I don't spend a lot of time on Twitter, but did learn a new word over there this weekend. The word is "gerontocracy." If you are curious as to what this means, here's a decent Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerontocracy

After learning the word, and learning what it really meant (hint, it's not about bashing the old), I realized a lot of railway preservation organizations are ruled, for better or worse, by the very old. I also contemplate whether this is a sustainable path for many of us, given the myriad of discussions about groups alienating younger members/volunteers. Learning this word finally gave me the language to succinctly describe a lot of what I see happening in preservation. A couple of times I've brought up my observations about how it's not good to be ruled solely by the old. It's met with mixed reviews, but in both instances there was some lip service for the need to get some "18 year olds" involved, which ignores pretty much anyone between 19-60 that are often left out of leadership roles in our organizations.

Is your group a gerontocracy? What is the average age of your board? How does that compare with the membership and volunteers? Do you think having a gerontocracy run your organization is a good thing?

In many ways it makes quite a bit of sense:
You want people running things who not only have knowledge but who have also accumulated wisdom. Wisdom comes with experience, and experience comes with time.


The issue, however, is when that accumulated experience stagnates.
For example, in the professional railroad world, your most experienced fireman's accumulated wisdom in his domain of expertise (say, hand firing steam locomotives), may not necessarily apply and provide good guidance to diesel "firemen".

But at the end of the day, the quality of leadership in an organization relies on the quality of those leaders. Someone who believes that it's "my way or the highway" will be detrimental to an organization whether they're 30, 60 or 90.

More practically, for a modern organization, imperceptive 70 year olds who assume that all members can attend a business meeting or work session in the middle of a weekday (which they can because they're retired), who insist on using mailed checks for membership (because it's always worked fine), or who make younger members uncomfortable with comments, will be a detriment to the future of the organization.

But an 80 year old who's familiar with modern technology, open to modern ways of operating, and easy to get along with, will be a real asset.

I am also one of the "Lost Generation", by the time the founding members die off to create any vacancies, I'll no longer be in my early twenties, I'll be getting old, too.

Ed's comments make sense.

I'll go one step further since I was involved with some recent regulatory debate over setting age limits for certain tasks. Age doesn't always equal ability, it just indicates more or less time to pick up good or bad practices.

I work with folks from about 14 to 80, and I can say that the good workers are spread over the entire age range, just as the bad workers. I have someone who is now 17+ that I would take over almost all of the older workers as he is much more mature, serious, and professional about what he does. I have some about the same age that I hesitate to give any authority to. However, the same applies to the group of workers who are 50-80. Some we try to limit their tasks based upon their abilities and willingness to take direction.

The issue with any organization is if the leadership is up-to-date on whats needed (I certainly wouldn't put myself in charge of some items, but would others based upon what I study and do), responsible for whatever tasks are required, inviting to others and new ideas, etc.

I've seen too many organizations fold because 2 or 3 old members controlled everything and ran off anyone with different ideas. I've seen organizations with all young members fail because of a lack of maturity or perspective (too much excitement, not enough planning). I've also seen organizations fail or get in trouble with members and leaders of all ages simply because the wrong people were in the wrong places. I've also seen such groups all do well.

By the way - I got stopped on typing this to handle a telephone call on how to fix an issue on an excursion train cause by not enough planning. No one was taking responsibility on getting supplies put on the train and getting located - and it involved workers across all ages. We talked about a checklist and an inventory report at the end of each day or trip. Sometimes a solution can be to document and assign tasks and responsibility with checks to see what was actually done.

For me, it gets back to what works, and not defining who does it.

This reminds me of a true story that happened in 1976. The 12 member executive committee at Chessie System Railroads were discussing whether or not to run the systemwide Chessie Steam Special to lead their celebration of America's oldest railroad's 150th. birthday.

The committee was comprised of all men, ages 62-71. After substantial discussion a vote was taken with 11 nos and 1 yes. In that the yes vote was from Chairman & CEO Hays T. Watkins the program was approved. Democracy in action.

Somewhat akin to my set up. I have an operating committee that oversees my 3 operating companies comprised of 6 men ages 64-79. We generally govern by consensus but on rare occasion a difference of opinions emerge requiring a vote. I have 6 votes and each of the other 5 have one each. Again, a perfectly functioning gerontocracy.

Thanks for expanding my vocabulary. Ross Rowland

Gerontocracy - hmmm, an interesting word. As we look at rail preservation, we tend to ignore several key factors relative to age. Young help, say 16-21 generally has a good deal of time to volunteer although working perhaps around school. Eventually some of your best young volunteers embark on a career, marriage, home ownership and can only volunteer on a more limited basis. The max income generation years kick in around the later 40s, making volunteering almost impossible while also attending high school events for the kids and such. By the time one is pushing 70, they are retired and are available for the often time-consuming, and thankless, management role, leaving the more physical work to the young crew.

Anyway, I tend to disagree with the premise that there is some deep issue with the older generation managing a museum. It’s a case, in many instances, where they simply have the time and experience to do it.

What I see as the bigger issue is one of a stagnant board make up, regardless of age. I belong to a couple of boards and the most vibrant, strong boards, are those with some degree of term limits, especially of the officers, and especially the treasurer. Any number of museums that have had an ugly end, as seen here on RyPN, would be alive today if they had a strong board, with rotation of officers, and term limits. Pemberton and ITM are past examples, the "Hermit Kingdom" of Pine Creek/NJ Museum of Transportation is a comical pending example at this point.

