Historically, family enterprises, be they businesses or foundations, have treated succession like a relay race, preparing for when the patriarch or matriarch retires or passes away, and hands the proverbial baton off to the next generation. Similarly, in nonprofits, plans for leadership succession have traditionally focused on how the executive director or board of directors—those who perhaps founded and funded the entity for decades—would someday hand over the reins. These transitions could be emotionally as well as practically difficult, but they were inevitable and often couldn't happen soon enough for the generation waiting in the wings.

But the image of passing a baton doesn't fit the reality of today's philanthropic world, and it isn't one next gen donors find all that helpful. Generations increasingly find themselves working as a team, together versus sequentially. Just as any baseball manager wouldn't field a team of all pitchers, a philanthropic enterprise or nonprofit needs players with diverse skills and experiences on the field at the same time.

Next gen donors aren't waiting for their elders to pass away, retire, or even create a succession plan; instead, they are assuming that every generation brings assets to the work of solving our greatest societal ills. Generation Impact is ready to take the field alongside older generations, not in place of them nor from the sidelines.

A New Multigenerational Landscape

Many of us harbor a mental image of major philanthropists as Gilded Age barons—men like Andrew Carnegie or Julius Rosenwald, who amassed fortunes and then retired into a life of philanthropy, devoting the sunsets of their lives to finding personal fulfillment by making meaningful contributions to society. Carnegie lived until he was 84, and while he declared his intention to be philanthropic early in life, he only focused diligently on giving for about the last couple decades of his life. This was by design.¹ Rosenwald (who founded Sears, Roebuck and Co.) lived until he was almost 70 and is rightfully celebrated for his remarkable efforts to support education for African American children in the American South in the early twentieth century. His philanthropic accomplishments came mostly in the last 20 years of his life.²

Compare this approach to that of the well-known major donors of today, who Daniel Lurie noted in Chapter 2 are giving earlier in their lives: “[W]e have never seen people this wealthy at this young of an age before. The Carnegies were wealthy much later in life. Back then, no one was a billionaire in their twenties; it took time for people to build their fortunes, whereas now, especially here in Silicon Valley, we have seen billion-dollar fortunes built in a 5-to-10-year span. We're living in the new gold rush.”

More men and women are becoming enormously wealthy at much younger ages, and these next gen donors clearly understand that they can (and maybe should) be engaged in giving throughout their lives. This means they are giving at the same time as older donors, not waiting until those donors step aside.

In addition, the normal lifespan in the United States is much longer today than in the past. Average life span rose from 47.3 in 1900 to 76.8 in 2000.³ In fact, as members of the post-Millennial “Gen Z” (born between 1995 and 2015) begin to turn 21, there are now five distinct generations operating as adults in our society today, and having four or even five generations in a family alive at the same time is not unheard of.⁴ So as people live longer—much longer—more generations are finding themselves actively engaged in giving simultaneously, whether within the same family or as donors to the same cause.

This makes for a fundamentally different philanthropic landscape. Families and institutions have to shift from planning for vertical succession down the generations to finding ways for multiple generations of adults to be involved simultaneously. Those in late adulthood who might have imagined themselves retiring into their philanthropy are finding themselves funding alongside their children and even their grandchildren. One donor described this valuable cross-generational learning in his family:

We really talked about, “What do we want this [family foundation] to be? What's the change we want to see in the world?” And we started focusing and asked our advisors to bring us examples of who's doing good work in this program area. It wasn't going to be about any one of our individual interests. It was going to be something that we did together. Everybody felt like, “Wow! We could really move the needle on something here.” We could pick an issue and actually do something—together.

Many inheritors, like Katherine Lorenz, are experiencing three or more generations involved in their family foundations simultaneously. Katherine's grandparents, Cynthia and George Mitchell, were active givers in their later years, contributing to charitable causes, naming institutions, and communicating their wishes until their health no longer permitted. Rather than waiting for her grandparents' passing to get involved in the family foundation, Katherine and her family members engaged three generations simultaneously in strategic giving. Then, when her grandfather passed away, the family was ready with a plan.

