The importance of generational literacy.

How gender and age affect your role on the board of directors.

Scenario 1. The occasion is a professional association's board retreat at a resort in the Southwest. The suggested dress for the weekend is "resort casual." Attendees ranging in age from late 20s to early 60s, with the greatest concentration between 35 and 45, are dressed primarily in khaki pants or walking shorts and golf shirts. The executive committee, all white males older than 50, presents a two-hour panel discussion on board roles and responsibilities and the importance of teamwork--dressed in three-piece suits. Scenario 2. The board of a medical society instructs the finance committee to take a conservative approach to investing association reserves. There is, however, significant disagreement about what being conservative means. Committee members older than 50 define it as making investments that are 100 percent safe, even if investing in certificates of deposit earning 2 percent loses the association money in the long run. The younger-than-50s define conservative investment as buying low-risk mutual funds. Each side views the other as stubborn and irresponsible.

Scenario 3. For a trade association's annual President's Conference, traditionally a week-long meeting in the Caribbean in February, the conference registration fee includes spouse registration and open-bar functions. Few younger members bring spouses or guests, and more are requesting a shorter meeting, on-shore location, more business sessions, fewer purely social activities, and a separate spouse registration fee. Long-time members who bring spouses every year are concerned that a shift in pricing policy means their companies will no longer pay for spouse attendance. The cultural differences are threatening to pull apart an association tradition that has always produced significant income.

Scenario 4. The incoming chief elected officer of a professional association, a man in his early 40s, hears a dynamic speaker at a conference. Without confirming budget or schedule with the staff executive, he hires the speaker to conduct a special session at his first board retreat. He is nonplussed to learn that the chief staff executive, a male older than 55, finds his behavior unacceptable.

Scenario 5. To save money at its annual meeting, a philanthropic society traditionally has the current and incoming chief elected officers share the hotel's presidential suite. Each has one of two bedrooms separated by the common living area used for entertaining and meetings. The incoming presiding officer is the first woman to hold the post and is younger than 40. The current chief elected officer, a 59-year-old man, refuses to share the traditional housing arrangement and locks her out of the suite.

Scenario 6. A 62-year-old male association executive is shopping the exhibit hall for a board meeting site. Most of the board members are his peers. One hotel salesperson working the trade show is a perky 30-year-old female intent on telling him all about the health club, the aerobics classes, and the world-class ski slopes nearby. To have more time to discuss his meeting needs, she suggests they talk later during a social event sponsored by the exhibitors--a dance party at a local disco. He declines and continues seeking a destination for his retreat.

Eye of the beholder

These examples are all based on real situations. They are manifestations of the collision of values held by men and women of different ages. Each group's world view affects how the group collects, processes, and acts upon information. World view influences leadership style, too. The missed connections in the preceding examples illustrate what often happens when gender and generational diversity come into direct conflict.

To put these differences into perspective, let's examine the characteristics of the three major generational segments now present on association boards.

Preboom. Born before 1946 (the start of the postwar baby boom), preboomers value safety, security, and planning for the future. If they were alive during World War II or remember the Great Depression, they may be concerned that there is not enough to go around. They have an inherent respect for authority and are used to abiding by it. Preboomers are willing to delegate authority to others if those others have credibility and a long track record earned through hard work. Preboomers tend to be fiscally conservative, and they take stewardship very seriously. Most who are in volunteer leadership roles have paid significant dues in terms of time and money to achieve those positions, often working through a complicated volunteer-service process. They are confused by how quickly the rules have changed and sometimes are angry that the rules changed just as they were moving into positions of power and authority.

Baby boom. Born between 1946 and 1964, the baby boomers value individual freedom, tend to seek more immediate gratification, and are used to having society respond to them. They do not delegate authority to anyone easily, track record or no, and they want to be asked their opinions and see results. They are outcome oriented and believe in setting clearly articulated goals. Remember, this is the generation that put day planners on virtually everyone's desk. Boomers are not afraid of hard work and, in fact, often are driven to overachieve, and they tend to risk spreading themselves too thin. They frequently break with traditional methods to move processes forward but can become impatient when change doesn't occur fast enough. They often believe so strongly in the clarity and rightness of their approach to work that they fail to see the worth of other approaches.

Baby busters. So called because they were born after 1964, in the bust that followed the boom, baby busters are highly technologically competent and cannot understand why the rest of the world is so far behind in using the magic of technology. Busters expect life to be fun and meaningful (probably in that order) above all else, and they do not view taking orders from someone else as fun or meaningful. This group expects to experience everything directly and to draw conclusions from that firsthand experience, not from what someone else tells them. They believe in working smarter, not harder or longer, and they reject traditional methods of measuring performance based on effort rather than output. Children of the television age, busters have shorter attention spans, and they are used to accessing and processing information the way they click through the channels--fast.

Not changing the guard--mixing it

The implications of these differences for associations is significant, not only in terms of identifying and appealing to members and developing member benefits but in regard to association leadership as well. Gender and age diversity are changing both the way boards of directors function and ultimately the governance structure itself.

