Daring to Lead 2011

CompassPoint and the Meyer Foundation have come out with a new "Daring to Lead" study. I blogged a bit about their 2006 study, so thought I would give the 2011 update a read as well. It's a survey of more than 3,000 executive directors of non-profit organizations and, although it seems weighted towards charitable and social service organizations, there are a few interesting parallels and tidbits for associations.

First, the good news.

...the distribution of executive tenure across the 3,000 respondents reflects a healthy continuum of new and veteran leaders in the sector. Nearly a third of current executive (31%) have been on the job for fewer than three years; this is more than the 27% who have been on the job for ten or more years. Alarm at the potential widespread sector disruption executive turnover might cause has given way to concern about how best to prepare new leaders and their organizations to weather, and even leverage, inevitable transition.

It's good to hear the generational transition in leadership is actually taking place, and that people are starting to mellow out about it. In the 2006 study, there was a lot more angst about the crushing inevitability of time, and concerns that the new group of younger leaders were not prepared for their positions and (shockingly!) had higher expectations for pay and for work/life balance than the sector traditionally provided. Boomers, it seemed, would have to stay in their positions longer, or the critical missions of their organizations would not continue.

Daring to Lead 2011 seems to indicate that this is no longer the worry. It reflects, I believe, the leadership trend we're also seeing in the association world. More and more GenX and even Millennial leaders are coming into positions of prominence (something obvious to anyone who attended the recent ASAE conference in St. Louis) and, although old and new challenges still linger, the world is not crashing down and the work is somehow getting done.

Now, the bad news.

Executive time invested in working with boards of directors was notably low. Sixteen percent (16%) of executives reported spending fewer than five hours per month on board-related activity, yet nearly half of these executives described themselves as spending the right amount of time. The largest group of executives (39%) spend between five and ten hours per month--just 6% of their time overall--and half of these executives said this was the right amount of time. Other studies have found that executives who spend 20% of their time on board-related activity have high rates of satisfaction with board performance. Similarly, among these respondents, executives at the low-end of the time investment spectrum were the least happy with their board's performance.

This is disturbing and a trend, I hope, that is NOT reflected in the association sector. Speaking for myself, the predictive indicators defined above work. I definitely spend more than 20% of my time on board and board-related activities, and I am satisfied (to say the least) with the performance of the board in my organization. For executives who are not satisfied, I would ask them to reflect on how much time they are spending on the board and on board development activities. Investment of time and levels of satisfaction naturally go hand-in-hand from my perspective. To think that there are organizations whose executives are unsatisfied, but who are unwilling (or unable?) to spend more time on the problem, says something fundamentally deficient about the organization and its capabilities.

Don't Forget the Baby Boomers

Not too long ago a friend sent me a link to this article about "Why Marketers Can't Afford to Ignore Baby Boomers." In a culture that endlessly focuses on youth, the article warns marketers not to overlook a group that has tremendous buying power: the 78 million Baby Boomers in the U.S. today.

My first reaction was less than sympathetic. Are you kidding me? I thought. Has the person who wrote this never watched television? Or flipped through a magazine? Who do they think all those prescription drug and car commercials are for? Millennials? There's a reason why Pfizer uses Queen to sell Viagra.

But ever since getting this message I've been paying closer attention to the advertisements I see and who they seem to be aimed at. And I must admit, I'm seeing more and more that are aimed at younger generations. But even those, I find, are being sure to include Baby Boomers in their campaigns, even when the products being sold appeal to much younger demographics.

My favorite example is Verizon's Rule the Air ad campaign. I see these ads everywhere--magazines, airports, bus stops--even online (I don't watch much TV). They always seem to feature young people as the models we should emulate. This video clip contains a line that pretty much says it all. Air..."does not filter out an idea because I'm 16 and not 30." Gosh, 30, huh? That is old.

