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.

Misfit Leaders

I mentioned Dan Pallotta a post or so ago as one of the bloggers at the Harvard Business Review that I always make sure I read. His posts sometimes sit in my "to read" pile for a while before I get to them, but I always get to them because, even though I don't always agree with him, I find his ideas challenging and inspiring.

Here's the latest case in point--Misfit Entrepreneurs.

"There's a misfit in each of us," Pallotta says, "and it's the most delicate, precious thing that we have."

Sadly, most people make it their life's mission to hide it, to cover it over in the same clothes, the same work, the same "regurgitations," as Thomas Merton wrote, as everyone else. This virus of homogenization has infected the landscape. Our backdrop in real life now mimics the scenery repetition you'd see in a Fred Flintstone cartoon as he drove down the street. But now it's Home Depot-Walmart-McDonalds-Starbucks; Home Depot-Walmart-McDonalds-Starbucks; Home Depot-Walmart-McDonalds-Starbucks.

Why do we do this? Because, Pallotta says, "To embrace the misfit in oneself is to be vulnerable."

It is to forsake the easy acceptance that comes with fitting in and to instead be fortified by a kind of love, really. A love of life, a love of wonder, and, ultimately, a sustaining love for oneself. Far from egoism, that love for oneself is a measure of one's love for others, for humanity. And it is only from love that great ideas can be born.

And those who embrace their inner misfit, who turn this vulnerability--this love of a great idea--out towards the world? Well, they, Pallotta says, become the greatest entrepreneurs of all.

This kind of love cannot be taught in business school. It has to be felt. It has to be given sanctuary away from the noise and relentless assault of information. And then it has to be nurtured. It must be embraced, in the light of day, for all to see, for people to ridicule, to criticize, to laugh at. And the entrepreneur has to be willing to feel the pain of that ridicule and suffer the risk of the dream being stolen, or crushed by the meanness of this world. But the misfit doesn't worry about that. The misfit has a higher calling: to bring the unmanifest into being, no matter who is saying what.

"Vulnerability," Pallotta concludes, "is the absence of cynicism." And all the great entrepreneurs he knows have this willingness to be vulnerable, this abject lack of cynicism.

It's inspiring stuff. But it leaves me with a few questions.

Are GenX leaders willing to vulnerable? Yes, in my experience, they certainly are. As I've recently argued, they generally don't pretend that they know everything, and are far more willing to have their ideas challenged than leaders of previous generations.

But aren't GenX leaders cynical? You bet they are. I think it's their cynicism that makes them vulnerable. It makes them second guess institutions, other people, and even their own assumptions, and they're constantly seeking multiple options and fall back positions as a result.

So can GenX leaders be great entrepreneurs? To better define what he means by a great entrepreneur, Pallotta tells this story:

I used to visit the merry-go-round in Griffith Park in Los Angeles where [Walt] Disney once took his daughters, asking himself, "Is this all there is? There has to be a better place to take my children." And the rest is history. The great entrepreneur — the entrepreneur who really changes things — is the one who, in 2010, goes to Disneyland and asks the same question: "Is this all there is?" And the new world she or he will create as a result of that audacious inquiry is one that cannot possibly be conceived by people busy trying to fit into the world as it is.

Well, if that's the definition--some one who asks "Is that all there is" and then sets about to really change things--then yes, I would say GenX leaders can be great entrepreneurs. I'm cynical, but I still believe the world can be changed. Don't you?

The "IF" Generation

I recently listened to a webcast sponsored by the Harvard Business Review where Tammy Erickson discussed "The Leaders We Need Now: Are We Ready for Gen X to Take Charge?" It's all part of pitching her new book, What's Next, Gen X?, which I've not yet read.

I've talked about Tammy Erickson here before. I generally find her to be one of the more positive voices about Generation X and its leadership capabilities. Indeed, Erickson's thesis is that Generation X, because of its formative experiences in the 1980s, has a unique set of leadership traits that are precisely what organizations need today to see them through the difficulties many of them are facing.

This is a theme she continues in the webcast. I don't remember if this is a phrase she actually used, but I came away from her comments thinking of Generation X as the "IF" Generation--a group of self-reliant option seekers who habitually explore multiple strategies and go with what works rather than what is idealogically determined. In other words, "if" something bad happens, the Xer leader will naturally have (or seek) multiple options for moving forward, whereas leaders from older generations may be more rigidly constrained.

There wasn't much time for questions on the webcast, so Erickson responded to some in a couple of posts on the HBR blog (here and here). Given the thesis she has laid out, here's the one I found most interesting:

You asked: How do we blend our strengths with the Boomers' experience so we can be perceived as "ready" to make a smooth transition into leadership? How do we collaborate with Boomers and minimize their resistance to accept us as "equal partners" instead of threats?

