Received a great forward from Sara Edwards at On the Boards (both are friends here, check them out):
I was just forwarded this link from a national emerging leaders group I'm a part of. It's a transcript of a keynote that Ben Cameron, of the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, gave in September. He touches on a bunch of topics that seem relevant to the Creative Conversations group.
We heard concern about an impending generational transfer of leadership, as a generation of founders retire or depart. And while much of the concern was around where we might find their successors—especially given different expectations from young people around higher compensation, shorter hours, in essence less patience for the sacrificed lives of dignity and the financial masochism that were the givens for so many in my own generation—this conversation brought to my ears, at least, a new strand of the conversation: the unwillingness of emerging leaders to be mere custodians of organizations they inherit. "There are plenty of us eager to give ourselves to the arts." they said, "But unless we are given the same authority to reinvent and reshape organizations as you yourselves were given, we are not interested."—a point of view that raises far more questions about an organization's capacity for change than about the identity of an heir apparent.
It's hard to find discussion of this in the main stream so thanks so much for the forward, Sara. Agree with Mr. Cameron? His speech for me raises interesting questions about "the nature of authority" - which, incidentally, is nicely discussed in a recent article in the Capitol Hill Arts Center newsletter (also an active Creative Conversation participant):
There is an old truism that states: "authority is derived from potentially unrewarded responsibility." Everyone starting in the business wants the upside of control: calling the shots, the VIP parties, the key artistic decisions. The (potential) catch is that those moments of authority are gained from previous moments of (perhaps painful) responsibilities—bills, union negotiations, sweeping up trash, medical emergencies. The key concepts here are basic: risk and reward. These two should go hand-in-hand: if you take the risk, you get the reward.
I bring this article in as an example of an alternative to Mr. Cameron's portrayal of the next generation demanding to be given authority to reinvent. If you buy Capitol Hill's "old truism," then, though established leaders can - and should - certainly make it easier through attitudes, openness, mentoring... ultimately, it's up to an individual to identify and take on that potentially unrewarded responsibility AKA identify new opportunities, reinvent and reshape without permission... and from whatever position. Controversial? I don't know. I wonder if the definition of leadership is in fact that lonely territory of not-quite-approval-yet. By definition, you're out in front? I appreciate that Cameron shifts quickly out of the us-vs-them portrayal and into the question of an organization's capacity for change - a question that, to be adequately addressed, obviously demands productive, integrated collaboration across generations - and across difference in general.
I prefer this over the "pass the torch" model, which implies a benefactor who grants authority. I'd pose that true authority is derived from that initial risk or initiative and is ultimately granted by successfuly serving a community. I'd also pose that the next generation doesn't want to "take over one day" and would rather not define itself in opposition to others. Like, whoops here ya go see ya. The next generation is accostomed to functioning in the face of extreme political complexity and recognizes, on principle, the benefit of building collaboratively on what's already been accomplished. Does this acurately reflect everyone? Anyone feel silenced by this?
GO Puget Sound for being on top of many of these questions way back in '07. All new episodes coming soon in 2008.. :)
paige