the box for 30 years deserves respect because of its longevity, while the one purchased last year still has something to prove.

It sounds ridiculous. We choose the tool that fits the work.

Yet when it comes to people, we place enormous importance on age, tenure and years of experience. People at different stages of their careers encounter assumptions about what their age means.

Perhaps the answer to ageism is to shift the conversation toward contribution.

People are more than their usefulness. A person’s dignity is inherent. In the workplace, the question is how their abilities, knowledge and judgment can contribute, and whether they have the opportunity to do so.

Experience is not the same as value

One familiar argument against ageism is experience. People with long careers may bring institutional knowledge and lessons from economic cycles, organizational changes and leadership transitions.

All of that can be enormously valuable. Experience is something we accumulate. Its practical value comes from what we do with it.

Someone can have 30 years of experience and approach today’s problems using yesterday’s answers. Someone with five years of experience may possess extraordinary judgment, curiosity and insight.

The reverse can be equally true. A person with decades behind them may be learning and contributing at an extraordinary level, while someone younger may have stopped being curious.

Age does not tell us. Ageism substitutes an assumption about a group for an understanding of a person.

What contribution looks like

Contribution can take many forms: technical knowledge, creativity, problem-solving, emotional intelligence, relationships, adaptability or the courage to challenge an established practice.

It may be judgment developed through years of seeing patterns repeat.

It may be the person who knows why a system was designed the way it was. Or the person who asks why we still do it that way.

We need both.

When we consider what people can contribute, we have a better basis for understanding where their abilities fit.

From years served to contribution made

There is a responsibility here for each of us. It can be tempting to rely on experience as sufficient evidence of what we bring.

“I have 25 years of experience.” “I’ve seen this before.”

Perhaps you have. What does that experience allow you to contribute today?

Experience can become judgment, perspective, discernment, mentoring, pattern recognition or wisdom. We have to make that translation.

The same applies at every age. If you understand emerging technology, what can you do with that understanding? If you have been with a company for 20 years, what does your institutional knowledge make possible?

The conversation moves from what I have accumulated to what I can contribute.

A People First approach

Organizations have a responsibility too. Leaders must create opportunities for people to contribute. Capability can be overlooked when someone is excluded from meaningful assignments, development or decisions because of their age.

If we want workplaces where people can flourish throughout their working lives, we need to see individuals clearly and ask better questions.

What are they capable of? What have they learned? Are they still learning? Where do they fit? What problems can they solve? What perspective do they bring? How do they help others succeed? What could they contribute next?

These questions help us understand how experience strengthens contribution. They also allow younger people’s abilities to be taken seriously without waiting for an arbitrary number of years.

Age tells us how long someone has lived. Tenure tells us how long someone has been in a role or with an organization. Neither tells us what that person is capable of contributing.

Addressing ageism begins with seeing the person: their abilities, their contribution and their potential.

People First. Always.