This is an important question. You're asking, How do you convince someone that you'll do "it" well, even though you'll do "it" differently. In many ways, that's the challenge X'ers face: convincing Boomers that they'll be great leaders, even though they will probably approach the role quite differently.

President Obama offers a useful model: His operating team comprises primarily X'ers, but his Cabinet is dominated by Boomers. He seems to rely on them for their experience and knowledge, as well as their relationships with other critical players. As you build your teams, I'd recommend that you adopt a similar way of thinking about partnering with Boomers — tapping their strengths.

Can the experience of Boomers be blended with the option-seeking leadership style of Xers? From the Xer perspective, I would say yes. Leveraging Boomer knowledge and experience can provide Xers with lots of options "if" things go wrong. But from the Boomer perspective, I think the question is more problematic. I think many Boomers still view members of the "IF" Generation as not equipped for the challenge of leadership, and view the option-seeking that Erickson describes as evidence of a wishy-washy demeanor and an inability to make a decision and stick with it.

I've already done more generational generalizing than I know some of my readers are comfortable with, but it's almost as if your typcial Boomer believes there is always one best solution to every problem and it's the job of the leader to find it, while your typcial Xer believes there are often multiple solutions and it's the job of the leader to keep as many of them in play as possible.

If that's an accurate description, is it any wonder that Boomers are less accepting of Xers than Xers are of Boomers?

Photo Source

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.

Tammy Erickson Offers Career Advice for Generation X

Last week Tammy Erickson hosted an "Ask the Expert" forum on the Harvard Business Review's Answer Exchange. The topic, as advertised in this announcement was "Career Advice for Generation X.

Well, I was out all last week on a family vacation and knew I wouldn't have easy access to the web or the ensuing online discussion, but before I left I managed to post this question in the appropriate place on the HBR site:

Tammy,
I've heard you speak on Generation X's leadership potential--on the skills and perspectives its members have developed through their formative years and the first part of their professional lives--and about how those talents may be what's needed to pull us through the "Fourth Turning" that generation experts like Neil Howe describe as upon us. The stereotype of Xers, however, is skeptical of their leadership potential and their willingness to engage in broader causes. Also, our society's demographics seem stacked against GenX, with the much larger Boomer generation hanging on to leadership positions and the equally large Millennial generation already knocking at the door. If you still believe that GenX has the leadership traits needed to reimagine our organizations and take them to a new prosperity--what advice would you offer to GenX leaders who seek a larger role for themselves and their generation? What strengths must they learn to better leverage? What weaknesses must they learn to overcome? I blog regularly on these issues at The Hourglass Blog and would love to share your insight with my readers.

Well, imagine my surprise when I returned today and found the following answer from Erickson in the HBR Answer Exchange:

Dear Eric,

You're right. I do feel, based on hundreds of interviews with members of Generation X, that many X'ers have skills and perspectives that are well-suited to today's leadership challenges. I've written an article that will appear in an upcoming issue of HBR summarizing the research that lead me to this conclusion.

I do recognize that it's a bit of a contrarian view--not what many Boomers believe and even, as you point out, not necessarily what all X'ers anticipate. Let me try to address the themes of your great question, one-by-one.

Are X'ers skeptical of their leadership potential? Not exactly. I would say X'ers tend to find the type of leadership that has been commonly practiced in many organizations uncomfortable. And many simply are not interested in taking on executive roles. As one X'er commented to me: "Xers will never get to leadership positions because we have no ability or desire to tell others what to do." However, I am convinced that the requirements for successful leadership are changing in ways that will align more closely with X'ers' preferences and styles.

Are the demographics stacked against X'ers, with Boomers hanging on to leadership positions? Maybe, but I doubt it. There has been a lot of discussion about Boomers working longer. However, from my research, few Boomers want to continue working as intensively as they have over the past several decades. Most are looking for ways to ease off a bit, while continuing to earn some income. And, of course, the Boomers who are holding leadership positions today are the ones who are least likely to need to continue working for economic reasons. As a result, I do think that the leadership positions will open up. Over the next five years, I expect we will see opportunities in many companies for transitions from Boomer to X'er leadership.

My bottom line advice to X'ers is to trust in themselves. Believe that the perspectives and inclinations they have are indeed the ones their organizations need--avoid feeling the need to imitate the Boomers. My goal in writing What's Next, Gen X? was to offer specific advice on making the most of your work experience and, for those who choose to take on leadership roles, to leverage X'er skills effectively--for those wanting more detail, I hope you'll find it a useful guide.

Warmly,

Tammy

I don't know if Erickson is still monitoring the forum, but I responded with a follow-up comment regarding what I perceive as the unique challenge facing GenX leaders in the association and non-profit sector. Given all the apparent focus on helping those Boomers who want to "ease off a bit while continuing to earn some income" move from the for-profit to the non-profit sector, I wonder how helpful her advice to not try and emulate the Boomer leadership model will be for us.

