Is Northwestern Mutual using “career progression” and resume accomplishments as a convenient way to screen out experienced, older employees?
Years of delivering measurable business outcomes, solving complex problems, and consistently producing results should matter more than job titles, promotions, or how well someone navigates internal politics.
Yet there appears to be an increasing emphasis on visibility, popularity, and perceived career trajectory rather than actual contributions and business impact.
This raises a serious question: Are experienced employees being unfairly disadvantaged because their resumes don’t demonstrate the kind of upward mobility leadership expects?
Performance should be measured by outcomes, not popularity. Experience should be valued, not penalized.
Are others at Northwestern Mutual seeing similar patterns in hiring, promotions, or performance evaluations?
If this is a widespread pattern disproportionately affecting older employees, could there be grounds for a class-action age discrimination lawsuit? Would others who have experienced similar treatment be interested in exploring their legal options together?