This new reality requires structural changes in foundation and nonprofit governance to accommodate multiple generations leading at the same time, cultural changes in how stakeholders interact, and changes in the way grantseekers interact with family foundations. From Katherine's example, we can learn how giving will evolve in this new multigenerational Golden Age of Giving, replacing the traditional notions of Gilded Age philanthropy.

Know-How and Know-Who

But why would elders bring in the next generation in the first place? In the traditional view, they did so only for the next gen to carry out their legacies—to finish what they had started. But next gen donors see themselves as more than heirs apparent. They feel they have unique assets to bring to the playing field. They believe in the power of multigenerational teams and are driven by impact. They are courageous enough to take risks and deploy new tools or strategies, and they are willing to bring their full selves to the table—their “know-how” and their “know-who.” One donor describes it this way:

Being young and entering this field has been incredible. On the one hand, I have been adopted by so many mentors and have been able to ask questions like: “How do I do X because I don't see it? I read a book, but the book doesn't really tell me how.” My mentors will then talk it through with me. But then, on the other hand, I'm delighted to find that I can in return offer my insights as a next gen in this field, like when an older colleague asks, “Our family's third generation is coming on. How do we engage them? Tell me about ‘The Facebook’!”

Another donor reflected on both the differences that arise when multiple generations are involved and how these differences can be productive in the end. She started off saying, “My family has taught me everything I know about giving and how to give.” But she immediately qualified that statement: “I approach it very differently, and of course, bring different things to the table as a young person with a fresh perspective.” She then tried to explain how both statements can be true. “I find that my own practice—my ‘road map’ to giving—is based upon what they have taught me. Even the things that I choose to do differently are based upon what I did not like about the things that they did.”

Even if the value of participation is sorted out, the on-ramp to engagement is often vague. “Anything that the foundation does is done on behalf of us and the family, but we don't actually have a voice in what it does. I am almost 27, and I don't know if there is an intention to bring us on into that foundation.” Or, as another said, “A lot of the [other young donors] whom I have spoken to, they don't have a seat at their family foundation table, and they don't know if they're going to have one. They all seem to be struggling with the same kind of [question] ‘Where do I fit in?’”

In a way, the question today is not should philanthropic families and nonprofits invite the next gen into the work, but can they afford not to? Without these unique next gen talents and complementary/contemporary skills, can philanthropic families and nonprofits drive change fast enough to meet the increasing demands of today's ills by doing what they've always done? The next gen donors we interviewed are skeptical.

This ability to field a team, to bridge the wisdom and experience of the older philanthropists with the risk-taking and creativity of next generation donors, is illustrated in Katherine Lorenz's story below. In her early adulthood, Katherine became not just a next gen trustee, but the executive director of her grandparents' significant foundation. In this role, she has led a shift from a hierarchical structure to a multigenerational, multibranch family foundation team that brings collective wisdom to its work in order to have an even greater impact.

Katherine's story is clearly one of a shift from hierarchical leadership by a patriarch and matriarch to leadership by a multigenerational team. She is convinced this decision is now essential to the future of the foundation, as well as its potential impact.

Katherine's story is echoed by others, like this next gen donor, who feels the shift in his family to a multigenerational family foundation as well:

I remember this sort of “come to Jesus” meeting where we asked, “What are we going to do?” There was a decision made to involve my generation, which was in part a reflection of, “Oh my God, we need more hands on deck.” But it was also a reflection of, “Let's make this a true family foundation.” Let's make this not about my grandparents' giving or my dad's schools, but let's make this something we do together. When I think about our family foundation trajectory, that was a very seminal and decisive decision, and somewhat radically different decision than I think other families make—that this will be about us doing something together.

Building Peerage, Not Adding a Kids' Table

The two preceding stories make this shift to a multigenerational family foundation seem like a relatively smooth transition. In other cases, next gen donors are knocking at the door rather than being invited in, or feeling frustrated at being left at the kids' table. Some elder leaders of foundations and nonprofits seem less than excited about the new multigenerational reality. They approach such change with trepidation or resistance, reluctant to lose their hard-won leadership, worried it will disrupt the good work they have been doing or that they will have to spend too much time negotiating differences or guiding the next gen so they don't make mistakes.