She predicts that for-profit leadership positions will begin to open up for GenX over the next five years, but that sounds suspiciously like what the experts were saying five years ago. Then it was the economy and the destruction of their ill-tended nest eggs that was preventing Boomers from retiring. Now its a wave of "Encore Careers" moving for-profit Boomer leaders into non-profit leadership positions so that they can continue to self-actualize themselves and keep "making a difference." Those factors, combined with GenX's apparent aversion to traditional notions of leadership, threaten to keep GenX out of nonprofit leadership positions for much longer than Erickson may think.

Xers and Recessionary Leadership

I've linked to couple of articles by Tammy Erickson before. As a leadership guru, she seems a little more pro-Generation X than a lot of her colleagues. She's got a new book out, What's Next, Gen X?: Keeping Up, Moving Ahead, and Getting the Career You Want, and as part of the promotion for that book, the Harvard Business Blog put up this short audio interview with her. I found it to be an interesting perspective on the leadership strengths that she thinks GenX brings to the table, especially at this difficult time.

Most of the coverage I've seen about generations and the Great Recession seems focused on the Millennials, and about how the economic calamity may have derailled them and their careers. Newsweek, in fact, had a big story about it a few weeks ago, comparing them to the generation that came of age during the Great Depression.

Well, Erickson seems to say the more interesting generation to watch in the wake of the Great Recession is GenX.

First of all, let's look at how the Recession has hit the different generations. Everyone got hit hard--Boomers losing large portions of their retirement nest eggs and Millennials trying to get their careers started when there are far fewer opportunities for them. But isn't it the Xers who have the more pressing financial realities to deal with? Xers are now in the prime of life--the middle of their careers. They're the ones with unpaid mortgages and young kids who will need money for college in ten to fifteen years.

But in many ways, Erickson believes GenX is ready for this trouble. After all, they grew up during the little 'r' recession of the 1980s, and they watched as the adults in their lives got laid off and abandoned by the companies they had staked their careers on. This, remember, was really the beginning of corporate downsizing, of actually letting people go in hard times, and the expectations for lifelong employment at a single company were much more realistic than they are today. Because of this experience, GenX learned how to keep its options open, to not put too many eggs in the same basket, and to keep an eye out for themselves because no one else had any reason to.

And these are exactly the leadership traits that will be necessary to see our way through this Recession. Erickson says the other two generations tend to belittle this "let's keep our options open" perspective--calling it wishy-washy and indecisive. She compares that view to the criticisms levelled against President Obama for taking too long to make decisions and for letting the legislative process decide what's best instead of moving forward with a more principled stand. Think what you want about the President, but when GenX does this it isn't indecisiveness. A "keep the options open" leadership style means going with what works instead of what is needed to validate a particular perspective or point of view.

Most Xers I know are better at dealing with uncertainty and change than either their older or their younger colleagues. Erickson isn't surprised by that, and she says these are just the kind of leaders we need now to move our organizations forward.

Xers Can't Just Quit

Neil Howe's Lifecourse Blog has recently been pointing out items in the blogosphere that seem to be predicting the end of our world. Check out:

Death of 'Soul of Capitalism', where Paul B. Farrell of Marketwatch details 20 reasons why America has lost its soul and its collapse is now inevitable. Or:

American Pie and the Seasons of History, where Jim Quinn of The Burning Platform shows how our unavoidable downfall is eeriely foretold in the lyrics of Don McLean's cryptic classic, American Pie.

Like Howe, I've also been stumbling into more items that seem to be carrying the same water, most recently The US in GM, where Tom Davenport on the Harvard Business Publishing blog sees the same bitter demise for the United States that has befallen General Motors, and for many of the same reasons.

What's going on here? Howe says it's all part of something he calls The Fourth Turning, one of four natural and cyclical periods of history, driven by the interconnected waxing and waning of his four generational archtypes--Artists, Prophets, Nomads and Heroes. In The Fourth Turning:

A Crisis arises in response to sudden threats that previously would have been ignored or deferred, but which are now perceived as dire. Great worldly perils boil off the clutter and complexity of life, leaving behind one simple imperative: The society must prevail. This requires a solid public consensus, aggressive institutions, and personal sacrifice.

According to Howe, this has happened again and again in world history. We are now entering just the latest incarnation, where the old Artists are disappearing (Silents), Prophets are entering elderhood (Boomers), Nomads are entering midlife (Xers), Heroes are entering young adulthood (Millennials), and a new generation of Artists are being born (a generation, as yet, unnamed).

