Inevitably, as fewer younger people join, older members must stay in charge until someone can take their place. If the same people remain in control for too long, the nonprofit becomes prone to stagnation due to the lack of fresh ideas from new blood. Those few younger people who join feel somewhat intimidated by the old guard still in charge. They shouldn't as the old guard, in most cases, is looking for some relief and are more than willing to pass the torch assuming the youngster is responsible and competent to fulfill the role. Such organizations need true workers, not just someone trying to make a name for himself. The young member, therefore, needs to prove him/herself in order to gain credibility and trust with the old guard. Assuming the young person can do this, the old guard should be wise enough to step aside and allow the young person to assume their duty.
Consider this though, what happens when the young person doesn't demonstrate they are capable of doing the job, yet expect to move up the officer chain of command; should they move up? It depends. The obvious answer is, No, the person is not ready and shouldn't advance. In reality, the young person has become dependent on letting the elders perform the work, and is content to let them do so. Under this scenario, if the elders can hold on until someone else can come forward with the right attitude, they should hang on until then. However, if the old guard is growing weary and it appears the youngsters are taking the elders for granted, you might just want to step aside and let the weight of the office fall squarely on their head of the youngster. In other words, they won't take responsibility until they are forced to do so and when this happens, they will either sink or swim, and this is the danger of such an approach. If the person fails, the organization may very well suffer for it.
So, we basically have a Catch-22 whereby the younger people develop a general distrust of the elders and vice versa and the nonprofit suffers while everyone jockeys for position. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be an easy answer to overcome this problem. Then again, maybe there is, namely "communications." For any transfer of power there has to be some open communications between the old and the new. They should not be viewed as adversaries as much as allies who think of what is best for the organization overall. The elders should be ready and willing to train their replacements, review policies and procedures with them, along with the various tools and techniques used to fulfill their duties and responsibilities. In turn, the youngsters need to ask a lot of questions. They may very well modify and improve how the job is implemented, but they must first understand the existing system before implementing any changes. Although the elders should monitor the young worker's activity, they should avoid the temptation of covering for the youngster's mistakes, otherwise this will create a dependency that is difficult to break. Give the person instruction and advice, but let the younger worker perform the work. It's not a bad idea to follow-up and review the person's work as well.
The ideal situation is to appoint younger people as assistants to key officers, thereby learning the roles. After the young person has assumed the role, keep the elder on in an advisory capacity. In other words, one stint as assistant, one stint as the actual officer, and one stint as an advisor. This would greatly facility the transition of power and bring a satisfactory level of conformity to the job. Unfortunately, not enough nonprofit groups do this.
When you discuss the old guard versus the new in nonprofit groups, it can be described as the immovable object meets the irresistible force. The young people think the elders are maintaining a stranglehold on the organization, and the elders think the youngsters are reckless who will ultimately destroy the group. No organization can survive with such deadlock. The two groups must seek common ground for the betterment of the organization overall. One thing is for certain, the old guard cannot do the job forever. At some point they must relinquish control to the younger members who must acclimate into the organization's culture and assume their responsibilities. If they do not, the organization will slowly grind to a halt. Bottom-line, it is a matter of building trust between young and old and this can only happen through an effective dialog of communications. Only by communicating can we come to understand the strengths and weaknesses of our people.
Keep the Faith!
Note: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.
For Tim's columns, see:
http://www.phmainstreet.com/timbryce.htm
Like the article? TELL A FRIEND.
Tune into Tim's THE BRYCE IS RIGHT! podcast Mondays-Fridays, 7:30am (Eastern).
Copyright © 2011 by Tim Bryce. All rights reserved.
Over the years I have noticed that we, as Americans, seem to possess a knack for attacking the wrong problems which I refer to as the "Rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic" phenomenon. I see this not only in the corporate world, but in our private lives as well. Instead of addressing the correct problems, we tend to attack symptoms. This would be like taking an aspirin to alleviate a major head injury. Attacking symptoms is something we habitually do in this country. 
Something I have wanted to write about for quite some time now is the many titles we assume describing who we are, our position in life and our relationship to others. I started to think about this after seeing a local news story on television where a tornado destroyed a mobile home. As the reporter was conducting his interview the name of the person was superimposed underneath his image along with the title, "Victim." Although I sympathized with the person's plight, I found it somewhat amusing someone might have an official job title of "Victim." Kind of like, "What do you do for a living?" "Well, actually I'm a professional Victim. I've been a victim for twenty-two years now."