We want to avoid overgeneralizing, but it is important to understand how these intergenerational and gender differences can create real divisions of power based on preferred deliberative and decision-making styles. For example, preboomers may think the others are rash or disrespectful. Boomers distrust authority not their own. Busters don't value tradition and are bored by lengthy processes. Women tend to be more intuitive in their decision-making styles, drawing on both data and what feels good subjectively. Gender-based difference in style is a bigger issue between preboomers and boomers than between boomers and busters.

With these kinds of inherent conflicts, issues of power and control where age and gender differences are both at work pose some of the most difficult situations for boards. As each new generation of leadership struggles to emerge and define its own leadership style, younger leaders tend at first to adopt the characteristics that worked for the board in the past. For example, consider the styles of clothing women wore as they entered business in large numbers for the first time in the early 1970s. Colorful suits and dresses, commonplace today, were unheard of as armies of women adopted navy pinstriped suits, white button-down shirts, and silk ties as their corporate dress. It was only after these women became more accepted and more comfortable with their roles that they expressed personal style through choice of dress.

An analogous trying on of styles is occurring today as a new generation of leadership begins to surface. It is particularly apparent in situations where boomers challenge preboomers for positions of power. Boomer women, for instance, espouse philosophies of openness, mutual trust, and respect. Unsure about the level of their authority, in the early part of their leadership careers they may adopt directive, authoritative, and even manipulative behaviors that appear to have worked in the past rather than behaviors more consistent with their own values and beliefs.

The challenge for a board, then, is to create an environment that helps each generation find and use a style of leadership that is both congruent with its own values and effective in rallying the contributions of others. This is no simple task, but it is one that must be openly acknowledged as necessary if we are to avoid ineffective behavior.

Generational differences manifest themselves in a variety of ways within associations. Some associations are losing older members who feel uncomfortable and drop out because they no longer have a home within the organization. This is particularly true of past leaders, who often no longer feel valued or honored as the mantle of leadership shifts to the boomer generation. Boomers are often active association volunteers in order to further their own political agendas rather than focus on the association's overarching mission. While common in trade associations in the past, this is relatively new behavior for professional association members. Busters, for their part, are less likely to volunteer because it is the thing to do; they volunteer when they can see a direct outcome as a result of their efforts.

The board must seek to move beyond individual agendas to find a shared outcome all members can value and to find common ground for determining shared accountability.

Three ways to help

What can you do to bridge the intergenerational waters and get work accomplished?

1. Create an awareness and acknowledgment of style and value differences and their impact on decision making instead of acting like everyone is motivated by the same things. Failing to acknowledge such differences is like ignoring the proverbial dead moose in the middle of the table--everyone can see it and smell it, but no one wants to be the first to say something. Just as associations assess program needs periodically to ensure that they are still appropriate for the membership, organizations need to examine traditional board behaviors to see what is still appropriate.

As a board leader, a good first step in that process is to invest in understanding yourself and what motivates you as well as others.

New technological tools can also help. Easy-to-use computer systems can put a small keypad at each board member's place or every chair in the house of delegates, for instance. When you take a vote, the system instantly analyzes responses by such demographic variables as age, gender, experience, or industry segment. Knowing that those differences produce characteristic responses, a skilled facilitator can engage the group in discussing its differences and the implications of varying value systems for the decision. By doing so, the group can move toward consensus based more on what its members share than where they differ.

2. Push board decisions to the highest policy levels rather than allow the board to get mired in "administrivia." Don't underestimate the importance of staying focused at the higher level. When the board agrees on outcome-oriented goals, individuals can contribute in ways most comfortable to them personally, rather than be told what to do and how to do it by the presiding officer or committee head. This eliminates the inherent style conflicts of groups that would approach a problem differently and builds on the strengths each demographic cohort brings to the table.

Agreeing to outcome-oriented goals is not a simple process. Both staff and volunteer leaders must work to ensure that the process focuses on the end result rather than the process for achieving it. Since activities are easier to articulate and manage than results, lowering the focus of discussion is a common trap that creates process conflict across generational and gender lines. 3. Rely more heavily on data, and recognize the importance of knowledge-based decisions rather than choices driven by members, staff, or the market. Frequent needs assessment--your source of data--must be a core competency of the organization. We have defined diversity in terms of ethnicity, race, gender, and now generation. In the future, we will have increasingly broader definitions of diversity that encompass any number of special-interest segments within the association's membership. In a knowledge-based association, it is less important who makes a decision than the quality of the information used to make it. That means we need to develop and maintain a common data base to guide decisions about member wants, needs, and preferences. Frequent needs assessment, as noted earlier, must be a critical planning component. Applying what we've learned

In looking at the implications of gender and generational diversity on boards, we've raised as many questions as we've answered. That is appropriate, since this is truly new ground for associations. Management literature first talked about managing diversity, as if all the elements could somehow be blended into a homogenized whole. Then discussion turned to celebrating diversity, as though simply acknowledging the differences and calling attention to them were the answer. We propose becoming multiculturally--or in this case, multigenerationally--literate. That is, learn and understand the values and behaviors of each generation and act in a way that allows all to contribute effectively.