Essentially, the Boomers are freaking out because their world is changing in ways they don't understand, and rather than try to make sense of it, they're throwing up their hands and saying we're all doomed. In many ways, it reminds me of something I heard several Silents and Boomers say upon the election of Barack Obama--that they didn't feel like they were living in the same country they had grown up in.

A few of my recent posts (here and here) have dealt with the speculative issue of Xers "quitting"--giving up trying to lead organizations constructed out of Boomer building blocks and striking out on their own to create new organizations with a decidedly Xer vibe. But reading all this doom and gloom from the Boomers has me wondering if it isn't the Boomers who will be "quitting", leaving the Xers and the following generations behind to reassemble those blocks in better functioning ways.

As a point of comparison, check out these two items, which seem to deal with the same "fourth turning" issue, but from a distinctly Xer perspective.

The first is from Seth Godin, who sees opportunity in this world of crumbling institutions. The establishment doesn't like it when it can no longer tell who is and who isn't a journalist, or an entrepreneur, but Godin does.

The second is from Steven DeMaio, the blogger who inspired me to write my first post about Xers quitting. He describes the new era we're entering as one of permanent uncertainty, and has advice for how to deal with it.

The reaction of most people has been to ignore these realities, as they can be depressing to contemplate. A smaller but substantial number of folks are overreacting; I know several educated professionals, for example, who are buying guns, hoarding antibiotics, or stockpiling gold coins. I find both types of responses--denial on the one hand, paranoia on the other--to be chilling. But instead of merely dismissing them as immoderate, I'd rather figure out a way to bring both sides toward the middle.

The extreme responses of inaction and paranoia cannot be moderated for more than a very short time by frequent use of the word "hope" and calmly delivered advice not to panic, important as those elements are. A more practical approach is to acknowledge plainly and openly that crisis is here to stay and that living with it day in and day out need not feel like doom. The responsibility for initiating such conversations belongs, in part, to leaders in government, business, and elsewhere, but it also belongs to average folks--both are navigating these rough waters.

I agree. And who is more likely to start those conversations? The Boomers who see the sky falling on their heads, or the Xers whose job it will necessarily be to pick up the pieces and create some new constellations?

Should Xers Just Quit?

Intrigued by the theme of my own post last week, I did a little more digging on the Harvard Publishing blog and came across this post from Tammy Erickson. It's from March 2008 and it's titled "10 Reasons Gen Xers Are Unhappy at Work." It reads like a manifesto for why Xers should stop banging their heads against the Boomer-built wall of corporate America—a wall, it seems, with only a Millennial-sized door in it—and pursue their own entrepreneurial vision.

Erickson hopes this isn't the case. She states that corporations really need GenX to to serve as our primary corporate leaders over the next couple years. (Interesting phrasing there—evidently just a couple of years until those Millennials get enough of their own leadership cred.) And after her top ten reasons why Xers feel out-of-place and unwelcome in a traditional corporate culture, she concludes:

Is it time to jump off the corporate train? I hope not—at least not for most of you. Corporations really need your leadership. But I understand that we need to create corporate environments that are more conducive to your needs and preferences.

Regular Hourglass readers will see several common themes in Erickson's top ten list. But what I want to focus on is her use of the word "we" in her concluding thought. "We" need to create corporate environments that are more conducive to your needs and preferences.

Who is "we"?

Is it Boomers? Is it the established leaders of today and yesterday who will be creating these new enviorments conducive to the leadership style of their GenX successors? Will they even see the need to champion such a re-engineering of their institutions? With the Millennials coming up so fast and so large behind GenX—and being so much more like the Boomers—isn't it more likely that many will convince themselves not to fix what ain't broken?

Or is it Xers? Is it the emerging leaders of today and tomorrow who will be creating these new enviroments for themselves? Can such a thing be done within the framework laid down by their Boomer predecessors without the support of those Boomers and the support of the Millennials who will be comprising more and more of the workforce?

We all know that there is a tremendous amount of variability at the level of the individual in these discussions. As a result, a variety of corporate environments will undoubtedly evolve over the next decade. But if there are real generational forces at work here, to me they seem much more likely to result in Xers and not Millennials as the next unstoppable entrepreneurial class.

Will Xers Just Quit?

I recently stumbled across this post by Steven DeMaio on the Harvard Businss blog about ways to deal with a looming layoff. In it, he offers some interesting ideas on how to better demonstrate your value to an organization by taking some unorthodox steps to break yourself, and your performance, out of a routine. But what really struck me about the post was his opening line:

I've been surprised by the number of people I've met who, like I did, quit their jobs after the recession took hold last year.

