The Next Generation of Principals

Warning: I am going to refer to some “generational theory” in this post. This theory is replete with generalizations and stereotypes of the members of each generation, while in reality there are some blurred lines between different generations. Some Boomers act and think more like Gen Xers, some Xers act and think more like Millennials (or Gen Yers), and some Gen Xers act and think more like Boomers.

In a recent post on LeaderTalk, Scott McLeod posed the question “who would want this job” referring to the demanding and complex job of the principalship. I replied that the looming shortfall in qualified and willing candidates will require some innovative and out-of-the-box thinking if school districts want to attract Gen Xers to these positions. My response is based partly in Strauss and Howe’s theories on generations, partly on some recent articles and blog posts about Gen X and Millennials/Gen Y in the workplace (and the generation gaps between those two and the Boomers), and partly on my own experience in a large urban school district.

So, at the risk of offending any or all members of each generational cohort, I’ll try to summarize some of the theory, some of the recent “predictions” (as written in the media), and to pull out the key points that current educational leaders need to consider regarding the role of the principal (or any school leadership position) and the next generation of school leaders. I hope that all members of each of the generational cohorts find the information in this post informative.

Disclaimer: I am a member of Generation X. I am a teacher (certified), an artist, a blogger, and an instructional leader. I am also certified (Texas principal) with an M.Ed. in educational leadership. I am seeking a career path that allows me to be involved in education leadership is such a way that I continue to have a close tie to the classroom, allows flexibility in the work, and provides a healthy balance between work and family/personal life while also providing stimulating challenges and personal fulfillment. I am not motivated by money, titles, or status, but I am motivated very much by “quality of work life”. I am turned off by the current state of the administrative roles and work loads on most campuses, and I find myself frustrated by traditional hierarchies, manipulative and dictatorial management styles, and rigid bureaucracy. My supervisors can only earn my respect through their actions — not through their words or because of their titles/positions. Having said all of that — some of my best friends, including my own parents, are Boomers and I love them dearly. I respect the work of many Boomers who are also educational leaders, and I look to some of them as role models and mentors.

(All BOLD emphasized words and phrases are my emphasis.)

Technorati Tags: change, education, Gen X, generational theory, leadership, LeaderTalk, Neil Howe, principalship, School Improvement, School2.0, Scott McLeod, teaching, technology, Tony Wagner, William Strauss

Theory on Generational Dynamics

Strauss and Howe define the four most recent generations as the Boomers (1943-1960), 13th or Gen X (1961-1981), Millennial (1982-2003), and Homeland (2004- ). Each cohort has distinct characteristics, and according to theorists, the two generations that seem (at this point) to have the greatest “gap” in characteristics are the Boomers and Gen X. Gen X is the smallest of the first three cohorts, and based on social trends and statistics they are the “least cared for (as children) and most aborted” of those three generations (Strauss & Howe, “13th Gen: Abort, Retry, Ignore, Fail?”). The size difference is important when considering the need to fill existing leadership positions.

At the heart of this discussion on school leadership is one key characteristic of Generation X that Strauss and Howe have identified: They seek to build strong families and are reluctant to sacrifice that goal for the sake of their career. In contrast to their parents (the Boomers), Gen Xers are less willing to put up with a corporate culture that demands excessive hours and energy from employees.

This characteristic – which Straus and Howe identified over a decade ago (based on studies of previous generations similar in nature to the 13th or X generation) – is now becoming much more evident as Generation X moves toward leadership and management positions.

Not much has been written in the media about this issue and it’s impact on our educational systems, but the media has published extensive coverage of the “Generation Gap” in the corporate workplace. Educational leaders need to be aware of the shift that is occurring in order to develop, nurture, and retain potential future leaders from both the Gen X and Millennial generation groups. This goes beyond the concept of incentives and disincentives (for teachers to pursue school leadership as principals) studied by Howley, Andrianaivo, & Perry. Incentives and motivators for Gen X and the Millennials are different than they are for the Boomers.

Overview of Media Coverage

In “Are you stuck in middle management hell?” (Fortune Magazine), Anne Fisher describes what happened during “diversity training” at a company in Connecticut:

In a gray-walled conference room in Ridgefield, Conn., 26 employees of Boehringer Ingleheim, a German pharmaceutical firm, are sitting through a new type of diversity training. They’re about evenly divided between boomers and Gen Xers, and the moderator, Yael Sivi of the FutureWork Institute, has asked for a list of adjectives that describe the younger set.

“Arrogant,” one boomer offers.

Sivi bravely tries to turn the discussion in a more productive direction. “Let’s say you’re a Gen X manager, and you think your boss is totally incompetent,” she says. “Are you going to respect him or her just based on a title alone? No. Is this different from your parents and grandparents? Yes.” She looks around the room. “Anybody here who was a latchkey kid growing up?” A 30-ish man in khakis and a green polo shirt raises his hand.

“Okay, latchkey kid, what was your life like? What did you do when you came home from school?” He replies that he hung around the house waiting for his parents to come home from work.

