You can spend years adapting to new systems and new ways of working, then find yourself being discussed as someone who might struggle with change.
Ageism in the workplace affects people across genders. What interests me here is how experience can be praised and then, somehow, held against the same person. You still know enough to keep the operation out of trouble. Whether you should be included in building what comes next appears to require further discussion.
I spent 33 years in finance and technology managing technical teams, building and moving data centers, and handling data through more mergers than I care to count. I co-wrote the technology disaster recovery plan and had to execute it twice, during Hurricane Floyd and September 11, without losing a single byte of data.
When Wells Fargo Advisors was being launched, I managed the complex technical build and transition that required separation between its teams and the rest of Wells Fargo. The “brick wall” between people also needed a technology wall. We worked repeatedly with Legal on what information could be shared between Wells Fargo and Wells Fargo Advisors. Connecting the technology required understanding exactly where the connections had to stop.
So when someone hears “33 years” and thinks “probably resistant to change,” I do wonder what they imagine we were doing all that time.
That work also explains why I can be interested in a new proposal and still want to know what happens when it fails. Customers tend to remain attached to their money even when we’re excited about a new platform. I’d like to see the recovery plan.
An objection can be wrong, of course. Experience doesn’t make anyone automatically right. But if you ask about a dependency and the conversation turns into an assessment of your comfort with change, we’ve wandered away from the question. You may now be explaining how willing you are to learn, while the dependency is still there, patiently waiting to cause a problem.
AARP’s age-discrimination findings updated in 2026 describe assumptions that will sound familiar to some readers. In its 2025 survey of U.S. adults 50 and older who were working or looking for work, 60% reported subtler forms of age discrimination, including assumptions that older employees resist change or struggle with technology. The survey covered older workers across occupations.
Who gets to learn on the job?
AI makes those assumptions worth examining carefully. AARP’s July 28, 2026 analysis of Urban Institute research identifies experienced workers’ judgment and critical thinking as important to effective AI adoption. It also notes that older workers’ interest in AI training exceeds their participation.
Knowing what a plausible answer could get wrong, and what might happen if someone acts on it, is useful knowledge. I’d want people involved who understand the business well enough to question the output. They’d also need time to learn the tool. Having spent decades in the business doesn’t mean you somehow acquired hands-on experience with a product you haven’t been given the opportunity to use.
I’d be interested in how people get selected for that opportunity. If a pilot is intended to help employees learn, some of its participants will be inexperienced. When a younger colleague’s lack of experience is accepted as something the project will help them overcome, it deserves attention if yours becomes the reason you can’t join. The comparison needs to be between people being considered for the same work, with any genuine differences in responsibility taken into account.
A job requiring established technical expertise may have good reasons for a particular threshold. I’d want that threshold explained clearly enough to understand what would change the answer. A specific skill can be learned and demonstrated. An assessment such as “not future-facing” is harder to work with. If completing the agreed training wouldn’t reopen consideration, there is more to the decision than the missing skill. It would be useful to know that before spending your evenings acquiring it.
Then there’s the assumption about what you want. Someone may think an older employee would prefer familiar work or would welcome being spared another demanding transition. You might, in fact, want a more predictable role. You might also have a project in mind that you’d very much like to lead. Asking you would be a promising way to find out, especially if you’ve already put your hand up.
The same AARP research found that 20% of respondents reported younger employees receiving preference for training. That gives us a reason to pay attention to these decisions while the learning is being allocated, before the next role opens and everyone begins comparing experience.
Being needed can complicate things
There can also be a perfectly sound reason for keeping you on the existing operation. Someone has to keep it working while the new process is being built, and moving the person who understands it best can create real risk. I can understand a manager being reluctant to do that. You may care a great deal about the team and want to see the transition through. Wanting to be included in the new work can sit alongside that. I’d want a plan that takes both seriously, including what has to move off your desk. Otherwise, agreeing to help for a little longer can become an arrangement with no end date.
That still leaves the question of how you’ll become available for the new work. If someone else needs to learn the operation, that requires time and a staffing decision. A person listed as your backup who never gets time to train is not much of a backup. And if you’re expected to arrange all of that while continuing to deliver the full job, your development opportunity may have arrived with an additional job attached.
Being asked to advise the new team can make this harder to spot. Your knowledge is clearly wanted. You may be explaining the existing exceptions or checking a proposed solution, between meetings for the work you’re already responsible for. You may finish those meetings having helped the team make a good decision, without having had time on the tool yourself.
Age matters if assumptions about your interest, ability to learn, or remaining working years influence who gets that investment. A coverage problem on its own doesn’t establish age discrimination. I’d look at whose development gets planned for, the reasons given for postponing yours, and what happens after you’ve made your interest clear.
The Urban Institute’s January 2026 research recommends training connected to employees’ roles and paid time to practice. I appreciate the inclusion of paid time. “Learn this in your spare time” does assume a generous supply of spare time. If you’re keeping the operation running and helping the new team, I’d be interested to see where that time appears on your calendar.
By the next promotion discussion
The uncomfortable part is that a qualification gap can eventually become real. A course can help you learn a tool, while an implementation gives you experience applying it in that business. The colleague who received the assignment may genuinely be better prepared for the next role. A manager comparing candidates could make a defensible decision based on the experience each now has.
The earlier decision about who would get to acquire it can disappear from the conversation. An age assumption may have affected your access to the work. Later, the experience you weren’t given a chance to gain can be used to support the original assessment of your potential. That’s a reason to examine possible ageism in the workplace before you’re sitting across from someone explaining why another candidate was better qualified.
An excellent performance review can coexist with very little preparation for your next move. It tells you how well you delivered the work you were given. I’d want to know what another year of that work will allow you to do afterward. You may decide a temporary delay is worth accepting, particularly if there’s an assignment you can join, time being released from the current role, and a date when the arrangement changes. Those details give you something to revisit beyond how much the team needs you.
For your next career conversation, I’d put the escalation list beside the roster for the new work. Your name may still be first on the list of people to call when something breaks, and missing from the team building its replacement.
Before committing another year to the same arrangement, give yourself room to examine it. My free Career Cost & Return Review helps you consider what your career is giving you, what it requires of you, and which terms you would agree to again.