After a little digging, I discovered that DeMaio quit his job in the publishing industry over a year ago in order to pursue some of his long-neglected passions—and has been blogging about his experiences for Harvard Business ever since. His first post on the subject is well worth reading, and I look forward to reading the rest as I struggle to catch up on his journey. It strikes me as rich fodder for anyone who is interested in pursuing their passions—in their current job or in a new one.

And DeMaio is right about the number of people who have taken the same plunge he has. Just skim through the comments (170 at last count!) that followed his first post. You'll find person after person egging him on, telling him they did the same thing he did, that it was the best decision they ever made, and wishing him the best of luck.

Now, I don't know how old DeMaio is, but I'm going to peg him as an Xer based on his photo on the Harvard blog and based on his reference to a grandmother who came of age during the Great Depression. And I don't know how old the commenters are, but I'm going to peg some of them as Boomers, some as Xers, and a handful as Millennials, based on what some of they say about their own lifestages.

It seems clear to me that there are people in every generation who decide to strike out on their own, who figure out that the best fulfillment is the kind that comes with doing what they love, and reject the structured pathways of success that have been hammered out by the generation that preceded them.

The question I have is whether Xers will do this in greater numbers than the Boomers that came before or the Millennials that will come after.

We've all seen the literature about Boomers hanging on to leadership positions longer than previous generations, and about how Millennials are destined to take over all the leadership positions the Boomers do vacate. Squeezed in the middle of those two leadership trends, will Xers decide to take a middle path—rejecting the frenzied competition for the leadership positions in our existing organizations and striking out on their own, like DeMaio and his commenters, to create their own opportunities and institutions?

Wait a minute. Look around. Isn't GenX, in fact, already doing that? Maybe the better question to ask is if GenX will be successful in changing our cultural narrative by staying outside of it.

The Xer Meme: Have I Sold Out?

Maddie Grant challenged me and several other GenX bloggers to respond to this question:

So go on, tell me, my fellow Xers – Have YOU sold out? Have YOU gone mainstream? Or are we still the guerrilla army, changing the world (only without telling anyone)?

If you haven't seen it already, go ahead and check out Maddie's full post. And then read those other bloggers who also got tagged and responded: Jamie Notter, Ben Martin, Maggie McGary, Elizabeth Weaver Engel, Shelly Alcorn and dozens more. Check out the links in the comments section on Maddie's post. They've all got something good to say.

As for me—Maddie, are you kidding? Sold out? Hey, I just got here. I'm just starting to build something worth selling, and when I turn it in, I want it to be for something much bigger than a company car and the corner office.

You see, I'm new to this whole blogging thing. This whole "standing up and saying what you mean and letting other people just deal with it" thing. I think a lot of us Xers are. We weren't happy with the way the world worked when we were 25, but we had no power and couldn't do anything about it, so we just griped a lot, and rolled our eyes when Forrest Gump won the Oscar instead of Pulp Fiction. Well, now we're 40, and guess what? We still don't like the way the world works—but we're beginning to move into positions where we can actually do something about it.

The larger question is—will we?

This is a true story, and it's going to sound sappy, but here goes. I got the idea for The Hourglass Blog on December 31, 2008, when I read Jamie's year-end blog post on his GetMeJamieNotter blog. In that post, Jamie talked about some of his goals for the new year. He wrote:

I want to speak more truth, push people more, stand up more, show up more. With all this "more," I'll need some less in there too. Less time wasted. Less waiting. Less fear, or at least less fear-based paralysis! Less yelling. Less worrying.

Those words inspired me. They still do. I decided to call him up (more or less out of the blue—to this day, Jamie and I have never met in person) and pitch him the idea behind Hourglass. And he said, yeah, let's go for it.

Have we sold out? Let's put that in the "less worrying" category. Can we make a difference? I'm standing up and saying yes.

The Millennial Athlete

I read a recent post on Neil Howe's Lifecourse Blog about a possible shift in the ethics of sports brought on by a generational shift in athletes from Generation X to Millennials. Citing an inspiring story published in the New York Times about Heisman Trophy winner Tim Tebow and his focus on charity work instead of lucrative NFL contracts, and citing his own work with executives at sports companies, Howe argues that a change is coming.

In contrast to the young man profiled in this story, I believe that Generation X (born 1961-1981) athletes have celebrated a me-first, winning-is-everything attitude over the tenure of their athletically active years.

Howe credits Generation X with leading sports over the past twenty years into performance enhancing drugs and the innate desire to crush one's opponents. Millennials like Tebow, Howe seems to imply, are motivated by something other than winning, and seek to use their positions of athletic role models to refocus those around them on more altruistic pursuits.

I look forward with great interest to see where Millennial (born 1982-200?) take professional sports.

Okay. First, I have to admit, I don't know much about sports and sports figures. Prior to reading the article Howe pointed me to, I had never even heard of Tim Tebow. But I find Howe's hypothesis (and I think that's all we can fairly call it at this point) fascinating. It almost makes me want to start reading the sports page.