“So you structured your own time,” says Sivi. “Doing your homework, maybe making yourself a snack? Maybe you even started dinner?” She gestures to the group. “Fast-forward 20 years. How does this guy want to be managed? He doesn’t want to be micromanaged. Hands off! Because he’s been managing himself since he was 10 or 12 years old.“

This ties into the generation theory of Strauss & Howe where they define Gen X behaviors as based on Gen X experiences growing up as latch-key children to work-a-holic Boomer parents.

In the article “Money is not the main focus of recent college grads” (San Antonio Express-News) Amber Miles explains that younger workers are focused on “quality of life” as opposed to money and the corporate ladder:

Since the late ’80s, early ’90s, according to statistics, college grads have begun placing more value on benefits and perks that improve their quality of life, and less on the almighty dollar.

“Salary is still important but it’s not the most critical piece in what students are looking for,” says Rhonda Boyles, director of career services at Our Lady of the Lake University.

According to the National Association of Colleges and Employers Graduating Student and Alumni Survey, salary ranks No. 10, while enjoying what one does ranks No. 1.

“As a class, these graduates are more selective and want to find the opportunities that satisfy their needs and wants,” Boyles says. “They aren’t shy at all about leaving an opportunity if it turns out not to be in their area of interest.”

A key lesson here for education leaders is that these two younger generations are willing to walk away from an institution or organization that does not meet their needs. Current “Boomer” education leaders need to understand that Gen X and Millenial “needs” look and feel very different from Boomer “needs”. Gen X and the Millennials won’t stay in one place for too long if there is no satisfaction in the work or if the work demands an imbalance between their personal life and their career.

However, this does not mean that Gen X and Millennial workers are not interested in assuming leadership roles – it’s just that they want, and need, leadership to look and feel differently than it does for Boomers.

In Looking for Leaders (Leadership Journal, Spring 2006), Angie Ward explored a perceived “leadership gap” between Boomers and Gen X in church leadership.

“To the emergent generation, leadership is defined in terms of influence rather than authority or position.”

Now between 25 and 43 years old, the members of Generation X are supposed to be the future leaders in the church—except that, in the eyes of some of their exasperated forebears, many members of this “lost generation” don’t seem in any hurry to step up to the plate…

Bob Chandler spent 13 years as a campus staff worker for InterVarsity Christian Fellowship in North Carolina. Chandler always had plenty of students lining up for leadership roles within the group each year, but in the early 1990s he began to notice a shift.

“Students stopped aspiring to leadership,” he said. Instead, Chandler found he now had to work hard to recruit students to these positions. Where did he first observe this shift? In students who had been born in the late 1960s and early 1970s–the heart of Generation X.

Ray Johnston, senior pastor of fast-growing Bayside Church in Roseville, California, finds an explanation for this in “generational theory,” the idea that there are recognizable patterns to generational cycles.

“Leadership skips a generation,” Johnston contends. “It happens with presidents, and I think it happens with Christian ministries.”

Johnston’s view reflects the work of scholars William Strauss and Neil Howe, who are considered pioneers of generational theory. According to their research, the “Boomer” generation (born between 1943 and 1960) demonstrates the traits of a “dominant” generation, which manifests itself in visionary, activist leadership.

Gen-Xers, on the other hand, are part of a “recessive” generation, which also happens to be a generation of latchkey kids, children of divorce, and blended families, not to mention the most-aborted generation in history. The result, according to Strauss and Howe, is a “reactive” mindset that values independence and eschews institutionalism.

“The emergent movement as a whole is characterized by a general suspicion of traditional forms of authority. This suspicion of authority has a profound impact on how leadership is carried out,” says Justin Irving, professor at the Center for Transformational Leadership at Bethel Seminary in Minnesota.

Feeling that traditional institutions such as families, government, the church, and big business have failed, many Xers want no part of the system. To them, “Following Boomers … is like entering a theme park after a mob has trashed the place and some distant CEO has turned every idea into a commercial logo,” write Strauss and Howe.

This applies to education as well. The article goes on to describe how Gen X does define leadership:

Members of Generation X, however, counter that they do exhibit leadership, just in an entirely different style than their Boomer predecessors. To the emergent generation, leadership is defined in terms of influence rather than authority or position.

Chad Hall, 34-year-old senior coach with the Lake Hickory Leadership Center in North Carolina, expands on the concept of leadership-as-influence. Based on that definition, “I do believe there are strong leaders in the postmodern church,” he says. “Some are leaders of churches and movements, such as Rob Bell and Ron Martoia, while others are thought and idea leaders, such as Brian McLaren, N.T. Wright, and Donald Miller.”

“I don’t think leadership in the emergent generation is dead. It’s just dressed in different clothes,” concurs Tony Morgan, the 37-year-old executive director of WiredChurches.com and a member of the senior management team at Granger Community Church in South Bend, Indiana. “It’s less about personality and position and authority. Instead it’s more relational. It’s more vulnerable. It’s more about helping people take their next steps in a journey.”

Using the same imagery, Spencer Burke, former megachurch teaching pastor and founder of the emergent website theooze.com, posits that the previous, modern metaphor for leadership was that of a tour guide, where “one person finds the way and tells someone else how to get there.” By contrast, the postmodern metaphor is that of a fellow traveler, joining others on their journey.

