This post by Adam Singer has been in an open tab for a while.

For one, it’s a relevant topic for me right now as I think about work and “my work” in whatever phase I’m in, careerwise.

And, it’s also relevant because I’m re-reading some fiction by folks that were “late” in their career (viz Philip Roth).

The post makes the argument that those that have reached “success” in their work – established elders (EE’s) who are creatives, corporates, sports – will hit a point where the impact of their work will no longer grow and may start declining. They might be “past their prime” or perhaps they’re trying too hard or just replaying the hits. They’re just sticking around for the money (e.g. Harrison Ford) or the attention or to stay relevant (e.g. Coppola). Maybe they’re still really good (Lebron), but a couple steps slower.

When that happens, Singer argues, it’s better for those leaders to shift their focus, from trying to make work that really lands to building up those around them, to nurture the talent.

At some point, the most meaningful thing you can do isn’t to create more but to help others create. To teach. To nurture. To invest. To build frameworks for a future that doesn’t need you at its center…. Because modernity continues to prop up the old at the cost of the young and pull the ladder up wherever possible, perhaps that’s all they feel they can do (sell the dream to others).

Singer focuses on the creative industry for most of his EE examples: filmmakers, comedians, and the cultural icons that become symbols in our culture. His examples depend on creative “misses” (but I bet Seinfeld’s movie “worked” financially for Netflix) and artistic wins with mixed commercial impact (Coppola).

Singer is a marketing guy talking to business folks; I think corporate is his real audience, and the creative examples are common reference points. We all know corporate world is much different than the creative industry, but this essay still prompts a good discussion about his key point: There’s a ton of value in EE’s leaning into mentorship and building the talent around themselves vs “clutching at the levers of power”.

So why isn’t this happening more in corporate America?

If you’re on your way “up” in your career, this will most likely resonate with you. You will have seen numerous examples of “established elders” sticking around too long, that should have retired or otherwise gotten out of the way a long time ago. Maybe they’re staying to pay for college for their kids, maybe they still love the corporate game. Maybe they can’t let go of the status (the travel perks, the deference, the parking spot, the doors that open). Practically, they’re taking up the spot you probably want. They probably aren’t investing in helping you build your skills and, in the worst case, they know you’re the competition and are working against you.

If you’re one of the “Established Elders” yourself, you’ll be sensitive to the age bias inherent in this essay. You know you’re at the top of your game, maybe better than ever. Your experience is a differentiator and wisdom keeps you from making dumb mistakes. Your game has, as they say in pro sports, slowed down because you know it so well. You’re in the sweet spot between experience and performance. You’re the ringer they should call in a clutch situation.

You’ll also recognize what he doesn’t acknowledge: These days, corporate America doesn’t really give a shit about mentoring and wisdom and talent cultivation. In more stable days, talent and leadership development was a strategic differentiator (e.g. “the GE way”). For the last 20 years though (roughly corresponding to the digital and globalization boom) corporate leaders are working in a much more dynamic, disrupted competitive battlefield as everyone tries to level up their skills while managing costs. Something has to give, and it’s probably talent development.

There are no real incentives for leaders to build the talent around them anymore, it seams. Short term results will always take priority over culture and talent building. Spending too much time coaching, developing and nurturing talent means either taking their eye off of the “growth” and “impact” ball, or potentially arming their “competition”.

When it comes time for promotions, the choice may come down to “experienced” culture-building leader who can still deliver “adequate” results OR a younger leader who can crush the results but isn’t great at team development or doesn’t have organizational savvy. You know which way corporate leaning. PE-backed firms? No question.

The “Learning and Development” people will protest, but we all know it’s true. There isn’t an established staff role these days for experienced, wise leaders who are not crushing it, performance wise. If you’re not absolutely nailing the revenue and profit targets, if you’re not making highly visible, tangible impact to margins and customer satisfaction, if you’re not bringing genuine technical innovation, you’re going to be on the bubble.

Singer implies EEs can be a part of an important effort to nurture the next generation of contributors and makers and company builders. He’s talking about entertainment and culture, but I read this as a plea to our corporate culture makers, too:

We should normalize this transition: die helping and passing the torch, starting this process with generous amounts of time and energy left. Build something greater than yourself by letting it belong to someone else. We need a culture with enough wisdom to nurture what’s next, not languish in its own self-indulgent nostalgia.

I got lucky. I worked in two organizations where it was clear, but never expressly acknowledged, that there were a handful of “established” leaders on the org chart to help guide and teach the next generation. They were good, maybe not great, at delivering results. But, they were superior in communicating the culture, advising rising talent, guiding folks through the organizational matrix and helping to share lore inside the corporate walls. They were kept around to help grow the talent around them.

There are so many excellent talent builders that are getting churned out in the endless re-orgs, RIFs, and resets. I wish there was a role for leaders to step into when they stepped “down” or, as Singer hints at, “grow up”. How do corporations create roles for experienced leaders where they can be valued for supporting and developing the talent? Do those even exist anymore?

Its happening in some organizations today. An interesting example was at AirBNB where Chip Conley was hired on as a “mentor” and OG in the hospitality business. He was there to build leadership talent, and impart wisdom. Not sure how it worked in practice, but it’s a hopeful case study.

Meanwhile, there are a ton of folks exploring fractional / interim / contract / project roles. A lot of these leaders have deep wells of experience and wisdom to share. They are dabbling in “coaching” too. However, there isn’t a great pathway for the EE’s to interact with the “rising talent”.