The Hourglass Blog is all about exploring generations and leadership in associations and society. My own area of interest is what I call the "leadership challenge of Generation X"—namely, will GenX step up to fill the oft-predicted leadership void left by retiring Boomers and, if so, how will their starkly different generational perspective reshape the organizations they lead and the society they serve.

If Howe is right, then professional sports teams may prove an interesting case study for what happens when one generation takes over the leadership reins from another—in this case Millennials from Xers instead of Xers from Boomers.

But is Howe right? Millennials will undoubtedly put their unique stamp on professional sports, the same way they'll put their stamp on everything else they decide to get involved with.

But did winning at all costs really start with Generation X? Wasn't it Vince Lombardi (born 1913) who famously told his 1959 Packers that "Winning isn't everything. It's the only thing"? And according to this researcher, Lombardi might have gotten that idea from Henry ‘Red’ Sanders (born 1905) football coach at Vanderbilt and UCLA, who might have gotten it from University of Illinois coach Bob Zuppke (born 1879), who might have gotten it from University of Michigan football coach Fielding Yost (born 1871).

We hear a lot of hype (here and here, for example) about how Millennials are destined to take over the world earlier than any previous generation and reshape it in their own image and for the betterment of all humankind. Well, I say if Millennials are capable of making such fundamental changes like taking the pursuit of winning out of sports, then GenX really should just step aside and let them take over.

A Fan of Generation X

If you're a follower of this blog and haven't seen the post on Harvard Business Blogs by Tammy Erickson about "Why Generation X Has the Leaders We Need Now," you really should. Unlike Bob Filipczak over at "Managing the Generations," Erickson feels GenX is uniquely poised to confront the leadership challenges facing our businesses and our society today. It's funny how for each "negative" charactistic Filipczak ascribes to GenX, Erickson has a positive counterbalance.

Filipczak says you're Nomads. Erickson says, "Your distrust of institutions grew as you witnessed the lay-offs of the '80s and has prompted you to value self-reliance. You have developed strong survival skills and the ability to handle whatever comes your way with resilience. X'ers instinctively maintain a well-nurtured portfolio of options and networks."

Filipczak says you're Rule Avoiders. Erickson says, "Your preference for 'alternative' and early experience in making your own way left you inclined to innovate. You tend to look for a different way forward. Your strongest arena of financial success as a generation has been your entrepreneurial achievements."

Filipczak says you're Pragmatic, too pragmatic to be visionary leaders. Erickson says, "Your pragmatism has given you practical and value-oriented sensibilities that, I believe, will help you serve as effective stewards of both today's organizations and tomorrow's world."

If you're an Xer trying to move into a leadership position, Erickson's post will warm your heart, and it warmed mine. But at the same time (being such a pragmatic Xer), I have to ask—if Erickson is right in quoting Strauss and Howe:

William Strauss and Neil Howe, coauthors of Generations, posit that each generation makes a unique bequest to those that follow and generally seeks to correct the excesses of the previous generation. They argue that the Boomer excess is ideology and that the Generation X reaction to that excess involves an emphasis on pragmatism and effectiveness.

then, isn't GenX naturally suited for leadership now the way every generation is naturally suited for leadership at the time the older generation is moving on? If each generation seeks to correct the excesses of the one preceding it, doesn't that create a natural evolution of leadership from one generation to the next? What's all the fuss about?

Succession Planning

Thanks, Eric, for pointing me to Bob Filipczak's horrendous post about the crappy leaders that all of us Gen Xers are turning out to be(!). That one sets me off. It's interesting, too, because the book that Filipczak wrote (with Raines and Zemke), Generations At Work, is one that I like. I'll have to go back and see if what they wrote about Generation X fits with what he's saying now, because I find his generalizations to be a bit off (and in the Blog post, he doesn't particularly cite data or sources for his conclusions). And while I can tell I have a full-fledged rant coming together inside me about that post, I'm going to hold off and write about just one of the topics he mentioned: succession planning.

He said it's the hot topic right now, citing a conversation he had with a senior military official who is dealing with a major shortage of middle manager level personnel. We knew this was coming--Generation X is a small generation, much smaller than the Boomers. So if we try to fill all of those mid-level manager slots that Boomers filled with Xers, we'll fall short.

Filipczak's advice? Suck it up. Stay in your job longer than two years, embrace office politics even though it sucks, and work on our people skills (apparently we're bad at that and we don't have networks).

I tend to disagree with his generalizations about Xers, but even if he has data to back them up, I'm most upset with his conclusion about what to do next. He's still telling us how to be more like Baby Boomers. That WE have to change in order to make the current structure work. He says that we have a crisis because we have all these middle management positions to fill and not enough people. Isn't that backwards? We have tons and tons of people. Has it occurred to Filipczak that the answer might be MORE in restructuring the way the work gets done, as opposed to making Xers change the way they do things to fit the structure the Boomers created?