When it looked like Donald Trump was going to throw his hat into the presidential ring not long ago, it electrified everyone including his supporters, opponents, and the Main Street Media. His blunt talk was refreshing to his supporters and scared the hell out of everyone else. The Main Street Media went right to work undermining his bid as they started to believe he could take down the president. He was ridiculed for everything from his hair, to his clothes, to his talk. The fact remains though, Trump scared them to death. Now I am not here to defend Donald Trump or explain his exit from the political stage. I'm not even a fan of his popular television show, "The Celebrity Apprentice." It is his image as a successful businessman who wanted to correct the ills of the country, and the reaction that ensued, which intrigues me. This is not so much about Trump as it is about any business leader who would want to be taken seriously on the political stage.
Mentoring has been a part of the corporate world for many years. When a young person came on board, someone would be assigned to him/her to offer advice. Not just anyone could be a mentor either, they had to demonstrate knowledge and skills for a specific line of work. Most enjoyed being a mentor as they saw it as a sort of "Big Brother/Sister." From a corporate perspective, it was hoped the senior person would also pass on such things as ethics and decorum, basically a lot of "do's" and "don'ts" thereby expediting the young person's maturation and acclimation into the corporate culture and groom the next generation of employees in a smooth and consistent manner. Unfortunately, things started to go awry by the 1990's whereby mentoring not only disappeared from the corporate landscape, but generational warfare erupted pitting the older workers against their younger counterparts. You could blame this on a variety of things, such as the bean counters who eliminated mentoring and training programs in order to save a buck or two, or on radical changes in Information Technology whereby older workers understood mainframes and legacy systems, while the younger workers rebelled with PC's and networking. Regardless, an adversarial relationship emerged by the latter part of the 20th century.
As charges of doping were brought against members of the US Bicycle Team, the investigation discovered the problem was much larger in scope than originally thought, not just here in America, but internationally as well. Americans should be familiar with the drug problem by now as just about every professional sport has had more than its share of incidents and scandal. Actually, we shouldn't be surprised by the rise of doping today as athletics are less about sports and more about business, big business.
Back when we were headquartered in Cincinnati, our corporate attorney was the same person who represented some of the members of the legendary Big Red Machine, including Johnny Bench, the famous Hall-of-Fame catcher. My father got to know Johnny over the years through our attorney's holiday parties. Years later, after we moved to the Tampa Bay area, my father called our attorney on a day when Bench happened to be sitting in his office. Wanting to send his regards, my father asked to speak to Johnny on the phone and told him his grandson (my son) was playing catcher in Little League and asked Bench if he had any advice for him. He replied, "Yes, there are three things he must do; first, if you're the catcher, you must catch the ball at all costs, that is your job; Second, when you make a throw to another base, point your opposite foot in the direction of the base, it will help guide you in the proper direction, and; Third, always wear a cup." Although his last point was said in jest, it was not without merit. Over the years, as I coached several Little League teams, I always began my catcher clinic with this little anecdote. It was simple, humorous, and because it originated from someone highly respected in his trade, my players took it to heart.
For more than 30 years I have had the pleasure of watching the development of some rather large and complex information systems, particularly for manufacturing, banking, insurance, and government. I have also had an opportunity to observe some rather massive system disasters in both the corporate and government sectors. It's rather unsettling to see companies shoot themselves in the foot on such projects, but it seems to have become somewhat routine in the last decade where I have seen banking systems fail, transportation systems collapse, and medical systems die a slow agonizing death, at considerable expense, usually in the millions of dollars.
During our lifetime, we inevitably run into some rather unsavory characters who will wrong, cheat or defraud us. Maybe even worse are people who survive not because they are industrious, but because they are intuitively political. They are commonly referred to as "Suck-Ups," "Brown Nosers," "Ass Kissers," "Yes Men," and these are some of the kinder descriptors. We've seen such people in school, on the playing fields, at work, our places of worship, in our neighborhoods, as well as the volunteer nonprofit organizations we participate in. They're everywhere and instead of earning their way through life like the rest of us, they've learned to develop alliances with those in a position to assist them in their career.
In this fast paced world where our finances can be deflated at any moment, where the business world can change overnight, and we cannot afford to miss a moment of political theater in fear it might adversely affect our lives (which seems to happen regularly these days), we can ill-afford to just mind our own business and do our jobs. Not long ago we could simply wake up, get dressed, go to work, do our job, and come home to play with the kids, never worrying about our careers, finances, or safety. Now we have to stay on top of things all the time. If we do not, we leave ourselves exposed to catastrophe. However, because our world is now so complex, staying on top of events can be a full time job which few of us can afford to do. 
When was the last time you congratulated someone on a job well done? Or perhaps dropped a thank you note in the mail? Or tipped someone generously for good service? Probably not as often as you think. If you are criticizing more than complimenting, you are probably overlooking one of the most effective tools for improving worker performance, the power of appreciation.
Quick, name all of the holidays in June.