A Conversation on Intergenerational Collaboration
What follows is a conversation between WILD’s President, Vance Martin, and Young Professional, Sharon Shay Sloan, on the nature and purpose of Intergenerational Collaboration (IC) and its relevance to Wild Nature. They each selected several questions for the other and conducted a two-way interview. Vance appears in italics and Shay appears in regular text. (Questions are in bold) Enjoy!
What is intergenerational work, and how is the process different from how most projects work?
Intergenerational collaboration describes a dynamic working relationship that emphasizes collaboration to build on the strengths and capacities of people of different ages and generations working together toward common goals. For WILD, intergenerational means not just passing the torch but really engaging with those in different generations—making decisions together and planning in a way that is meaningful to all. We find that this core value distinguishes our work and our approach and leads to creative and meaningful results!
Traditional working relationships do not necessarily recognize the mutually beneficial exchange that is possible between the generations. Instead, in most projects that are not specifically youth-driven, the “old timers” hold the leadership and power and the youngers are not able to use their full capacity, often either becoming apathetic or pushing to overthrow the existing structures.
IC creates a framework where power, vision, creativity, leadership and responsibility for our world is shared among people of many generations to capitalize on the broad strengths of individuals of diverse ages. This approach asks us to build mutual understanding, genuine relationships and to share power and vision across our differences, developing a two-way exchange that is mutually beneficial to all involved.
Together, younger and older generations are more effective at reaching increasingly diverse audiences, developing widespread messages, implementing long-term strategies and developing relevant solutions for our global problems.
Collaboration between the generations is crucial in a world where every one of us makes a difference and is vital to the well being of the whole; keeping our planet WILD is critical to our survival as a species and this means every one of us is needed!
What does intergenerational collaboration (IC) look like?
There’s both a look and a feel to IC.
It looks different because “everyone is in the process,” really in the process. Example – formerly, a group of conservationists plan a project or a conference and they decide to “involve a youth element,” so they ask around, are referred to the right person(s), and invite them to do XYZ. The IC approach looks different because the youth are part of the planning group from the get-go—the beginning—and they help shape not only their participation but also are part of the overall design process.
It feels different because for IC to be more than politically correct window dressing, established senior leaders need to have the “want-to.” This means the interior desire and the outward commitment to adopt new behaviors, to listen, translate, debate and change if necessary. In addition, youth and young professionals need to have the courage to expose who they are, insert their views and be proud of their convictions and experience, while at the same time understanding that others have more experience. All people need to know they are learning, and understand that there is a significant difference between lots of experience and good experience.
Why is IC important for wild nature?
Wild nature belongs to everyone and no one. It existed before homo sapiens sapiens and will live long after every one of us alive has passed away, unless we do such damage that wild nature becomes a memory of the past due to human intervention. For wild nature to remain wild, we must take a stand to protect at least half of what remains, hence the Nature Needs Half ® campaign. IC is crucial to this movement because it demands the participation and dialogue of the many generations that are both affected by and influencing this outcome.
For a movement like Nature Needs Half, or any other strategic campaign, this kind of dynamic is needed to create a widespread following and to bridge the gap that is often created when “olders” and “youngers” are at odds with each other. Moving out of the stereotypical stalemates that occur between the generations (e.g. “olders know it all,” or “are so outdated,” or youngers “don’t know anything!,” etc.) creates a real opportunity for working together and exchanging ideas and approaches rather than perpetuating the gap that is often created when the next generation must “kill the leaders,” metaphorically speaking, in order to attain power or take on leadership. We recognize that younger generations have new knowledge and skills that are a necessary complement and that older generations have their gifts and knowledge to share and vice-versa. Our approach is to capitalize on the diversity of ages and skills and support complimentary working relationships.
There is a tendency for each new generation to have the sense that they are reinventing the wheel of social and/or environmental movements as opposed to being brought into a continuous dynamic of social change that they can then begin to shape and develop to the next level. Extending this invitation to increase our collective capacity to care for and protect wild nature is increasingly critical as we enter this era of rapid climate change and ever-more-rapid environmental destruction. We can no longer afford the gaps that keep us from working together to preserve wild nature: All of our survival depends on our ability to do so.
In what ways is/why is working intergenerationally critical to the wilderness/conservation movement?
- “Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it.” Institutional/social memory is important in any process – - though it is not always the sine qua non. It informs and guides current action in a way that nothing else can…but it does not always determine the action or its outcome. Older people have this knowledge.
- Things change, minds and bodies evolve, technologies develop, communications morph. This is a young person’s natural state…it is inherent, not adapted. It is an essential part of decision-making that wants to be effective, flexible and enduring.
