Would you say that there is such a thing as being too young to be in a leadership role? For example, we have someone we are interviewing who is 25 and she is at Director level in her current role, which is what we would potentially hire her for. But I think 3 years out of school is too little experience to have made it that far! I don't want to be ageist here and I want to give a young woman a chance, but what do you think? I like her otherwise, but I just don't have full faith.

I would question what the “director” title really means at her current job and what that title would be at other companies. Some use that title very differently than others. No one at age 25 or with only three years out of college would ever be a director at any of the Big 4 or large consulting firms.

Years experience and type of experience are more important than age or previous title. There has been a trend last 10 or so years where titles are getting inflated, plus they vary by company, so you can never go off of that.

But in general? 3 years for a role that will be managing people and in a leadership role does seem pretty green, even if she’s great. Some things you just can’t learn without experiencing them first.

Look at her experience and not age. There are folks I have in roles that didn’t graduate school so the comparison to an assumed graduation date is unfounded. Another that graduated at 20. They could have started a business. They could be qualified (look at most startups). Not saying she’s any of these things, but she (old or young) should not factor into it.

Yes there is. Leadership takes time and too many companies are over promoting to keep people. But it creates gaps in people’s experience which comes back to bite them in the butt because they simply don’t have the experience needed. Excellence and mastery of skills takes time.

Director at some firm is below VP. For example the org structure at my firm/dept is Analyst, Associate, Director, Vice President, Executive Director, Managing Director. Do not mix up the “Director” as “Executive Director”. It also depends on what firm this candidate is from and what structure they have.

Titles vary from firm to firm/ business. If the core skills and competencies are there, I would consider her for the position. Director level implies certain core competencies are present.

I mean, you’re the one interviewing her. Either there are concrete red flags in her interview questions or this is pure ageism.

For me, it really comes down to your org’s structure and the particular needs of the role. There should be some kind of balance between experience and tenure because a person can perform really well and get promoted quickly, but nevertheless in some roles, there is simply some stuff (skills, experiences, exposure) that only comes up over time.

If it’s an environment where there’s sufficient support and time to allow her to continue to develop at that level, plus you like her and feel like she has both skills and potential, then age doesn’t much come into it. However if it’s a ‘sink or swim’ kind of situation (and no judgement because we’ve all had those!), then the situation may well be setting her up to fail which doesn’t help anyone imho.

So to me, it’s less about whether someone is too young to be a leader and more about being absolutely fair and frank in your own minds as to whether the environment can allow the individual to flourish.

My firm performs personality and capability assessments. We can tell you accurately whether she will be a success or not.

Leadership comes with a lot of responsibilities and frankly, knowledge of the job isn’t all there is to being a leader. There are other attributes you learn over time that aren’t taught in schools and acquired in the space of 3 years. However, you could take a chance on her and be her mentor.

Titles really don’t mean anything… sometimes even within companies. I have Directors in my org with 5-6 years of post-undergrad experience who make like $120k total comp, don’t get equity, and are ICs. I was a Director at another company and had almost the same level of responsibility I do now (as a SVP) - reporting to BU President, leading a function for a ~$1B p&l, team of 20+. You need to figure out what responsibility she actually has now and what you need her to do and ignore the titles.

It’s not about age, it’s about experience. 3 years is not a Director.

As someone who suffered from this many times in my career- please don’t decide based on age or years in role. Years in role is not equivalent to experience. Sometimes people just have what it takes- what if she’s wonderful? why not hire a superstar? I led a department with 45 directs by 23, switched to consulting and made Director very early, was admitted to the Partnership at 35, and was given a managing Partner role before 40.

It varies depending upon the role and how senior/intense it is. How is this person's EQ? How will she handle disgruntled team members wrestling with entrenched disenchantment with the company/role/team? How will she create alignment in a stressful environment without sounding like a lightweight motivational speaker? What experience does she bring to the role that will enable her to get people on board when things are hard? Is she able to lead through influence and not position/job title? How well does she handle failure - has she had a chance to work through that yet? Public failure and recovering from it is a critical piece of a leader's story. If she has multiple great answers to these questions, go for it. Regardless of age, she may be ready. If she only has one success story for each of these questions, that's a good start, but I suggest you give her some tough projects and focused chances to grow with great mentoring before you put her in a heavy leadership role.