Even when an invitation to participate has been extended, working simultaneously with other generations can be tough. One young adult family foundation trustee joked that when he explains to his elders that “I'm just doing what you taught me,” they counter with “Wait, we taught you that? No, that's not what we were saying. That's how you took it.” He explains what this means: “We kind of took what they were saying and just interpreted it differently than they did. The core principles are the same, but they just don't think of doing it the way that we do.” This next gen see the difference as a positive, adapting family values to current needs of the day, but his elders might not feel the same.

Still, the fact is we are already in the midst of this sea change. For most foundations and nonprofits the germane question now is “How do we navigate this shift to a multigenerational team, and catalyze it for greater impact?”⁵

Steve Treat, a licensed therapist from the Council for Relationships who has counseled high-net-worth families for decades, talks about “achieving peerage.”⁶ Parents and children, he explains, are used to a power dynamic where the parent is in charge of the child; however, when children come of age and are given philanthropic responsibilities, the parent-child dynamic must shift to one of peers to enable a healthy working relationship. Their relationship must evolve to embrace this new reality, or children can be left feeling infantilized or undermined.

As we saw in Chapters 5 and 6, next gen donors are not fans of being treated as lightweights. They see themselves as part of a Do Something Generation, reared volunteering and even giving before the age of 21. So you can imagine that as these donors get to the age where they can be active members of their family's giving process, or where they can start to be leading donors to nonprofits, frustration can arise if they are not afforded the chance to do so. When we asked next gen donors about how they are involved in their family's philanthropy, 66 percent said they had been invited by their elders to give their opinions on the family's philanthropy, but only 37.1 percent served on their family foundation's primary board and 16.2 percent on a committee. We also heard this frustration bubble up in our interviews. Some next gen donors in giving families talked about being ready to get involved in their family philanthropy long before their elders are ready to fully engage them. “I'm learning about all these amazing things that we could and should be doing. I would bring them to the family, but it is not really my role; I don't want to step on any toes.”

For nonprofit professionals who see the next gen strictly as “their donors' children,” becoming peers with next gen funders may feel uncomfortable. But if they don't adapt their relationship with next gen donors to one of adult peers, these donors likely won't be around very long. Ultimately, if not offered something substantive, they will see the relationship as condescending or as merely transactional, with nonprofit professionals focused more on their pocketbooks than on seeing them as mature contributors to organizations.

Respecting Generational Personalities

Despite good intentions, not all donors, professionals, and volunteers in the nonprofit world have an easy time learning to work across generations. Just as organizing a holiday dinner for multiple generations of family members can be complicated—satisfying food preferences from steak and potatoes to vegan and gluten-free—so too are groups discovering that philanthropy can bring people together even as it unearths generational differences.

So how can multigenerational groups learn to work well together? When we ask donors what informs their philanthropic decision-making, we often hear similarities across the “generational cohorts” to which each person belongs.⁷ While not a hard science, examining the events and conditions that each cohort experienced during its formative years helps one understand the different lens each generation brings to the table. Appreciating different “generational personalities” not only informs how cohorts vote on a decision, but helps build awareness and empathy among stakeholders so they can learn why they vote that way and build lasting relationships across the generations.

For example, the Traditionalists (born between 1925 and 1945) grew up amid the invention of airplanes, automobiles, and movies, but the lasting imprimatur was from the World Wars, the Depression, segregation, and other experiences that left them feeling cautious yet loyal to people and institutions that gave them opportunities for growth, from the New Deal to the GI Bill. They fund institutions both local and civic in nature, often giving back to where they earned their wealth and to the people whose stories mirror their own.