So, don’t sit back and say there is some negative to old guys running the show. They have the time. They have the experience. But behind it all, a solid by-laws will help ensure a healthy board.

J.R. May

That’s an excellent point. The age itself isn’t a problem necessarily but age + no term limits is a definite problem.

I do think it would be a good idea to encourage younger members to join and serve on the board.

.

I first heard the term gerontocracy in the 1980s in regard to an entity that had existed for around seventy years at that point, and which would be dissolved in the early 1990s. The argument was that the old guys were holding back needed innovation, and that the younger, middle level managers wanted to bring that innovation, so the old guys should step aside. Many of the middle-level managers being pointed to as innovators are now known as oligarchs, and their leader is Vladimir Putin.

What are you trying to say here?

This brings up another point, one the community has dealt with often: death and disability don’t always wait for a retirement date or overt illness. The car accident, plane crash or epidemic can kill or disable out of thin air at any age. If there’s no plan, Steamtown happens, for good or ill. Ideally, there’s a backup for each position that needs a lot of skill, at least to the point of knowing who you’d vote in if the worst happened.

“Director emeritus” is a graceful term for “I still like to work, but don’t want to be on the board any more.” It’s like a lawyer being “of counsel,” taking the anxious phone call from the younger lawyer who’s kinda sure she’s doing the right thing, but wants somebody to tell her she has sound judgment.

ETA: All of this is a good reason for cross-training (pun not intended) and thinking of who you’d call were your “needs a license” people injured or sick. It’s easy to find somebody with a valid driver’s license in a hurry, but finding an engineer can be more of a problem. Don’t just think train operations, either. If you have a gift shop, make sure more than one person knows how to run the cash register; it’s not rocket science, but trying to explain it in fifteen minutes on a busy Saturday morning may be unnecessary stress.

I recently heard a discussion that invoked the term in one of those somehow-still-extant special-interest e-mail groups.

The question that arose was why the management of a now-fallen-flag railroad was so "conservative" in its management for so long, and whether this conservatism potentially contributed to its eventual demise.

(Ironically, that discussion itself, as it expanded slightly in the e-mails into trying to place the railroad's management style among its competing contemporaries, was quickly shut down completely by the forum's moderators as "having nothing to do with the [railroad in question]"--which not only was not the least bit true, but was an act that could be seen itself as yet another demonstration of such "gerontocracy".......)

It's worth considering that, as a rule, most railroads' unionized work forces were yet another mandated gerontocracy--seniority, seniority, seniority. Railroaders had their start dates memorized like Army personnel had their serial numbers.

Too often, I have seen, worked with, and/or been a part of groups where many otherwise active members have sarcastically, or even honestly, stated that "when [So-and-So] dies, the museum/society/chapter dies with them." I've even seen one where one wag said "When [So-and-So] gets his 50-year membership pin from the NRHS, he's GONE--and so is the Chapter!" I'm glad to say that, in at least some cases, the predictions have been quite wrong. But there are other instances where that has proven to be the case.

If your leadership has been in place for 25+ years because they're incredibly good at what they do--keeping membership/visitation up, changing with the times, embracing innovative new thinking, successful fundraising, etc.--more power to them. But if the real reason they're there is "inertia," and/or you come back from going to the restroom during a meeting and find yourself elected president, well...............

"Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it." And if you really don't understand what he's trying to say, well................

The "gerontocracy" in question was the Politburo that ran the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

I'm old enough to distinctly remember the era when "General Secretaries of the Soviet Communist Party" Brezhnev, then Andropov, then Chernenko--as well as several of their top aides and de facto co-leaders--all dropped dead, one after the other, in very short order. This bespoke of the stagnant, aging leadership of the Soviet Communist Party (and thus the USSR itself) towards the end of a part of Soviet history later called the "Era of Stagnation" by successor Mikhail Gorbachev (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Era_of_Stagnation). Gorbachev was elected in part because of his youth, relative to the other potential "heirs," many of whom themselves soon died or were replaced.

So what the [BLEEP] does this have to do with rail preservation, you may be screeching to the moderators by now?

Carefully read the article on the Era of Stagnation to which I linked above, with an open mind. Skip the specifics; think in broad generalities about aging leadership and their beliefs. Consider what happened to the "union" in question a few years later.............. (And, PLEASE, ignore politics, political/economic theory, etc. in discussion in this forum.)

If you are lucky, you see no parallels between that account and the history of your museum/operation/society.
More likely, some of you will twinge at the parallels with your organization that you recognize, or see where a dying or now-deceased group--ITM, Mohawk & Hudson Chapter NRHS, etc.--went wrong.

1. Don't take a term such as gerontocracy as neutral, it can be used to serve bad intentions just as with any other term 2. Young upstarts can have just as problematic/negative intentions/results as older stalwarts.

One last remark for tonight:

It is relevant to this discussion that virtually EVERY special interest avocation or hobby organization I have been involved with, directly or indirectly for decades, reports that "the average of the membership is between 70 and Death," as one member not in that category said of the group he was leading. History groups, ham radio, railfan groups, covered bridge enthusiasts, lighthouse buffs, car groups, service volunteers, you name it. Even beer groups and Japanese anime groups, formerly paragons of youthful participation, are now skewing older.

This is something of an international phenomenon. The usual scapegoats are internet and cell phone communication. "The world is getting smaller every day"--but at a certain societal cost.