From my perspective, forged in years of observing the corporate and human dynamics, in different types of organizations and groups of people, there are issues that deserve to be addressed with the frankness that sometimes scarces in the discursive level. One of them is the one that concerns us today: the aforementioned generational diversity and the awkward figure of the “Old ‘bad’, as an example of when a diversity policy fails in its objectives
The question we must ask ourselves is: Why do some companies fail in their generational diversity policies and others do it?
The concept of generational diversity has been installed as a Must In modern corporate vocabulary. There is talk of multigenerational teams as a source of wealth, innovation and different perspectives. And in theory, this is absolutely true. As I have sustained on other occasions, a team (either in a company or in the field of sport) is more powerful and complete when adding the stature, agility, speed, robustness, youth and experience; Each has a place, a part of the plan, a skill or skill that contributes to the whole. Complementarity is the key, and the diversity of ages; Visions and experiences is, a priori, a genuine form of inclusion and a success formula.
However, the question that resonates frequently is whether this diversity is a tangible reality or if, as usually happens, it remains in the plane of marketing, a well -intentioned possess but lacking substance, of real content. Everything seems to indicate that, unfortunately, many times it falls in the second. And in that scenario, the already unjust caricaturized figure emerges from the “bad ‘bad'” or the “fashionable past”
Who is this “bad ‘bad’? It is the professional of more than 50 years, often with a vast experience and trajectory, which in formal discourse is an invaluable asset, but in everyday practice it is perceived (or feared) as resistant to change, slow, expensive, technologically outdated or, simply, someone who” no longer fits “in the new and innovative new culture.
But, Is this an immutable reality or a convenient construction to justify other organizational shortcomings? From my perspective, The problem does not reside in age or experience, but in the inconsistency between what some organizations say and what they really do.
Talking about generational diversity without genuinely integrating experience capital is like the king of the old story that asked for producers to solve unnecessary expenses and received water. The little transparent communication, an unclear strategy in the face of a crisis, in the case a tremendous postwar period, made each producer decide to bring water. In the corporate world, sometimes, the lack of solid, transparent and effective communication at all levels generates uncertainty and loss of confidence, leading to initiatives (such as “diversity”) being perceived as inconsistencies.
The accumulated experience is a capital, it is the result of years of learning, to face and solve challenges, to have seen “pass elephants”, in manada and the race, (and learn to dodge them). This experience allows “stopping different” in the face of challenging situations. In a market in constant evolution and in times of crisis that force to challenge conceptual budgets and traditions, adaptability and resolution capacity forged over time are active value. The backbone of an organization, as in rugby, should be formed by experienced leaders, with experience, skills and skills that are able to direct the attack, distribute the game, create situations of achievement and conquest. We need that solid base and, at the same time, flexible to adapt to changes.
So why is the experience sometimes looks like a ballast and not as a necessary anchor? Here comes into play, to a large extent, leadership. As I have pointed out, true leaders are references, capable of influencing, guiding and inspiring. But many times toxic leaderships abound or, how to call them paraphrasing José Ingenieros, “mediocre leaders”, due to lack of training, information or preparation for the role.
These mediocre leaders are a kind of “herbicide” that does not let talent, creativity, team spirit and trust flourish. Because? Because they perceive talent, experience, professionalism and intellectual honesty as threats. Their insecurity leads them to operate in a negative way, surround themselves with inexperienced but often manipulable collaborators. They do not accept that their employees grow.
In this context, “generational diversity” becomes a tool of toxic leaders to “dress in innovation clothes”, surround yourself with new talents to “be fashionable”, but then offer them “old projects” and apply “new policies, with old implementations.” This is not perceived as coherence, but as fiction of the action.
We will talk about agility, innovation, diverse teams, but the mentality of “rigid mandates” is maintained that are the parents of the conflict and come from a higher instance that does not always manage to understand the context. A “defensive, flat and linear” strategy is applied, as in the wars were the old “fortified lines”, instead of the flexibility of the “rotating door” that allowed to attack or defend itself as required, and according to the context.
The lack of sincerity with themselves of those who define culture, management based on mere theory instead of reality, of the desk as a dangerous place to make decisions instead of walking the land. All this helps to create an environment where experience is not valued for fear or incompetence of leadership. The “bad ‘bad'” is not the cause; It is a symptom of a deeper problem: the inability of many leaders to manage reality, integrate talent in all its forms and execute a strategy with coherence, flexibility and intellectual honesty.
In order for generational diversity to be more than marketing, a prepared and flexible leadership is required that understands that the value is in genuine complementarity, not in imposition or discard. Transparent communication is needed that does not hide the crisis or challenge that faces. It is necessary to invest time and resources to really integrate, in developing skills (including intergenerational), in promoting diversity and inclusion in an honest and transparent way. It is necessary, in short, that leaders have the courage to manage reality and build an organizational backbone based on healthy experience and leadership.
The “bad ‘bad'” does not exist as such. There is resistance to change (which can occur at any age), there is outdated (which is the responsibility of the person and the organization), but, above all, there is a systemic failure in the management of talent and in the ability to integrate the wealth that the different stages of professional life can contribute. Overcoming this fault requires less marketing and more concrete action, led by those who really understand the value of experience and have the capacity (and courage) to manage it.
Just to conclude: Marguerite Yourcenar, The famous French writer then nationalized American held in a letter to Jeanne Carayon: “… my age changes, and has always changed time. In the moments of tiredness I have ten centuries, in the moments of work, forty years, in the garden with my dog, I have the impression of being four years old … “
In some way or another we all feel the child, the young man, and the mature man, that we were or we are, and all those beings continue to live in us as different layers of our being, we just have to give them the appropriate professional and emotional context so that each one gives us their best contribution at the right time.
By Marcelo Villegas