But if you go to Verizon's website and check out all the faces they're using in this campaign, you see that they are, in fact, covering all the generational bases. There might not be any Silents in their montage (but they, after all, have their own special cell phones), but everyone else is there. And if you start paying really close attention, you discover that the faces change depending on the media outlet the ad appears in. Those that cater to younger audiences get the younger faces. Those that cater towards older audiences get the older ones. And why shouldn't they? The marketing folks at Verizon, after all, are no dummies.

But having said all that, I still see no evidence that Madison Avenue has forgotten about the Baby Boomers. I tried but couldn't find statistics that show what percentage of advertising is aimed at each generation, but from where I sit Baby Boomers are still the champs. Like every generation, they have products that are pitched directly to them but, as the Verizon campaign shows, they're also included in campaigns for products that skew younger. In other words, you'll find ads for cell phones in the pages of Newsweek, but you won't find ads for prescription drugs on Mashable.com.

Boomers Can't Let Go

Those of you who were following my discussion with Tammy Erickson about the leadership potential of Generation X may have missed Tammy's last comment, which she posted not here on The Hourglass Blog, but in the Harvard Business Review Answer Exchange.

Go here to review the discussion on Hourglass, here to see our exchange on HBR. Tammy's last comment included this thought:

Interestingly, I find that generations tend to return to the themes of their formative teen years when they hit midlife (or the infamous "midlife crisis"). For example, Traditionalists, who were shaped by the consumer-intense, post-war '50s, dreamed of buying red sports cars at mid-life. Boomers, in contrast, often want to tap into the idealistic "change the world" views that shaped their teen years.

Reminds me of this post I recently saw on Association Jam, quoting Matt Thornhill of the Boomer Project.

Our analyses of monthly consumer surveys by BIGresearch suggest that Boomers are turning their backs on consumerism. They are rediscovering the traditional values of thrift and frugality, which they see as consistent with emerging "green" values of conservation and recycling.

Now, last I checked, Boomers weren't at mid-life, but that's okay, because Thornhill's not saying that they are rejecting consumerism out of any pining for the idealism of their youth, but out of necessity because so many of them have simply not saved enough for a comfortable retirement.

So that's two reasons why younger generations should expect to see Boomers in nonprofit leadership positions for some time to come. If they're not moving over from the for-profit sector to realize the world-changing dreams of their youth, their hanging on to their paychecks for as long as they can because they can't afford to retire.

The Boomer's Revolt

One of the nice things about following Neil Howe's Lifecourse Blog is that he will often point you to current news stories and give you an interesting interpretation of them through the lens of his generational theory. Case in point is this post, which links to this story. The story is about an increasing trend among state politicians to denounce the authority of the Federal government, and cites several examples of state laws being enacted in order to nullify such potential Federal actions as firearms regulation and health care reform.

Howe's comment seems to imply that he thinks these are all actions of Boomers, rebelling against manifestations of what he calls the Fourth Turning--a climactic crisis in which the very fabric of our society is in danger of being torn beyond repair. In their minds, these Boomers must be using whatever tools are still at their disposal to help save our culture. Obviously, the younger generation now coming into power can't be counted on to do what's right.

I'm not sure the States' Rights movement is entirely a Boomer phenomenon, but the general idea is a curious one. Given what we've talked about regarding Boomer leaders staying in power longer than previous generations and for-profit Boomers moving into vacant leadership positions in the non-profit sector (in part because of the smaller number of qualified GenX non-profit leaders able to step up), I wonder if a similar dynamic will begin to manifest itself in our environment.

Imagine a group of GenX leaders in a particular sector, pushing for some needed reform, and their actions being "nullified" by a still connected group of Boomer leaders, pushing back more against the idea of reform than the reform itself. Or let's have this hit closer to home. Imagine this happening on your Board of Directors, just as the GenXers you've worked hard to recruit start gaining a critical mass.

If Howe's interpretation is correct, and the waning Boomer generation will view the end of their influence on society as identical to the end of society, effective governance in the 21st century is going to be a lot more complicated than anyone might have previously thought.

