Nothing for Microsoft. Microsoft managers, and really any manager, see older people as threats to their power/jobs. They did not get into the business because they want to make successful products and technology that makes everyone happy. Management is the business of controlling people for a paycheck, and nothing more. Obviously the type of people who get into that kind of business are not the kind that give a shit about replacing workers for their own benefit at the expense of the company.

I must be lucky because in 25+ years I have worked for only one manager like that, during my (brief, and regretted) foray into sales. Every other manager I've had has been interested in building things and enabling his employees to do great things.

My point is just that if you have a manager like you describe, leave. You don't have to with that; there are better options out there.

Agreed, in fact at our company it's the opposite: engineers mostly don't want to manage, and director level managers keep trying to push us into the positions. For the managers we do have we are mostly thankful that someone is willing to do that thankless job and sacrifice their coding time :-)

I think this is one of the reasons why michaelochurch advocated open allocation.

Probably most are not high performing? They are expensive, often slower (or at least perceived as slower), get ill more and don't work as many hours as younger employees. In a lot of jobs, you really want to have your things in order when you hit 40 as when you get fired there is not a lot of room for you anymore. Those are usually the jobs people over that age will be pushed out. As I am that age, I know too many people between 40-50 who get fired and that's it; they will not get hired anywhere else. Once 'successful' (if they really were they wouldn't get fired or at least find other jobs easily, so successful for a definition of double average income (I'm not sure that goes for the US; triple/quadruple whatever could apply, in NL we have a word for it) for instance), now unemployed with 25-30 years to go before (meagre) pension.

That's pretty terrifying. I'm 5 years out of college, mainly "progressed" sideways and realised I'm only 12 years from 40. The previous 5 went so quick. There's no way I can retire at 40, or 45. Damn.

I'll be 40 next year, and this is indeed scary. I feel like only in the last couple of years I've become good as an engineer, and I'm still learning and evolving. I think I'm considered a high performer where I work. To think that in a couple of years I'll be unemployable makes no sense to me.

I'm working hard at not being left behind in terms of new technologies, and doing more managerial/architect style roles in recent years. I think people don't realize how young 40 is today, and more so how quickly it comes around the corner. You're 12 years from 40 and I assure you these 12 years will pass about as quickly as the previous ~5 years. I'm less than 10 years from a 20-something and already an "old guy"! bah.

I don't think age as a numerical thing is the issue here. The problem is probably more related to people that stopped learning / being interested in new stuff when they landed a stable job. So they've been using the same skill base for a long time, and suddenly they realize they are obsolete.

Sure they may have grown their skills inside that particular silo, and that is worth something, but maybe outside the whole world has taken a different direction.

Never forget that the cool tech you're learning now will be out of fashion in a few years, and completely obsolete a few years more down the road (replace years by months for any JS framework out here :p).

This also creates a bias against older engineers. People assume that since they meet a lot of "dinosaurs" (in terms of technology) out there, 40+ engineers will probably be dinosaurs as well.

Also, there's some unspoken assumption, that if you're 40 or even 50 and "still" an engineer, something is wrong with you - you should have been a CTO or something years ago, so you either have bad personal skills or are untalented, kept for some Job-Security-Tech you know.

The sad thing BTW is that this attitude is a self fulfilling prophecy, causing talented engineers to push up the ladder and become bad managers, or go into marketing/sales/etc. Even if they're not bad at it, we are losing great engineers due to that, who were just scared to remain engineers.

BTW to me personally tech is a second career, although I've been programming since I was a child, my first career was in journalism, and later web content and product management. I've only started working professionally as an engineer at 29.

Your line of thought relies very strongly on the assumption that the skills of software engineers are tied to the particular language or framework they are using. Surely that's just complete nonsense?

> the skills of software engineers are tied to the particular language or framework they are using

Well, not all of them of course, but yes, knowledge of a particular language matters.

For example:

a) idiomatic code in a given language is easier to maintain, a programmer who doesn't know this language won't write idiomatic code for awhile

b) lack of knowledge of available libraries may result in reinventing them poorly, leading to NIH syndrome, which is bad for maintainability... and just bad in general

c) std lib of a language is a special case here: without having memorized what it has to offer you're going to work many times slower due to having to google all the time

and so on.

