In Episode 4 of Season 2, Maureen Farmer discusses a hot topic that’s been bubbling up among leaders who are struggling with a career transition.
When a deal stalls, a job offer is not extended, or when the executive recruiter ghosts you, there is a common refrain: Is it my age? Maureen dispels the myth that gets in the way of many high-performing business leaders who are in transition—after they’ve sold a business, in between corporate roles, or seeking board mandates.
1:26 – The Ageism Myth
1:58 – The Belief
2:47 – Signal Mismatch
3:30 – Overqualified Misalignment
4:10 – Between Roles
4:15 – Interpreting Silence
5:15 – Professional Networks
5:28 – High Performing Leaders
5:50 – Role Altitude
6:22 – Reframe
7:02 – Realignment
Transcript
Maddie: Welcome to the Get Hired Up! podcast. I am Maddie Shears, the podcast producer and this time I am your host as well. I’m very pleased to introduce Episode 4 os season 2. A hot topic that’s been bubbling up over the last decade or so among leaders who are struggling with a career transition.
When a deal stalls, a job offer is not extended, or when the executive recruiter ghosts you, there is a common refrain: Is it my age? Maureen Farmer, is our guest today as she dispels the myth that gets in the way of many high-performing business leaders who are in transition—after they’ve sold a business, in between corporate roles, or seeking board mandates.
We hope you enjoy this short episode. Please take a moment to rate us and provide a positive review because we’re here to help you Get Hired Up!
Maureen: I want to talk about a conclusion that many senior leaders reach during transition, and why I believe it is usually wrong. For more than a decade, I’ve advised CEOs, board candidates, and business owners through leadership transitions, across industries, across geographies, across cycles. And there is one explanation I hear repeatedly when opportunities stall. That explanation is ageism. It’s a compelling explanation, it’s emotionally satisfying, and most of the time, it’s strategically incorrect. Here is the belief. Experienced leaders, often over 50, believe their age is preventing access to board roles, C -suite opportunities, advisory or interim roles, and meaningful next chapters.
They believe that doors are closing, not because of capability, but because of their date of birth. I understand why this belief forms when you’ve led businesses, managed billions in P &L, created employment, and delivered results, rejection makes no intuitive sense. So the explanation becomes, it must be my age. But in business, the most obvious explanation is rarely the correct one. Ageism, as it’s commonly described in senior leadership transitions, is not the root problem. What executives experience often is ageism is more accurately a misread business decision, a signal mismatch, or a loss of relevance in the right decision -making networks. This is not about fairness. It’s about how decisions get made in business. Overqualified does not mean qualified. Let me give you a simple example. Imagine a community credit union hiring entry -level tellers. The goal is long -term development early career talent, upward mobility, and cultural continuity for the organization.
Now imagine that a retired CFO applies for that role. That CFO is not invited to interview. From the CFO’s perspective, it feels like ageism. From the organization’s perspective, it’s not bias, it’s context. Overqualified does not mean especially qualified. In business, overqualified means misaligned. Hiring is not about honoring experience. It’s about solving a specific problem at a specific altitude. When the altitude is wrong, the decision is rational. even if it feels personal. Who is most likely to experience ageism? Here’s a pattern worth noticing. The leaders most preoccupied with ageism are almost always between roles, recently exited, or in an unplanned transition. Not leaders fully embedded in active decision networks. Not leaders with current mandates. Transition creates silence. Silence invites interpretation, and ageism becomes the explanation. But silence in business rarely equals rejection. Most often it signals loss of immediacy. What the real issue is relevance decay.
Here is what I see consistently. When senior leaders leave an operating role, they often leave their networks with it. Within nine to 12 months, invitations slow, inbound requests decline, and relevance quietly decays. This is not about age. It’s about positioning and proximity. Relevance is not permanent. It must be actively governed, especially during transition. Many executives underestimate how quickly the market recalibrates once the role ends. Here’s an example. I once worked with a 74 -year -old operating executive in logistics. He believed he was too old to win new mandates. When we assessed his value proposition, it was pretty clear. His expertise was current, his results were still relevant, and his impact was undeniable. This issue was an age. He had simply exhausted his immediate network. Within months, he secured a new international contract. Same capability, same person, different framing. Why high performers misdiagnose this?
Here’s the uncomfortable part. High performers are especially prone to misdiagnosing this problem. Why?
Past success creates inertia. Identity lags market reality. Experience becomes assumed rather than articulated. What once spoke for you no longer does. The market hasn’t rejected you. It just no longer knows how to place you. Role altitude matters. Another recurring pattern. Senior leaders often apply downward. SVPs applying for VP roles, former presidents applying for director roles, CEOs seeking operational employment instead of advisory authority. They get interviews, they don’t get offers. That’s not ageism. That is risk assessment. Organizations hesitate to hire overqualified leaders into roles that constrain them. The market is signaling your value belongs at a different altitude. Here is the reframe. The question is not, am I being discriminated against? The question is, what signal am I sending and to whom? This is not a job search problem. It’s a governance problem. Leaders who remain relevant shift from operator to advisor, execution to judgment, control to influence. Those who don’t, stall.
Conclusion. Let me be clear. Age is not what stops capable leaders. Misdiagnosis does. When an executive mistakes relevance decay for bias, they pursue the wrong roles. They waste time and confidence. They undermine their own positioning. The market is not judging your age. It is assessing alignment. And alignment, unlike age, is fully within your control.