“Does being a traveler mean I never take the initiative with a group?” Burke writes in his book, Making Sense of Church. “Not at all. But it means I don’t have to sit behind the wheel all the time.”

Mark Driscoll, the 35-year-old founding pastor of Mars Hill Fellowship in Seattle, has a slightly different take. From Driscoll’s perspective, many of his peers are more frustrated with hierarchy than with leadership.

“You can have leadership without hierarchy,” he explains. “The way I define it, leadership is nothing more than trust built on character. You see someone’s character, so you trust that character, and because you trust that person, you follow them.

“The church needs leaders who are humble, accountable, working in a team, and accessible to the average person in the church,” he continues. “You don’t need to have hierarchy for that.”

This has implications not only for the future of the principalship role, but also for the future of teacher-leadership roles. Perhaps Gen X, in collaboration with the Millennials, will redefine school structure so that there is an increase in the number and variety of teacher-leadership roles that share authority and decision-making with school administration.

This concept of increasing teacher-leadership would also fit well with the Gen X tendency to reject the traditional career ladder. In A Life Between Jobs (New York Times) Anna Bahney explains that:

Generations before them, studies have shown, valued tenure and career advancement. But this group sees the chutes in the world as interesting as the ladders.

Rather than a “ladder”, members of Gen X (and the Millennials) think of career paths as multidimensional — moving around and across rather than just “up”. Leadership is about relationships, networks, and webs — not bureaucratic hierarchies.

Additionally, in Gen X parents sharing more with kids (USA Today) we learn that:

People who study generational differences say many Gen Xers want a closer relationship with their kids than what they experienced — they’re less interested in climbing to the top of the corporate ladder if it means giving up family time. Gen Xers matured at a time when the divorce rate was soaring and working parents were away from their children for more hours than any prior generation.

“On the whole, they’re correcting for this. They’re not going to allow their own children to be left alone,” says Bill Strauss, a generational expert and co-author of Millennials and the Pop Culture.

In one of the best explanations of this shift (or “gap”) in attitudes between Boomers and Gen X that I’ve read in a long time, Penelope Trunk (Brazen Careerist Blog), describes this as a change in “the American Dream”:

The shift is in the definition of the American Dream. Our dream is about time, not money. No generation wants to live with financial instability. And we are no exception. But finances alone do not define someone’s American Dream. Especially when our dream is about how we spend our time.

Those who are magnifying a different part of the picture of this generational shift will tell you that what defines it is the inability of corporate American to keep generation Y from quitting their jobs.

The best of Generation X and Y are slow to move into the work force and quick to leave it. According to the department of labor, people in their 20s change jobs, on average, every two years. And Generation X is shifting in and out of the workplace in order to spend more time with kids. It’s costing companies a lot of money, and they’re paying millions of dollars a year in consulting fees to figure out how to decrease turnover.

There are many reasons for high turnover, but the most fundamental one is that baby boomers have set up a work place that uses financial bribes to get people to give up their time: Work sixty hours a week and we’ll pay you six figures. Generation Y will not have this. To hold out money as a carrot is insulting to a generation raised to think personal development is the holy grail of time spent well.

Baby boomers are also baffled by women who grow large careers in their 20s and then dump them in order to spend time with kids. Newsflash: Generation X values their family more than their money. Our American Dream is not about buying a big house, our dream is about keeping a family together. You can tell a lot about values by the terms that are coined. When baby boomers were raising kids they invented the term “latchkey kid” and “yuppie” we invented the terms “shared care” and “stay-at-home-dad”. The divorce rate for baby boomers was higher than any other generation. We can afford to have less money because most of us don’t need to fund two separate households…

The new American dream is that we will have fulfilling work that leaves plenty of time for the other things in life we love. In this respect, Generation X is doing better than our parents: We are spending more time with our kids, and we are keeping our marriages together more than twice as effectively as our parents did. And Generation Y is doing better than their parents, too: They refuse to waste their time on meaningless entry level work because they value their time and their ability to grow more than that.

The new American dream is about time. It’s not a race to earn the most to buy the biggest. It’s a dream of personal growth and quality relationships.

School districts are concerned about the number of Boomer leaders who will be retiring within the next several years, and they need to be worried. Unless our systems and structures change dramatically, the potential up-and-coming leaders will “opt out” of the leadership roles as they are currently structured. Perhaps this will be good for education. Perhaps tomorrow’s leaders will “drop out” only to go out and, in the Gen X entrepreneurial way, finally engage in that education “reinvention” that Tony Wagner proposes. Maybe within Gen X we will find more Chris Barbics who leave the system to create schools like YES Prep. Many of us already believe that Millennial (and Homeland) students will eventually reinvent education to suit their own needs (through the use of emerging technologies), and perhaps those students will find willing leaders in Gen X who will enthusiastically help them with that reinvention.

Perhaps the future of educational leadership isn’t as gloomy as it appears to some people.

Change Agency by Stephanie Sandifer is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License. You may copy, distribute, transmit and/or remix this content for noncommercial uses as long as you attribute the work to Stephanie Sandifer (with link back to the original post) and agree to license the work under the same or similar license.