NP 2020: Mentoring and the language of intergenerational dialogue

The NP 2020 conference wrapped up today, and in our final open sessions, we were encouraged to reach some systemic recommendations regarding next steps.

An opportunity that surfaced again and again related to mentoring in the sector. As I’ve alluded to before, mentoring always gives me pause because of its varied interpretations. Those variations came through today both in terms of the problem-solving that groups did and in terms of the tension that could be sensed as we debriefed on key themes from our previous day’s work.

After Susan Morales-Barias (our facilitator from GVSU’s Johnson Center) shared key themes from Friday’s sessions, she invited participants to add comments. One participant, a Baby Boomer, asked that we all be more mindful of the language we use as we try to engage in conversations about mentoring, professional development, and transition in the sector. She said she felt that the tone of the group seemed to put the blame on another generation while also making large generalizations about the intentions of Boomer leadership.

Rather than dwelling on “Boomers do this to me…”, this attendee asked that we consider outside factors that affect Boomer and young leadership alike. Rather than relying on generalizations or assumptions about Boomers, she encouraged us to speak based on how we perceive Boomer leadership.

This comment provoked exactly the kind of fresh dialogue I was hoping to find at a conference like this. Some of the younger participants seemed to agree with the woman, but others argued that our generation needs the space to come together and put concerns on the table without semantics, politics, and feelings getting in the way. One participant went so far as to say that such interjections from Boomers had made her feel like she was being “scolded by a parent.”

I’ll be honest, the notion of being scolded by a Boomer hits home for me. I have definitely felt that way before, and tried hard not to feel that way at NP 2020 in a couple instances (like when one Boomer participant chided that we all “need to read our history”). At the same time, I count many Boomers as friends and mentors. I could never devalue or dismiss their role in getting me to where I am. But…I definitely feel that their approach to mentoring differs from the approaches of some of their Boomer peers.

So I say, yes, let’s propose mentoring as a solution. But let’s also clarify the language of intergenerational dialogue, which obviously needs attention based on exchanges like the one at NP 2020. If we fail to clarify this language, our generations will continue to merge haphazardly, perhaps even oblivious of one another.

With that clarification, I think mentoring itself will be strengthened. Mentoring is too often viewed as a transfer of knowledge—one person transferring a skill set, content expertise, etc. to a less-experienced person. In reality, it’s time for mentoring to be viewed as a vehicle for advancing the sector, not just an add-on for getting into the sector. One Boomer in my dinner group told me she’s participated in an approach called “appreciative inquiry”—I love that term and am going to look into it.

To set some sort of direction for all this, here’s my take: Mentoring needs to be as much an organizational development process as it is a talent development tool. As Susan pointed out, the leadership deficit is happening now—it’s not going to happen when 640,000 executive leaders leave their positions. We don’t simply mean people when we refer to a deficit. There is a deficit in meaningful exchange of knowledge and perspectives. There is a deficit in common understanding and common ground to voice concerns and celebrate progress. And if we don’t have candid conversations about that now, the changing of the guard could be the least of our worries…