.png)
Ageism: Unfair Bias or Harsh Reality & Necessary Action?
- Szilvia Olah
- Sep 8
- 4 min read
Career Peaks, Ageism, and the Case for Knowing When to Step Back
You all gonna hate me for this article, but here I go.
This weekend I read a comment on LinkedIn saying ‘As a 58-year-old woman, I’ve been told by a headhunter that I was “too old,” that I should expect lower-level roles and reduced pay simply because of my age. My response was simple: just because my biology has shifted does not mean my brain has stopped working.’
Whilst I am sure her brain hasn’t stopped working but it is certainly not at its peak so expecting a role and salary that she was earning when she was at her peak performance is a reach.
We look at almost everything through the shape of a bell curve.
Life: we are born, we grow, we peak, and then we decline.
Performance: athletes train, reach maximum output, and taper off.
Even love: the dizzying rise of infatuation levels out into stability, or fades.
Yet there is one domain where we resist the bell curve entirely: our careers.
We act as if work is a straight, upward line; more knowledge, more expertise, more leadership capacity every single year. Pay structures, job titles, and prestige systems are built on the assumption that the older you are, the higher you should rise.
But the data tell a different story: careers also follow a curve.
Creativity and scientific breakthroughs tend to peak in the late 30s to early 40s. Nobel-level work in physics and chemistry, for example, often emerges around age 40, and rarely after 50.
Productivity in academia grows strongly until about 40, slows in the 40s, and stabilizes after 50—but the impact of research tends to decline steadily with age.
Cognitive performance follows the curve as well: numeracy peaks around 40, literacy around 45.
Earnings hit their maximum at 44 for women and 55 for men, with wages plateauing or falling after.
A 2022 Ohio State study found scientists’ creativity and impact decline with age, even if their overall output continues.
Dean Simonton’s career-arc research shows productivity rises for 20 years, then inevitably declines.
Pay data shows companies paying senior employees more than they produce relative to younger colleagues.
In other words: the professional peak, by almost every measure, lies between 40 and 55. After that, the slope bends downward, not catastrophically, but predictably. This doesn’t mean older professionals have no value. It does mean their value shifts. Organizations expecting 55+ professionals to outperform 35-year-olds in innovation, speed, or adaptability are ignoring biology and data.
We need to stop pretending career peaks don’t exist, they do. Ignoring them doesn’t make us wiser; it creates denial for individuals and stagnation for organizations.
Ageism is only unfair when it discounts real skills but it’s not unfair when it reflects predictable, natural decline. Clinging to leadership long after your prime slows decision-making and blocks younger talent from stepping up. The bell curve doesn’t disappear because we choose to ignore it. It only punishes us when we deny it.
So the question is: What do I do when my curve begins to bend?
This is where psychology provides a useful lens, specifically Erik Erikson’s theory of the eight stages of psychosocial development. Stage seven termed Middle Adulthood talks about this period.
Erikson said that it involves a choice between Generativity and Stagnation.
‘Generativity is a state of being that sees as its focus the greater good and the wellbeing of future generations. All our accomplishments at this stage, should be aimed at helping to make the world a better place, rather than at simply lining our pockets or seeking hedonistic pleasures.’
‘Stagnation refers to the failure to find a way to contribute. Stagnant individuals may feel disconnected or uninvolved with their community or with society as a whole. Those who fail to attain the generativity skill feel unproductive in and uninvolved with the world.’
Perhaps the smarter move is to embrace the curve. Accept that there is a rise, a peak, and a fall. Not as a tragedy, but as a natural rhythm. After the peak, there is immense value in stepping back, mentoring, guiding, and supporting others to climb their own curves. Just as in sports, where retired athletes become the best coaches, careers can be redefined not by clinging to the peak, or complaining about discrimination and unfairness, but by enabling someone else’s ascent.
Maybe it’s time corporate career planning acknowledged this openly: that at some point your role shifts. You move from leading at the front to standing at the side coaching, guiding, and supporting the next generation. The pay may be less, but the purpose is greater. At that stage, the contribution isn’t about climbing higher, it’s about making the workplace, and the world, a better place for those who come after you.
That’s not weakness. That’s wisdom (stage eight of psychosocial development). And perhaps the greatest legacy any leader can leave is knowing when their prime has passed and helping someone else step into theirs.
My personal view? I’ve never understood why people act surprised by this. At 20, I already knew I had to sort out my life and be in a position to retire by 50. Why? Because after that, it’s only fair to give space to the younger generation. Hustling at 58 and complaining about the inevitable on LinkedIn isn’t noble, it’s a failure of planning and an unwillingness to recognize when your time is up. And no, it has nothing to do with discrimination or bias.
Personally, I can’t wait to step out of the main workforce. I don’t picture myself sitting at home, but I also don’t see myself clinging to center-stage roles. I cannot wait to take on my fav role as a Tesco cashier for the social interaction and rhythm of work. For me, that transition won’t be a shock, or a defeat, or some unfair bias. It will simply be the natural rhythm of life: rise, peak, and step back. AND, it will feel good! Over to you youngsters!
Comments