For-Profit Boomers, Think Twice Before Leading a Non-Profit

If you've been reading my posts for a while then you've probably realized that I link to and comment on a lot of stuff on leadership from the for-profit community. Later this month I'll be celebrating my three-year anniversary as the Executive Director of a stand-alone trade association, and before that I spent thirteen years working for a variety of professional societies as part of an association management company. These experiences have created an interest in me about the interplay between for-profit and non-profit sensibilities in the association world.

I've also blogged a few times about the switch some for-profit Boomers are making to leadership positions in the non-profit community. Whether it's in response to them being downsized in the bad economy or to help them better fulfill their dreams in their last years before retirement, a whole cottage industry seems to be developing to help them make this transition to a new, encore career.

So I couldn't help but laugh at this advice for Boomers that are thinking of making the switch, coming from Wayne Luke at the Harvard Business Blog. He entreats Boomers to ask themselves three questions before taking the plunge. The first question in my favorite:

Why do you really want to make this move? Switching sectors is a big deal. It's a bit like Alice in the looking glass, in that it's often difficult to climb back through once you've started the journey. So you need to be crystal clear about your reasons for doing so. In the current economy, for instance, it might be easy to see a move to the nonprofit sector as a way to expand your job-search options — another "port in the storm" so to speak. Don't do it. Trying to be something you're fundamentally not, solely for the purpose of cash flow, is a choice you'll live to regret — particularly when you have to work with comparatively scarce resources, practice more collaborative decision making, and strive to align mission and action.

Hmmm. Scarce resources, collaborative decision making, and striving to align mission and action. These are certainly hallmarks of the association world I'm familiar with, but is Wayne trying to suggest that these things DON'T exist in the for-profit universe? Go ask some of my members what they think of that.

Encore Careers

I've blogged before about signs in the for-profit marketplace that Boomers are transitioning to careers in the non-profit universe. Their retirement funds have been decimated by the recent financial implosion, and they're reaching the end of their careers, but still feel relevant and want to make a difference in society. What better time for Boomers to lend their considerable experience to running socially-conscious non-profits?

Well, now there's a term for that phenomenon--Encore Careers. And, evidently, a whole infrastructure springing up to help Boomers make it happen. Check out Civic Ventures and their companion website, Encore Careers.

Civic Ventures is a self-described non-profit think thank that is...

...leading the call to engage millions of baby boomers as a vital workforce for change. Through an inventive program portfolio, original research, strategic alliances, and the power of people's own life stories, Civic Ventures demonstrates the value of experience in solving serious social problems--from education to the environment and health care to homelessness. Founded in 1998 by social entrepreneur and author Marc Freedman, Civic Ventures works to define the second half of adult life as a time of individual and social renewal.

And they're getting such a big write-up from me because I find the whole concept fascinating. Among other things, Civic Ventures provides:

Encore.org — The growing network for people who want work that matters in the second half of life. Encore.org provides news, resources and connections for individuals and organizations establishing encore careers that combine personal meaning, financial security and social contribution.

The Purpose Prize — $100,000 awards for social innovators over 60 creating new methods for solving the world´s biggest problems. The Purpose Prize is awarded to individuals who discover new opportunities, invent new programs and foster lasting social change.

Experience Corps — A national service program engaging adults over 55 as tutors and mentors for elementary school students struggling to learn. Today more than 2,000 Experience Corps members in 20 cities help 20,000 students learn the skills they´ll need to succeed in school and in life. Launched by Civic Ventures, Experience Corps is now an independent organization.

Encore Career Community College Grants — Grants for innovative community colleges preparing people 50+ for careers in education, health care and social services.

The Next Chapter — An initiative providing directions and connections for people who want to make a difference in the second half of life. Local Next Chapter projects in dozens of cities offer expertise and assistance to community groups working to help individuals set a course, connect with peers and get involved in significant service work.

BreakThrough Award — Awards for organizations that tap experienced employees to help solve serious social problems. Ten organizations were awarded MetLife Foundation/Civic Ventures Breakthrough Awards in 2007.