It's easier to think of succession planning as filling slots, and as long as the population is growing, that works. But when things shift, so must our thinking. Succession planning is really just ongoing leadership adaptation. How do we need to change the capacity within our systems to shape the future, given the demographic make up of our system? The demographic and generational shifts that are happening right now are real, and they pose a serious challenge to leadership and to management, but I think we'll do better by actually innovating management (see Gary Hamel), rather than sending all the Xers back to charm school so they can be "proper" middle managers like their Boomer predecessors.

Okay, I guess that was a bit of a rant.

Generation X Unfit for Management?

I think I found a new narrative out there in the "Generations in the Workplace" wilderness. For some time I've been saying that when it comes to generations in the workplace, all the stories I ever seem to find are on one of two topics:

1. Are those crazy Boomers ever going to let go and retire?
2. How are we going to manage those crazy Millennials coming into the workforce?

The Hourglass Blog got started because we wanted to start a new conversation. We recognize that Gen X is and will continue to move into leadership positions in our organizations and in society, and we wanted to explore what their new generational perspective will do to the way organizations are managed and the collective goals they may be directed towards.

Well, thanks to Dave Sohigan and his "The Gen X Files" blog for pointing me to this blog post from the "Managing the Generations" blog about how awful life is going to be under Gen X's leadership.

It's a pretty scathing indictment of GenX's inability to lead—written by Xer Bob Filipczak. He takes a look at Gen X's "core characteristics" and shows how none of them translate into effective management techniques. And guess what one of his predictions is.

At an executive leadership level, most “silo-thinking” Xers will be hard-pressed to succeed when managing large departments or even teams of more than a dozen people. Only those who can look beyond their own inclinations will rise through the ranks, especially in large companies. And because Millennials are so good at big teams, you could see the younger generation leapfrogging into executive leadership positions with tribes of Generation X managers reporting to them.

Yep. That's the new narrative. When will those GenXers get out of the way so those team-player Millennials can run the show?

What's the Point of Your Exercise?

I found this great article put out by Harvard Business Publishing on things business schools should be teaching their graduates to help avoid another financial meltdown.

At least once per decade for the last 30 years we've seen American business go seriously off the rails. The reengineering fad, Mike Milken and junk bonds, the savings and loan crisis, the dotcom boom and bust, the Long Term Capital Management panic--only a partial, abbreviated history of business disasters--suggest that something systemic is wrong with the way business goes about business. An individual with this track record of crises would be a candidate for an intervention, a time out in a recovery center, and life-long participation in the 12-step program of their choice. Something is wrong--and it's time to face it.

The author then provides some advice for correcting the problem, beginning with teaching would-be executives to ask the last question first: what is the point of the exercise?

Jack Welch famously said it was to maximize shareholder value--a terrible answer in retrospect. Peter Drucker famously said it was to make and keep a customer. What is the answer that fits our situation in 2009, and beyond? Today, business schools need to teach students to ask the last question first--or risk taking their company down the old dead-end path.

I'm no MBA, but I find the question compelling. Do association execs ask themselves often enough what the point of their exercise is? Are they challenging themselves to make sure they are leading something they can believe in? I think we all know some who do and some who don't. But how will those answers change as fewer and fewer Boomers and more and more Xers find themselves in the positions to be asking the questions?

Generation X Has Ideals?

Another blog I've started following is The Gen X Files, written by Dave Sohigian. One of his recent posts caught my eye, debunking seven myths about Generation X.

He goes through the usual litany—we are slackers, we are selfish, we are cynical, we hate our parents—admiriably defending X's unique point of view throughout. But one myth and Dave's response to it really spoke to me:

We have no ideals
We grew up surrounded by talk about ideals, so yeah, we are a bit tired of talking about them. Our generation wants to know how we can realistically change society for the better. We don’t see missing the ideal state as a failure and are willing to compromise ideology for practicality. But that does not mean we don’t have ideals.

I think Dave really hits the nail on the head. Most Xers I know really do want to change society for the better. And most of them are too practical to try and attempt it in any but the smallest ways. That's at least how I've always felt.

But ideals? Dave says we have them, I'm not so sure. If we were to create a list of Generation X ideals, how long would it be? The Free Dictionary says an ideal is a "conception of something in its absolute perfection." Do Xers even believe in absolute perfection?

Anyone got any nominations for the ideals of Generation X?