We have a good example of this right now in Boulder County. Some 67% of this County is “protected nature” in one form or another—i.e., it will stay natural or wild, will not be developed, etc. This began in 1968 when, because of far-sighted policies of officials and actions of citizens, for the first time in US history the public approved a tax to purchase open space for the public good, to help conserve natural/wild values and to help “urban shaping,” that is, to prevent unmanaged sprawl. This lead to an amazing system of parks, corridors, trails, protected farmlands, watersheds, etc…from the mountains to the plains. It is the essential quality—the “amenity value”—that, in the past 40 years, has drawn many new people to live in Boulder and created the high-quality lifestyle and atmosphere that continually lands Boulder in the top tier of “most desired” places to live in the US.
The past few years there has been a public process to revisit and update the Visitor Management Plans for the open space…i.e., what are the allowed uses, and where. A big issue has developed—many young people are mountain bikers and they want special trails in the open space so they have the option of riding in nature or in the bike lanes on main streets—and this despite the science and experience that shows that the vast majority of hikers are disturbed by “rambunctious” mountain bikers, and that creating new bike trails will disrupt critical nesting habitat, predators, etc. The younger people, and many older people who have come to town in the last 10-20 years or less, only see that there is cool nature and lots of it—whatever, what’s the big deal about using it? The older generation, especially the pioneers who created this system and are now in their 70s, feel sidelined, misunderstood, and undervalued. A generational stalemate came into play.
WILD is applying an IC approach to trying to solve this dilemma. A multi-generational group came together to create a strategy that involved these elements: Communicating the history/why/how that all the open space got here (guess what, hardly anyone knew!), clarifying existing information (no one also knew that Boulder County Open Space has 5 million visitor days per year, and growing, more than Rocky Mountain National Park!, and is in itself causing natural values to deteriorate significantly…without new uses!), and listening to the needs and lifestyle desires of many younger people. The strategy that emerged became a values framework, in which the common ground between all sectors is the need to celebrate and experience nature, and assure that it is available in perpetuity. That strategy is now at work, with young and old working together to disseminate it. Final decisions are made in early 2011. There is no guarantee that IC process always “wins”, but it creates a different atmosphere and is already changing the dynamics of this formerly entrenched stalemate.
Many people will think of IC as just young and old…how about the “middlers”?
IC does not describe a particular demographic, but rather the intent and commitment to develop working relationships with people of myriad generations. IC could describe people in their 20s working with children, baby boomers working with “youngers” in their 30s, people in their 40s working with young adults in their early 20s, etc. Because the current demographics show that people in their 50s and 60s tend to hold the vision and power in business and organizations, there is a tendency to think of IC as the combination of individuals in their 50s/60s working with those in their 20s/30s, but this is only one possible scenario. When we say IC, we mean the broader approach of multiple generations collaborating toward common goals.
How has the cultural framework of the Human-Nature Relationship changed in the last generations?
- The Boulder County story applies here, somewhat. The dynamic in the US, and many other countries, has become gradually more individual-oriented, me-first, and entitled. In protecting and sustaining wild nature, if you set aside inherent political differences of resource exploitation, this usually translates into conservation issues being primarily about “use”…am I able to bike, walk, take my dog, use my horse or ORV, hunt/fish, etc? How do I get what I-I-I want?
- As population increases, so does the cultural diversity. By 2050, the majority of US citizens will not be Anglo, and many of them will not have more than two generations of life history in the US. This is demographically a very different world than that which created the nature-conservation movement in the 60-70s, and the current composition of staff in conservation organizations and members of the League of Conservation Voters.
- In general, our society and the world is the most polarized, fractious, non-rational, ideological, and challenging as any time I’ve ever seen it. We all see this in religious intolerance (don’t build a mosque near Ground Zero in NYC), politics (a deadlocked, sound-bite-oriented Congress); economics (the irrational greed and hubris of Wall Street, and a political system that allows it to happen)…and more.
All this, and more, makes the world ripe for a new process, cleaner decisions, a change of course. Part of this can be achieved by thinking and acting in a truly intergenerational manner.
Can you see something where IC may not be well suited?
When done correctly, IC can support most any project. Where this approach fails is where there is a lack of commitment to and understanding of collaboration generally or the specific approach and implementation of Intergenerational Collaboration. This approach requires a re-shaping of “normal working dynamics,” and all involved must be willing and interested in doing the work that this requires. The first step is to do an asset-based evaluation of the players, asking questions that develop an understanding of how best to utilize and support their strengths.
Questions to keep in mind include:
- When should/can a more experienced leader step down to support a new leader coming up?
- What is the most effective role that I/each participant can play in this process?
- What can I/we learn from the others involved?
- What does a relationship of mutual mentorship look like?
- How can the economics and power dynamics reflect the truth of the skill sets and the potential of those involved and encourage growth and development?
- How much responsibility can each party hold?
- What are our strengths and weaknesses?
- How do the changing demands of the world shape our roles and responsibilities in daily work?
