Daring to Lead 2006 - Finding 1

I wanted to get back to the Daring to Lead 2006 study. When Jamie and I first blogged about it, we got a thoughtful comment from one of the study's co-authors, who made the point that one of things that prompted the study, and its predecessor in 2001, was the observation that talented and committed non-profit executives were burning out early in their tenure because of the overwhelming demands of the job. In reviewing the study's more detailed findings, the case for that conclusion really bares itself out.

For starters, let's take a look at their first major finding: Executives plan to leave their jobs—but not the sector—within five years. Fully three-quarters of the nearly 2,000 study responders agreed with this statement. And, more directly for our purposes, those results did not vary according to the age of the responder. Eighteen percent were under 40, twenty-five percent were between 40 and 49, forty-one percent were between 50 and 59, fifteen percent were between 60 and 69, and one percent were 70 or older—and across the board seventy-five percent of them said they were planning to leave their current jobs within the next five years.

When asked what to classify their ideal next job, seventeen percent of the executives cited retirement. Although the report is not specific on this point, it would seem logical to assume that this reply was skewed towards to older responders—perhaps that entire group over 60 and a few in the 50 to 59 range.

What assumptions would the different generations attach to these findings? Speaking as an Xer, they don't seem all that out of whack with my own expectations and experiences in the non-profit association world. Most younger executives I know view movement to a new association after several years of success as a valid career development move. And Jamie has already described how the Millennials expect to have four or five different CAREERS over the length of their working lives.

The report does not position it as anything else, but taken in and of itself, this first finding seems to validate the natural dynamics of the nonprofit marketplace. The reasons behind this anticipated turnover will be explored through some of the other findings.

Being in the Middle

Generation X is obviously the thin middle in our Hourglass metaphor, surrounded on both sides by much larger (and, according to Strauss and Howe, more dominant) generations. And recently we've also primarily been in the middle of organizations, between the senior level and the entry level.

Barry Oshry wrote a great book titled Seeing Systems that talks about the way people act when they are "tops," "middles," and "bottoms." It's very predictable and consistent. In the book he points out that middles are constantly frustrated because they are trying to please both the top and the bottom, but he argues the middle's real role is to connect the top and the bottom together directly rather than trying to be a buffer between them.

I'm honestly not sure if this line of thinking applies to the generations, but I have been wondering lately if Generation X right now has an important translation role to play--connecting boomers and millennials by helping to translate the worlds for each of them. Although Gen X outnumbers Millennials in the workforce right now, they are a bigger generation and will eventually outnumber us. Being the middle of the hourglass, Gen X is constantly a minority. And minorities are much better at learning the language of the majority population than vice versa (they have to for survival). 

I'm getting clear that Generation X is not really about being in the limelight (neither was the Silent Generation). So do we have a role as translators?

Gen X not worth studying?

A friend pointed me at this blog entry, where the author is citing statistics from a recent study done by Accenture on consumer electronics usage. Responses are broken down by generation and focused, evidently, on the only two that matter—Baby Boomers and Generation Y.

I couldn't find the actual study online, but the news story in the consumer electronics trade press the blog author points to seems to confirm that the study grouped respondants into only two generational categories—Boomers if the respondant was 45 or older, and Generation Y if 44 or younger.

Now, I know the start and stop years associated with each generation can vary a little depending on your source, but has anyone ever seen such an oversimplification? And what does it say about Accenture's expectations for variation of usage (and spending habits) among age groups that they believe these are the only categories worth looking at?

A story about a more segmented study on the same subject can be found here.

The Hourglass Blog Gets a Plug at the WSAE Meeting

I participated in a panel discussion called "Get Linked! Using Social Networking to Energize Members" at the Wisconsin Society of Association Executives (WSAE) meeting yesterday in Madison, WI. In addition to having a great time discussing all kinds of social networking with my local peers, I also got the chance to plug The Hourglass Blog, and spend some time talking about my initial impressions as an association blogger.

I spoke of the need for passion. Not a passion for blogging, but a passion for the subjects you're blogging about. Any effort built on enthusiasm for the mechanism rather than for the message is probably a passing fad.

Everyone was very kind to me, and there were a lot of thoughtful questions and comments made by folks in the audience—some boomers, some Xers, maybe one or two Millennials—all trying to define the personal and professional value of social networking for themselves and their associations.

I encouraged people to think about this passion issue when trying to decide how to use social networking tools with their members. Who should drive your new initaitive? The twenty-something with 600 friends on Facebook? Maybe. Her familiarity with the technology will undoubtedly help you avoid some deep pitfalls. But unless she has a passion for what your association does, you probably don't want her to be the only one involved in constructing the new virtual environment in which your members will be interacting.

If you attended the WSAE session and you're reading this now, please leave a comment on this post, even if it's just to say "hello," or to let me know you heard what I was saying and it connected with you. I think it would be great if we could establish a discussion here about how different generations view and utilize social networking technologies.

The Opposite of Micromanaging

At the Great Ideas conference in Miami earlier this year I did a session with Jeff De Cagna on leadership lessons from 80s music (chronicled on the Get Me Jamie Notter blog starting here), and one of the lessons I talked about was "learn about generations." In preparing for that talk I started to reflect on what it has been like over the last eight months being an executive director of a small association and working with other staff at the AMC where I am employed. 

Specifically, I have received feedback both from my volunteer leaders and the staff I'm working with that I needed to "show up" more and have more of a "presence." This is valuable feedback and I'm working on it, but it also got me thinking about generational issues. I happen to fit the Gen X stereotype perfectly when it comes to independence and a distaste for micromanaging. I was the typical "latch-key" kid who took care of himself growing up, and it's true that in my previous jobs I tended to bristle against the boss being too involved with what I was doing.

So, not surprisingly, now that I'm the boss I tend to work with others to figure out what the direction is or what the tasks are, and then I leave them alone. It was interesting to get the feedback from others that this wasn't welcomed by others (in different generations) as much as I unconsciously assumed it would be. The Board even considered my lack of presence a bit of a "vacuum" that needed to be filled.

So as more and more top leadership positions get filled by Generation Xers, how is the typical leadership behavior going to change? More importantly, how will the system react? Because of the overall population numbers (Generation x being the small middle of the hourglass) it is quite likely that even at the top of the org chart, Gen X will be a minority in the system (in my example the Board is almost all Boomers and the staff feedback came from Millennials) so it's not about some new Gen X leadership style taking over. It's about shifting the organization's capacity, and maybe its culture a bit, to account for new leadership behaviors.

Why the Military Produces Great Leaders

I found this article on HarvardBusiness.org to be interesting, especially the following quote:

"The current economic environment, partly caused by a crisis of self-service leadership, has created belt-tightening reminiscent of a world war, with budgets slashed, travel funding restricted, training programs cut, personnel layoffs, and other draconian, cash-saving measures in place. CEOs have to start leading like generals—even if that means living a lifestyle in common with their troops."

The author implies that there are two basic styles of leadership—one in which the leader serves him or herself, and another in which the leader serves the people he or she leads.

The comment thread on the article is also interesting, as people debate whether or not the military approach to leadership—the one is which the leader serves others—is really best for the business world.

It all makes me wonder about different leadership styles in associations, and the perspectives that leaders from different generations might bring to the question. In my own experience, the association leaders who "lead for others" are always more beloved than those who "lead for themselves," but I'm not sure they are any more effective.

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?