Skip to main content

Younger Minds Attract Younger Audiences*

IF "YOUNGER MINDS ATTRACT YOUNGER AUDIENCES" isn't your institution's mantra, you should seriously consider making it so.  Not just for staff and volunteers, I'm thinking this needs to be your board's mantra, too.  That's particularly true for well-established, highly structured cultural organizations presenting traditional programming formats. You know these organizations; you may work or volunteer in one.
While we read about the graying of audiences for some cultural activities, I'm wondering how gray the board and senior staff are.  Do you think there's a distinct correlation?  
Younger minds do more than attract younger audiences.  They keep the cobwebs at bay.  They help us question accepted practice and remix familiar elements to make new connections.  And they are the fundamental bridges to our organizations' futures.
Some organizations utilize "junior boards" for folks under 40 to try out their chops.  If you shine there, you'll get to move up to the "grown-up board" someday.  Some organizations create "junior committees" primarily to foster under-40 philanthropy (their activities always look like a lot more fun than the grander, big-money affairs). 
In big, bureaucratic institutions these mechanisms undoubtedly have a place for training, mentoring, and shaping next generation leadership.  But for most culturals, there's a pressing need to bring younger minds to the board room today.  It seems that few, though, have any inkling how to do that.  

Stereotypes about board service -- good, bad, and downright ugly -- seem to prevent so many boards from looking beyond a fairly short radius of known quantities.  This is particularly true when it comes to looking for younger minds.  These boards need to do two things immediately:  1) quit repeating that under-40's don't have time for board service, and 2) quit saying you don't know anyone.  All great boards are fed by far-reaching, complementary networks, and age is one of them.
If you've made an honest attempt to attract younger minds to board service and come up short, I submit that you need to rethink your organization's expectations of board service and its mission.

Photo:  Visitor Video Competition from Brooklyn Museum

* Carol Vogel.  "The New Guard of Curators Step Up".  New York Times:  March 13, 2010.  http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/18/arts/artsspecial/18NEXTGEN.html

Comments

cdilly said…
Hi Anne,

I think this post is spot-on, and it's perfect timing in the wake of The Chronicle of Philanthropy's "Do Nonprofit Boards Really Want Younger Members?"article Thursday! (http://philanthropy.com/blogPost/Do-Nonprofit-Boards-Really/22039/ for any who haven't seen it.)

I'm a member of Gen Y and so, quite predictably, are most of my friends. Organizations that want to reach me and secure me as a donor have the greatest chance of doing this through my contacts. I imagine this has been true for every generation.

I think you're right that organizations leaving younger folks off of the board will always be missing that opportunity to both attract younger audiences and "keep the cobwebs at bay," (well said)... though, I may be biased. :)
Hi Colleen,

Thanks for your comment and link to Rosetta's post. I just left this comment there:

The bottom line for me is that boards work best when there is a diversity of voices around the table. I think that a mixed age group offers a range of experiences and wisdom that each member can tap into and learn from (just as racial, ethnic, economic diversity does). Diversity enhances individual strengths and compensates for individual weaknesses.

The challenges for many boards is to 1) embrace this philosophy and 2) to act on it. Making it a reality takes strategy, time, and a willingness to reach beyond the circle of familiar board faces. In doing so, the organization will be creating new networks for itself. Diversification (of boards, staffs, volunteers, audiences) becomes an act of organizational empowerment.
Anonymous said…
Great post Anne! I would add it's not enough to put people under 40 on your board, you also have to listen to them. I've been in many a meeting where younger voices may have been invited to the table--but when they offer a dissenting point of view they are either ignored, or reminded they don't have enough experience to really know what is going on. Not a good way to encourage participation by the next generation.
Excellent point, Maureen, and I'm sorry I didn't make that point in the piece. This is one of those issues that is age-less, don't you think?
Anonymous said…
I think you are right about age-less. There is a tendency to ignore the contributions of young people, but to be fair it's fairly common to ignore outliers in general. It's ironic that we invite people to serve on boards to help us get "diverse perspectives" and then we get all worked up when they look at things differently than we do ;)

This is one of the biggest reasons I support consensus based decision making. It helps break a group's instinct to assume the best solution is the one most obvious to the majority of the group.
Carole said…
After my election to my first Board, the Executive Director happily exclaimed, "Now we have 3 Board members under 40!"

Although flattered, I sadly had to let her know she was under a misapprehension, as I was at the time 45.

Moral of the story: you can't judge a book by its cover... :-)

Popular posts from this blog

Back in the Saddle

MY LAST POST WAS NOVEMBER 2012, A LIGHT YEAR AWAY it seems, that marked the beginning of a long push toward completing a manuscript on history museum leadership with my co-author, Joan Baldwin.  We finally submitted 350+ pages to our editor at Rowman & Littlefield this week.  If all goes well, we expect the book to be available in early 2014.  It's taken us two years to get to this point, so six more months or so of revision and production don't seem too long to wait until we can hold the final product in our hands (and you can, too!). The project put a lot of things on hold, including this blog.  I'm glad to be back writing about intentional leadership -- leading by design -- for nonprofit boards and staffs.  Certainly, my thoughts are now informed by the forthcoming book, in which Joan and I posit that nonprofits need to focus resources on leadership, not just management.  Most cultural nonprofits are at a crossroad, as is the sector in general, where nothing is qu

Change for Your Board in 2010: A Polling Update

WE'RE A DAY INTO MY LAST POLL (SEE RIGHT) AND the responses are clustering in two areas: 1) removing dead wood from the board and 2) using better/different tools to make decisions/evaluate performance. There are still six days left for your colleagues to cast their vote! In the meantime, those of you who are in need of tools for decision-making might want to check my posts on taking stock here , here and here .

Three Most Important Nonprofit Executive Director Soft Skills

If you were asked to narrow down the list of executive director qualifications to the three most important, which ones would you identify? Would the list consist of soft skills, hard skills, or some combination? Would your list be based on the great ED you are or one you've worked for, or would it be your wish list for the ED you haven't been fortunate yet to work for?  This was an assignment in my recent online class in leadership and administration for the American Association for State and Local History . I asked the class to review three-five advertisements for museum directors and analyze what these listings intimated about the organization’s past experience, current focus and goals, and future aspirations. Then, I asked the class to identify what they consider to be the three most important qualifications they would look for in a director. (Okay, so there's more than three if you dissect my three big groups.)  Soft skills outnumbered hard skills, although