What are the implications here for our earlier examples?

If our retreat attendees had thought about it, they might have realized that the executive committee members wouldn't be comfortable making a presentation in casual dress. And if the executive committee members had analyzed the situation, they would have realized this audience would tune them out because their appearance sent an elitist message.

The issue of investment strategy is a bit simpler. It is a matter of how one defines fiduciary responsibility that drives the split, so each group needs to articulate what is most important from its perspective. Then, through facilitated discussion, they can find a strategy that meets both groups' needs--one for high security, the other for a higher return.

The locked-out vice chair is placed in a most difficult situation. While acknowledging the discomfort of her predecessor, she needs to have an open discussion with him right away. That conversation should address the cause of his discomfort, the implications of his actions, and ways to resolve the situation that are mutually acceptable.

The offshore president's retreat may be an example of a program that has outlived its usefulness. Without support among new members, its continued success is in jeopardy. While it is difficult to let old programs disappear, solid needs assessment data would help the board determine if members prefer a new model.

If the chief staff executive and chief elected officer have not clearly articulated their appropriate roles and responsibilities, now is the time to do so. If, despite that discussion, the elected officer hires a speaker without consultation, his inappropriate behavior should be discretely addressed in terms of its implications for the partnership expectation.

And as for our executive in search of a destination, while acknowledging his discomfort with the entertainment style of younger hospitality executives, he can suggest an alternative or make an appointment for a meeting in his office upon return. The supplier trying to position her property needs to think a bit more like her customer in terms of how her property meets his members' needs.

We all need to better understand generational and gender diversity and the impact diverse perspectives can have on our ability to work and lead together. The key may lie within each of us. We can all appreciate that each generation has something different to offer and that those differences aren't wrong; they reflect the slightly different ways in which we view the world. If we can keep that in mind, we may be more likely to acknowledge and recognize our differences for what they are: a rich tapestry of resources upon which to build our organizations' future success.

Future Implications of Diversity

1. Governance mechanisms like the house of delegates will be called into question, as will all processes by which the few make decisions for the many. Associations instead will need procedures that allow stakeholders to have regular input into decision making and leaders to base decisions on knowledge of stakeholder needs, not their own opinions.

2. The association itself will change from enforcer to consultant, while day-to-day operating decisions likely will pass to smaller groups of individuals charged with implementing direction. That means no longer instructing chapters or affiliates what to do, but instead helping them agree on outcomes and implement the processes to achieve them.

3. For that to happen, the board's role also needs to change from directive to consultative. In that shift, leaders will need to improve--or perhaps change--their facilitation skills. The great man or great woman approach will no longer suffice. Rather, a leader will need to lead from knowledge, but without a preconceived outcome to sell. He or she will use skill to move the group to build a common vision for the organization.

4. Associations will move away from both geography-based representation and traditional power hierarchies. Constituency-based representation will be increasingly important, but the constituency will be defined in totally different ways. Just as our economic focus is shifting from local to global, so too will associations adjust their focus. Members in specific stakeholder segments (whether based on professional subspecialty, manufacturing focus, or distribution method) will have more in common with each other than with stakeholders from the same state or city.

5. Associations will invest the time and money to agree on high-level goals and values because the rapidity and complexity of change will not allow our organizations to make detail-level decisions through group process. Higher goals will then guide each individual volunteer and staff member to take day-to-day action.

6. In the past, a member needs assessment every five years might have been enough. Today, data more than three years old is obsolete. From baseline assessments of products and services to sophisticated focus groups to test new concepts, the association must be constantly testing and probing member needs and satisfaction. Generational differences in style and perspective make it even more important to make decisions based on good information. Regular, ongoing needs assessment will help avert decisions skewed by generational bias. 7. Board and staff accountability for responding to member needs will grow, not only in the area of programs but in the technology used to deliver programs. Member expectations for just-in-time, need-to-know information delivery will increase. Younger board members will push for benefit delivery methods that are more technologically sophisticated, in tune with their degree of comfort with technology.

Within the board itself, the arrival of more baby busters will spark quicker delivery of leadership information as well as shorter meetings and tighter agendas.

8. There will be serious pressure to balance the time for meetings and involvement, to structure meetings with more fun, and to link all activities to a greater meaning. New volunteers will be unwilling to go through chairs for 10 years to gain the expected credibility, creating change in the nominating criteria and processes used by most associations. Board agendas, reports, committee meeting habits, and information flow in general will depend more on technology and will lose extra padding.

Cate Bower, CAE, president of Cate Bower Communications, Alexandria, Virginia, is a former association staff executive and elected association officer. Marybeth Fidler, principal of Marybeth Fidler Consulting, Long Beach, California, has served as chief staff officer and chief elected officer of national associations. Both women also serve as senior partners in Tecker Consultants, Trenton, New Jersey, and consider themselves early boomers.