You can either know a lot of languages and technologies and bet your career on ability to learn new things very quickly, or you can be content with one language and become a master in using it. In the latter case much of your skills do become tied to the language and particular technology, so just be sure to pick one which is not going to stop being popular in a year.

Well, I wasn't thinking of specific skills for a given language/framework, but maybe more how those frameworks help you evolve along with the tech landscape.

I started my career around 15 years ago, working on a complex server system written in C++. The important skills back then were all about managing concurrency using mutexes, RW locks, events, and so forth.

Fast forward to now (with lots going on in between), and I find myself working again on server software, but this time the approach is much different: now for dealing with concurrency I'm relying on immutable state, and using Futures or actor systems to coordinate parallel work. It's been years since I've had problems with a deadlock.

Bottom line, it's true that a good programmer doesn't care about language or framework, since he can pick those up pretty fast anyway. But it's a skill that needs practising, and I've seen people neglect this and then regret it later.

Whether it's true or not, that's how employers choose employees.

Just make sure you don't become one of those roles then :) Keep learning, show you have a lot to offer, PR/Market yourself, be vocal, get really good at something scarce, be it in tech or management (or...). I can get a job anywhere I would if I wanted, not because i'm so good or to brag (I'm an average programmer for the most part, I just really like it and i'm practical; I get stuff done), but I learned enough on the business side (management as CEO/CTO), tech side, human networking side (I have a lot of contacts who trust me enough to give me a chance when I require it) and marketing side to be perceived as valuable to a lot of medium to large sized companies. Then again; I like working (long hours; I forget time when coding and I don't care about that happening) and I like learning a lot.

Anecdotal; I know two engineers, one over 55 and one over 60; the first one is an expert at lower powered embedded hardware & software of the tiny kind (think smart credit cards, complex dime sized sensors); he gets flown in all over the world to help out for insane amounts. Chinese companies hire him to make more robust stuff. The other one is an expert at Fortran/Cobol/mainframe OS crisis management; whenever a bank anywhere has a very serious issue, he gets flown in to fix it. Again at rates high enough to only need one gig per few years.

Basically: work harder/longer to prove you're younger because youth is the illusion we're all trying to maintain?

Yes,terrifying~!

Older employees are obviously more likely to have families which they will always priotorise ahead than work.

Given that the IT industry is notorious for long hours and impromptu overtime it's easier to see why they might be prefer younger employees.

Hmm I'm not sure I agree with that. From my experience the period where family is most likely to be a problem with a demanding job is when kids are very young. The short nights, demanding daycare schedules, having to clean them, feed them, and provide a mostly continuous watch, etc. It's pretty gruesome. If I look around me this tend to happen around 28-30 years old.

Of course family remains #1 priority afterwards, but there is enough flexibility to go along with a demanding job (provided you like said job).

I've been working remotely for the larger part of may "young father years" so I guess this helped a lot, too.

Where I have lived, the age of getting children has been getting higher and higher. It's not unusual for couples to have their firstborn in their mid-30's.

And yes: family does come first.

I've been in interviews where they made it so obvious they didn't want anyone with any commitments it was cringe-worthy. Also accompanied by a contract in which you agree to do as much unpaid overtime whenever deemed necessary by the company in order "to do your job".

We can only guess:

1 - Supervisors might feel threatened or disrespected

2 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_superiority

3 - Cost (with or without considering the true value/cost)

Microsoft's got a LOT of fat accumulated over the many years. They got royally stagnated under Ballmer, too much office politicking, designing by committee - all especially true in the management layers. This is what Nadella is purging. Not "high-performing older employees" specifically.

But those are the ones that it easier to target so they are the ones managed out not the career politicians.

Nadella should have been fired by the board over that "karma" fiasco if you fuck up that badly when at an internal event where some one throws you a soft easy Q you couldn't be trusted run a whelk stall (I suppose hot dog stand is the US equivalent)

I have the same question. Surely older employees have more experience, more knowledge, more to offer than the younger ones? I'm 1 year (and 1 day) away from forty, and yes, this kind of story does hit home a bit, but I feel my contribution to the company I work for is more valuable than my age?

I guess they are not perceived to be high performing because they don't spend as much time at work and are less flexible.

Or because they are not high performing, occam's razor says :)