Manhattan Beer and Beverage Distributors

Andrea Pellettiere

Andrea Pellettiere is the Director of Talent Management at Manhattan Beer and Beverage Distributors, where she leads strategic talent development, leadership training, and performance initiatives across one of the largest single market beverage distributors on the east coast. With over 2 decades of experience in learning and development, Andrea is known for building scalable programs that align people strategy with business growth.

Prior to joining Manhattan Beer, Andrea built a strong foundation in learning and development and HR roles in the health and fitness industry—most notably at Town Sports International—where she held positions such as Senior Learning Manager and Director of Talent Development. Her experience spans everything from instructional design and leadership training to organizational development and change management. She also holds an M.S. in HR from Stony Brook University.

There are an indescribable number of books on business philosophy. Depending on your leanings, you can probably find one that supports your particular style and view of leadership. However, in the course of your exploration, it is likely that some shared themes will emerge, like threads weaving into a pattern. Having read my fair share of books on corporate culture, I have been able to glean a multitude of philosophies and apply them to my own professional practice. However, certain books and certain ideas have really stood out in relief.

The interplay between age and neuroplasticity has always been a very keen topic for me. You might be wondering what that has to do with HR and why I’ve chosen to comment on it here. To understand more fully, we need to define the concept of neuroplasticity, which in layperson’s terms, is our ability to react to and process new stimuli. For instance, when an unexpected problem pops up, can we solve it? Or, if people do not behave as we think they should, can we successfully navigate the situation? If our organization changes direction, will we continue to be productive in the new structure? In a multi-generational workplace, where change is inevitable, the question becomes who is best suited to thrive in an ever-evolving environment? This has a very direct impact on who we seek to hire and how we apportion opportunities.

In the United States, there are certain unspoken perceptions of age. It’s as if a single number determines your capacity for growth, adaptability and meaningful contribution. The assumption is that with age comes a kind of stasis—professionally and personally—where you are no longer moving forward, just watching as the world surges ahead. The stereotype is familiar, though more progressive views are now entering the conversation.

Having begun a certain phase of life and career, I’ve encountered the notion that change and innovation are the domain of the young. I don’t necessarily disagree with that. What I do disagree with is that change and innovation are ONLY the domain of younger professionals. Or, that younger professionals are naturally more adaptable to new technology, processes and ideas.

“It’s difficult to assess someone’s adaptability until they’ve been through a few reorganizations, rollouts and implementations. Therefore, i don’t think the drive for innovation is necessarily a factor of age, but of neuroplasticity”

Let’s imagine a scenario where you have two individuals. One is a brand-new professional, full of creative ideas and a passion to challenge the status quo. The other is seasoned, and certainly skilled, but quite complacent with “the way things are”.  If you wanted to take your organization to the next level, who would you hire? And, would your opinion change if I told you that these two individuals are the same person, except at two very different points in time.

For me, it’s a commonsense equation. The less time spent in the world, the less experience, so there is a smaller context in which to place it. As you accumulate knowledge, skills and (hopefully) wisdom, your ideas on work, leadership and organizational practice become more defined. It’s difficult to assess someone’s adaptability until they’ve been through a few reorganizations, rollouts and implementations. Therefore, I don’t think the drive for innovation is necessarily a factor of age, but of neuroplasticity. It can also be a factor of nature versus nurture, and whether the organization itself enables healthy change. However, that is an entirely different topic and an entirely different article.

Now, with that being said, neuroplasticity is a lose it or use it skill and the risk of complacency and stagnation is real. For seasoned professionals, it is crucial to push, challenge and stay current. We should embrace the perspectives of our younger colleagues, because quite frankly, they might shake us out of our doldrums. However, this requires us to release the notion that longevity necessarily equates with better solutions. That, in itself, involves a high degree of neuroplasticity and openness. On the other hand, it can also go the opposite way, where younger colleagues utilize our experience as a sounding board. In a multi-generational workplace, the river of ideas should flow freely and in many directions, with all groups guiding the organization to shore.

In the end, building an adaptable workforce means looking beyond surface-level indicators like age and focusing instead on a person’s capacity for growth, resilience and learning. Neuroplasticity—our ability to learn, unlearn, and adapt—isn’t tied to a particular generation; it’s a mindset shaped by curiosity, openness and a willingness to evolve. Whether hiring new talent or developing existing team members, it is a disservice to assume youth equals innovation or experience equals inflexibility. By assessing both candidates and current employees on their demonstrated ability to contribute in dynamic environments, we can build more nimble teams. In today’s workplace, the determining factor is not how long you’ve been in the game—it’s about how willing you are to keep growing.