By Ronald Austin Jr
THREE generations of leaders sat at the decision-making table. The Millennial (under 35) boasted, “You people are out of touch with the wants and needs of my generation, I am most suited to lead them.”

The representative of Generation X (over 35) insists, “We are the bridge between the Millennials and the senior leaders, we ought to lead.” The Boomer (above 50), grandiloquently states, “The experience and wisdom that we have gained over the years cannot be easily paralleled and you people can never match our knowledge, we must lead.”

Such exchanges personify the debate which is consistently being had in this country about age and leadership. A debate which, I must add, is fraught with little deference to our elders. This column will plead for cool heads to prevail and accept that we all have very indispensable roles to play through Intergenerational Leadership, which speaks to a symbiotic and not an adversarial existence between different generations of leaders. This is captured in the African proverb, ‘Old men for council, and young men for war.”

In arguing the case for Intergenerational Leadership, it is downright folly to dismiss the endeavours of youth leadership. In the Western Hemisphere, youth leadership is fetishised and the strong arguments for Intergenerational Leadership are de-emphasised. While advancing this case, it would be remiss of me if there is no mention of this fact.

Those who dismiss senior leaders as being old or lacking energy, scoff at the idea of the very young being in positions of leadership. It is true. The very young who demand access to leadership express little or no confidence when extremely young leaders are appointed to positions some see as reserved for an aged and wise head.

I am a living victim of this Freudian slip. When I became a director at an organisation at a very young age, I saw the surprise in the faces when persons walked into my office. I heard murmurs of “really, so young?” It begs the question, at what age would we accept a person in leadership without committing the Freudian slip when we encounter these situations? Youthful leadership buttressed by counsel from the sage and experienced provides the perfect platform for Intergenerational Leadership.

Conversely, it is rash imbecility to discard 30 or 40 years of experience. The experience and sage of senior leaders is inestimable. With 144 million people above 60, Chinese culture provides the Confucian example of how our elders ought to be treated and placed within the context of Intergenerational Leadership; elders make their contributions to society by being able to guide and provide wisdom to other generations.

Among Native Americans, the elder members of tribes are highly valued for their knowledge, especially in the area of hunting. Not receiving the wisdom of the elder leaders for hunting could result in death and or starvation for the tribe. In this context, Intergenerational Leadership is a matter of life or death.

There can be no stronger case for this approach to leadership. Experience brings temperament and calmness in times of crisis, the likes of which are never facilely achieved. Surrounded by a few Millennials and relatively youthful leaders, the senior and experienced leadership would certainly reside in a better place with Intergenerational Leadership.

The aforementioned meeting of three generations of leaders at the beginning of this column should come as no surprise. George Orwell posited a long time ago, ‘Each generation imagines itself to be more intelligent than the one that went before it, and wiser than the one that comes after it.’