Getting Younger Members on Boards

Jeff De Cagna was kind enough to point me to a report done by the reputable organization, BoardSource, that describes the results of some research they did on how to engage the talents of Generations X and Y on nonprofit Boards. I’m a bit flummoxed by the whole thing. I’ll give you some actual quotes from the report, sprinkled with my commentary. I apologize in advance for the sarcasm, but honestly this whole thing is just a bit odd to me.

They want to “stimulate thinking and action among nonprofits regarding the roles they can play to engage Generations X (born 1965-1979) and Y (born 1980-2000) in good governance.”

[okay, I’m already annoyed because they did that silly Generation X is only 14 years for no good reason thing, but they’re not alone in that. I can let it slide.]

So to do that, they interview 50 Nonprofit Chief Executives and Senior staff leaders

[Who are likely to be overwhelmingly Boomers. Right? Does this sound weird to you?]

Here are some of their findings:

BoardSource learned that younger board members view board experience as synonymous with leadership development, so spearheading committees, setting fundraising goals, and measuring progress against those goals are common ways that organizations benefit from their zeal.

[Ummmm. You learned that younger board members like doing things, and that this can benefit your organization? Wow. Stop the presses. Also note that they learned this about young people by asking 50 old people.]

Generations X and Y want to be involved in meaningful work, not busy work.

[As opposed to Boomers and Silent generation who really despise meaningful work and will always choose busy work?]

The also asked these senior leaders what might be holding the Boards back from bringing in younger members:

Some interviewees say that they do not know where to find prospective Generation X and Y board members. Their boards comprise mostly Baby Boomers, who tend to recruit other Baby Boomers.

[Walk down the hall!!!! Generation X is something like 40% of the workforce.]

Chief executives express concerns that a solitary Generation X or Y board member might not fit in with other members of the board and feel isolated.

More specifically:

Generations X and Y board members typically have a perspective that differs from older board members, who, if feeling challenged, may single out that perspective and demand that it be justified.

[Okay, we don’t bring on Gen X and Y because we’re afraid they won’t fit in and would be isolated. Of course the existing older board members apparently don’t like to feel challenged ever, so they single out opposing voices and demand they justify themselves. Did the people who gave these answers hear themselves talking?]

Here’s another gem:

Board members unaccustomed to constructive debate can view younger board members as an aggravation, especially when the younger members’ views challenge the status-quo and the consequence of debate might be a loss of respect for each other’s opinions.

[If your Board cant’ handle debate or anything that challenges the status quo, you’ve got much bigger fish to fry than attracting Gen X and Gen Y.]

[So what do these younger folks need to be successful on the Board? Better communication skills:]

Interviewees tell us that technology is not always the best way to show personal sentiments. To add a more personal touch, they recommend younger board leaders pick up the phone and talk to fellow board members, meet face-to-face, and consider using pen and paper to draft thank-you letters.

[And they also need to work on their “teambuilding”:]

Interviewees note that younger generations must be able to look beyond their own piece of the work and care about the board's overall work. When joining a board committee, interviewees suggest younger members ask, “What contribution can I make to help the team succeed” rather than say, "I'll be on the team, but let me do my piece by myself.”

[In other words, in order to be successful on these boards, young people, it’s really important that you act more like Baby Boomers.]

Sorry for the rant, but I find articles and reports like this tend to take us AWAY from where we need to go. They are structured around generational differences yet don't particularly reveal a nuanced understanding of generational differences, and the interviews are done of a homogenous group. The results are predictable and don't really further any interesting dialogue or new sets of questions. I think we need to do better.

Twitter and Generation X

I came across a truly stupendous post about Twitter and Generation X from @JessieX. She says that Twitter has Generation X "written all over it." Her argument? Generation X grew up behind a "culturally dominant" Boomer generation, and find it hard to get a footing in the public sphere. Twitter, then, is perfect for us:

So, Twitter, as a tool, is microblogging. Right? It’s small bits. Gaps. Niches. Finding a very small space that requires no specific authority-granted position from which to speak. Finding a small space to insert a comment, a bit of information, a link to some potentially helpful info. Finding a small space from which to broadcast, engage, connect.

Read the whole post, because she also talks about why Millennials aren't flocking to Twitter as much, despite being a generation that is so comfortable with technology. 

From a leadership perspective, I think this all fits with my last "Center of Gravity" post. You don't need to be the center of attention in order to be a leader.

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?

Gen X Assets and Liabilities

Raines, Zemke and Filipczak have written a good book about Generations in the workplace. I particularly like that at the end of each chapter, they present an "Assets and Liabilities in the Workplace" section. I thought it was nice (and fair) to point out that EVERY generation has both assets and liabilities. Here's what they wrote for Generation X. Anything to challenge or add?

Assets:

·       Adaptable

·       Technoliterate

·       Independent

·       Unintimidated by authority

Liabilities:

·       Impatient

·       Poor people skills

·       Cynical