Boomers (born between 1945 and 1965) grew up in a post–World War II era with an economic boom, mobilized by the civil rights, women's rights, gay rights, and antiwar movements; buoyed by innovations of the birth control pill, the moon landing, and Brown vs. Board of Education; and tempered by the explosion of the atomic bomb as well as the assassinations of John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King Jr., and Robert F. Kennedy. For the most part, they maintained their optimism and continue to invest in causes they hold dear, believing they can affect change in a democracy, and at present they lead the majority of the governmental bodies, nonprofits, and family foundations in the United States.

Born between 1965 and 1980, Gen Xers experienced a very different upbringing, one with changing parenting norms. Women moved into the workforce, leaving many Xers to become “latchkey kids.” The “free love” of the Boomers' Woodstock transitioned into the AIDS epidemic to the Xers, and the divorce rate tripled during their upbringing. As such, Xers tend to be cynical about institutions, a healthy skepticism they bring to philanthropic and nonprofit organizations as well. At the same time, the invention of MTV, the personal computer, the Walkman, and Atari video consoles led to independence at early ages. As the smallest generational cohort, virtually unnoticed between the much larger Boomer and Millennial generations, Xers experienced less competition and became adept at responding to challenges in creative ways.⁸ In the philanthropic space, they are perhaps best known as social entrepreneurs founding Teach for America, charity: water, Venture for America, Dress for Success, and more.

While Gen Yers (born between 1980 and 1995) don't like the label “Millennial,” they were named such because they were born in the run-up to the turn of the millennium. Quite distinct from Gen Xers in their formative-year experiences, American Millennials' childhoods were ravaged by Oklahoma City; 9/11; Hurricanes Katrina and Rita; and Columbine, Virginia Tech, and other shootings—events that all took place on American soil. Not only did these sorts of incidents lead to hovering helicopter parents, they fostered in Millennials a deep sense of civic engagement to vote and volunteer motivated by a desire for a world free of danger and a better life for all. The invention of the Internet gave them the tools to connect, communicate, advocate, and contribute at the click of a button, years before their predecessors dreamed they would become involved in social change and charitable giving. Like Boomers, Millennials are a huge generation, so they've grown up facing stiff competition in all parts of their lives. This environment can fuel them to be more aggressive in their philanthropy as well, as this Millennial theorizes: “We are a generation that are all go-getters. To get where we are right now, we had to kick ass in college and get into the best grad school. And then be protégées out of the gate, and storm the gates of where we wanted to work—and get in and rise to the top and then be the next whatever. I am always amazed when people don't take that same attitude to their philanthropy and that same chutzpah.”

Generation Z (born between 1995 and 2015) is growing up in a diverse world where an African American family led from the White House and where marriage equality is becoming the norm. The Great Recession led most to become very practical, setting up lemonade stands to earn their own funds and establishing savings accounts early on. Assuming their generation won't financially outpace their predecessors, 60 percent of Gen Z high school graduates claim they'd rather be an entrepreneur than an employee after college.⁹ As digital natives, they suffer from FOMO (“fear of missing out”). They prefer the visuals of emojis, Instagram, and Snapchat to calls, e-mails, and texts, and they are DIY-ers (“do-it-yourself-ers”), which means their philanthropic celebrities are on YouTube (think ice bucket challenge) rather than in boardrooms.¹⁰ How they will emerge as philanthropists is yet to be determined, but their conviction that differences among people are normal will likely lead Generation Z to bring compassion and open-mindedness to bear on seemingly intractable problems.

As these generational personalities interact more and more on the philanthropic stage, understanding where they are coming from will help all sides see the benefits that the others bring. One next gen donor describes what it can look like this way: “A lot is achieved when the next generation is able to respect the older generation's wisdom and experience and the older generation is able to respect the next generation's ability to question worlds and deeply think about things, even if they might not have the technical vocabulary of doing it for 30 years.”

What Does This Mean?