Now, that is some serious infrastructure. And there is evidently some real muscle behind it. Their website lists financial support from 30 or so major foundations, including the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, the John Templeton Foundation, and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

The whole thing makes me long for an encore career!

But wait, there's hope for me yet. According to the survey they released (published June 2008), the cohort they've examined and are reaching out to are people between the ages of 44 and 70 (birth years 1938-64). That's a pretty wide definition for Boomers. Our friends Strauss & Howe say Boomers were born 1943-60. That means the folks in their cohort born 1938-42 are actually Silents, and those born 1961-64 are actually Xers.

And guess what else? The younger the individuals surveyed, the more interest there was entering encore careers. Using the survey's own terminology:

• 50% of "trailing-edge boomers" (ages 44-50, birth years 1958-64) were interested in pursuing encore careers.
• 46% of "leading-edge boomers" (ages 51-62, birth years 1946-57) were interested in pursuing encore careers.
• 34% of "pre-boomers" (ages 63-70, birth years 1938-1945) were interested in pursuing encore careers.

Given how many Xers (or maybe Jonesers?) are in their "trailing-edge boomers" and how many Silents are in their "pre-boomers", I wonder how much of this for-profit move towards the non-profit world is really about Boomers wanting to give back, and how much of it is about people of multiple generations growing disillusioned with the for-profit environment.

Generation X and Center of Gravity

Last week on the GetmeJamieNotter blog I wrote a post about the laws of attraction. In that post I expressed some frustration with what I see as a traditional mindset of associations where the association is the "center of gravity." In this worldview, we as association professionals work hard to attract people or organizations into our fold. The association is at the center of the universe, with other stakeholders, groups, etc. rotating around it. 

I offered a different view, where the association is either attractive or unattractive to groups, but lacks that real gravitational pull. I suggested we should look around at what attracts US as an association and move in that direction.

I wonder if this perspective has any generational overtones to it? Is this a typical Generation X perspective? Being in Generation X, I'm used to not having "gravitational pull." There aren't enough of me, and we're not used to being listened to, so of course we have a decentralized view of the universe. Our influence is dispersed. This in contrast to the Boomers' stereotypical focus on causes and movements, on gathering enough people together to drive the change. The force of numbers.

What do you think?

Lunch Conversation with a Boomer

I was having lunch with a Baby Boomer colleague of mine the other day and I told him about this new blog that Jamie and I have started to help spark a dialogue on the effects and potential of generational change at the leadership level of associations. He was intrigued by the idea, and had what I found to be an interesting gut reaction.

When I described for him my wish to explore the boundaries of what I see as a "leadership opportunity" for Generation X (i.e., the shifting generational perspectives providing the new leadership generation with an opportunity to change the role and core functions of the associations that serve our society), he immediately asked two questions:

1. Are GenXers willing to invest themselves in this process? Are they willing to leverage the learning of their predecessors and to foster the meaningful participation of and positive outcomes for themselves and their successors?

and

2. Are GenXers willing to apply the courage and work necessary to lead?

My first reaction was—What? How dare he! Of course "we're" willing to invest and apply ourselves. But then, upon reflection, our society's set of established perceptions and expectations for Generation X invaded my thinking, and left me feeling a whole lot less sure.

I realized that these questions asked by my Boomer friend are valid ones—and critical to any kind of dialogue I hope to have on this blog about my generation's leadership potential.

So, let's hear it, Xers. Are you ready to lead? Do you see the same opportunity I do?

Private-sector Boomers fulfilling their dreams in the social sector

Found this article in the Harvard Business Review interesting. Disaffected private-sector Boomers are making the switch and finding new purpose in their lives by transitioning to leadership positions in the social sector, sometimes with the help of their private-sector employers.

I guess you can forget everything I said about the impending leadership gap in associations and the opportunity it presents for change driven by GenXers. Looks like Boomers from the private sector are going to swoop in and keep everything humming along.