In-Depth Interview - Pierre-Yves Fabre

France is asking people to work longer, without having raised the age at which their careers begin to be seen as nearing their end. At age 45, 50, or 55, there is still a decade—sometimes more—of work ahead. Yet the experience accumulated can take on a different character: from an advantage, it becomes a cost, a source of rigidity, or a barrier to mobility. Employees are expected to stick it out just when companies are already doubting their future.

Behind the issue of senior employment lies a more difficult question: how do we measure the value of twenty or thirty years of experience? Its economic value does not exist outside the market, the skills in demand, and the context in which they were developed. But the market is not an infallible arbiter. It can confuse genuine unsuitability with prejudice, maturity with stagnation, and adaptability with decline. The line between economic value, perceived value, and professional identity remains blurred.

It is within this context that Pierre-Yves Fabre, president and founder of WeNold, frames his remarks. The organization supports experienced executives over the age of 45 and aims to intervene before a career transition occurs. Its vision goes beyond simply returning to work: it seeks to build a “future life plan” that integrates one’s career path without isolating it from personal, financial, and interpersonal constraints. This ambition broadens the scope of the solution—but also the challenges it must overcome.

This interview, then, puts his diagnosis to the test. When does ageism really begin? Is accepting a lower status a choice or a demotion? What does WeNold offer that APEC, France Travail, outplacement services, or coaching don’t already offer—and with what results? Ultimately, can we demand longer careers without rethinking the place we give to those whom we are specifically asking to stay on the job?

In June 2025, 210,000 executives aged 50 and older were registered as job seekers in France, including 173,600 who were actively looking for work, while the employment rate for those aged 55–64 remained at 60.4 percent, compared with 82.8 percent for those aged 25–49; and in 81 percent of cases, it is the employer who initiates the termination!

Experience has value as long as the framework within which it was formed remains in effect.

However, over the past 15 years, cycles of transformation—digital, organizational, and managerial—have accelerated to such an extent that some of the expertise accumulated over 20 years is now partially out of step with current practices.

It is not the experience that loses its value; rather, the context in which it was formed becomes obsolete more quickly.

Experienced executives over the age of 45 are no less competent than they used to be: the playing field has shifted beneath their feet, often without the company providing them with the necessary support.

Whether consciously or not, a recruiter projects an image of their organization five or ten years from now onto the candidate. The 35-year-old executive embodies that vision; he will be there, he will evolve, and he will grow alongside the company.

The experienced executive, with more than 45 years of experience, is seen as a well-rounded, accomplished professional—but one who lacks flexibility.

This perception is often mistaken, but it is powerful because it confuses maturity with rigidity, and stability with stagnation.

WeNold calls this phenomenon “projective ageism”: we do not reject the experienced manager for who they are, but for who we imagine they will no longer be.

An experienced executive can symbolically threaten the legitimacy of a younger manager. The unspoken question in many hiring situations is: “Will he be willing to report to me? Will he challenge my decisions?”

Experience then becomes a power risk—not because it is useless, but because it is perceived as difficult to integrate into a reversed hierarchy. This obstacle is rarely spoken of, never written about, but widely documented.

Companies often evaluate recruitment in terms of return on investment: onboarding costs, expected tenure in the position, and potential for internal advancement.

An experienced executive over the age of 45 is implicitly associated with a shorter tenure (retirement on the horizon, etc.), which skews the calculation in favor of a profile whose perceived “useful life” is longer.

This line of reasoning is applied to humans, and that is precisely where economic calculations veer toward ageism.

WeNold starts from the premise that the problem isn't the experience itself, but rather how it's told.

An experienced executive over 45 with a rich career history—but who presents himself as an “accomplished professional looking to move forward”—unintentionally sends a signal that he is closing the door on that chapter. Someone who presents himself as a dynamic professional with a clear vision completely reverses that perception.

Reframe the experience in terms of future potential: not "I did," but "I can make a difference"

Develop a credible and appealing life plan that answers the implicit question: "Why you? Why now?"

Leverage your network as a key channel: According to APEC, 57% of executives have already landed a job through their network, and 27% of successful job applications come from referrals.

"Experience is not a burden, but a strategic asset"—provided you know for whom, in what context, and as part of what life plan.

The paradox is not that experience loses value. It is that the job market evaluates candidates based on their future potential as much as on their past track record, and that experienced executives often have not been given the support they need to articulate that future in a compelling and authentic way.

WeNold exists precisely to bridge this gap: between who an experienced executive truly is and how the market or the environment perceives him or her.