Bringing new perspectives, revolutionary ideas, and innovative approaches doesn't always lead to multigenerational harmony or greater impact. Especially within existing family foundations and stable nonprofit institutions, next gen donors interrupting the status quo can feel disruptive and lead some to feel they're doing unnecessary extra work to accommodate said new ideas. But next gen donors are coming whether we want them to or not, so we all have to learn to communicate across generational divides. Otherwise, grantmaking could devolve into feel-good but ineffective giving at best, or misguided efforts brought about by dysfunctional group dynamics at worst.

This notion of how hard it is to shift from a vertical leadership succession plan to a multigenerational leadership team hit home for Sharna when a rabbi told her the story of a Jewish family discussing their adoption of a Chinese baby. The parents were curious as to how their family would evolve. The rabbi replied, “You won't be a Jewish family with a Chinese child. You will become an Asian-Jewish family.” As with adopting a child, bringing in a new generation requires the whole system to adapt, and that may feel hard for the stakeholders.

Professionals helping their boards navigate the shift from hierarchical leadership to multigenerational engagement don't always grasp the full implications. Many assume that adding token next gen members to their boards while continuing the status quo is sufficient. In that case, the foundation or nonprofit organization is really still run by the elders, perhaps with a kids' table attached, and never achieves the greater-than-the-sum-of-its-parts success possible when harnessing the talents of all team members. And families and nonprofits that choose status quo for fear of change or difficult transitions soon realize that without melding, their organizational strength will wane.¹¹

In today's global Information Age and sharing economy, families and nonprofits that don't look to next gen adults with twenty-first-century skills to join their teams can lose competitive advantage. Family foundations, for example, might overlook nonprofits with cutting-edge methods because existing older trustees don't know how to assess those methods. Similarly, nonprofits that look to replace older donors with someone in their generational cohort will lose out on the talents and ties that engaged next gen donors could bring.

Ultimately, families and nonprofits will need to make a mindset shift, seeing the value of a diverse set of people and skills as a way to capture and enhance everyone's resources (time, talent, treasure, and ties) rather than a loss of control or status quo. Then becoming a multigenerational operation will require a shift to a multigenerational governance structure, where next gen voices are encouraged and valued and where they can ultimately affect policy or grantmaking decisions. Those most successful at making this shift, like the family foundation Katherine Lorenz now runs, celebrate the new types of talents and abilities next gen donors bring and help elders feel valued for their wisdom and experience so they don't feel like they have to give up control but can stay and make room for the next gen to bring their unique strengths to the endeavor.

Dr. Jeffrey Solomon, president of the Andrea and Charles Bronfman Philanthropies, likens the on-ramping of next gen donors in a nonprofit to changing a car tire while the car is driving 60 miles an hour. Next generation donors are often adults already—with degrees, careers, and families of their own—who want to bring their ideas and experiences to bear on the organization. This is hard to do when the entity is already cruising along successfully. Nonprofits and families that want to engage next gen donors, he recommends, should set aside time for a board or organizational retreat to orient the new members, discuss the opportunities and challenges at hand, and assign buddies within the organization who will help acclimate the next gen donors to the organization during their first year.

There are consulting groups, of course, who assist groups in different sectors as they navigate becoming a multigenerational entity. BridgeWorks, for instance, focuses on generational trends in the workplace; 21/64, Relative Solutions, and others help next gen donors, families, and advisors manage change as they transition their wealth and philanthropy from generation to generation. Outside facilitators can help nonprofit professionals, families, and board members who struggle with multigenerational engagement communicate about the dynamics productively, making the work of the whole organization more effective.

Engaging multiple generations in meaningful roles with decision-making powers is a hard shift for most families and nonprofits to make. The work to be done is a far cry from simply creating a junior board that has no decision-making authority. To be successful, organizations will need to make space for next gen donors on their main boards, honor longstanding board members with the title of “emeritus” and engage them on specific projects to tap their expertise, and devise meaningful opportunities for donors of all ages to interact. Organizational leaders who can treat next gen donors like peers and build multigenerational decision-making bodies have a greater chance at longevity and relevance.¹² Those families and nonprofits that realize their ability to succeed lies in generations working together will have the best chance of performing as a team, of sustaining their organizations, and, above all, of making an impact.