By Jack Cumming
The future of aging in America is bright and getting brighter. That means that the opportunities are promising for those who correctly grasp the needs of an aging population. The demographic wave of the Baby Boomers is moving through senior living like prey through the belly of a reptile. That demographic opportunity, though, may elude many senior living enterprises.
Centralized
There are two promising approaches to this emerging demographic opportunity. One is the approach that has emerged in recent years. Senior living corporations have been consolidating into larger entities led by central office CEOs. How well such consolidation works out can depend on the latent meaning in that CEO designation.
It’s common to render “CEO” as “Chief Executive Officer.” Some CEOs operate as “Collaborating Executive Officers.” Others act like “Commanding Executive Officers.” That latter commanding model is tempting, flattering to the ego, and creates an organization that is the pride of the CEO.
We all know CEOs who love to explain how their organization is the exception that all other organizations would do well to replicate. Most often, those are Commanding Executive Officers. Some CEOs claim the credit for their company’s success. Maybe some, like Steve Jobs, even deserve the credit. Others, though, give the credit to staff, and a few even credit the lowest level point of contact employees.
Grassroots
The other approach is the grassroots solution, in which people facing a challenge come together to cope in mutual support of each other. In truth, many service businesses start with such a shared approach. That mutual aid model contrasts with the common dream of an entrepreneur to seize an opportunity, implement it, and ride the express train to riches. Senior living started in churches and boarding houses across the nation. Senior living lends itself to the mutual assistance model of business development.
There is growing anecdotal evidence that the baby boomers want and expect more mutuality than has previously been common in the corporate world of senior living. You, yourself, even as you are continuing to earn a living in senior sevices, may be a baby boomer anticipating the next stage of your life. How does the organization for which you work lend itself to your expectations?
What Would You Do?
Which would you prefer for your own final years? If you are like most readers of this publication with whom I’ve spoken, you won’t be moving to a senior living “facility.” Most likely, you expect to live in your current home, or you will move to a similar home in a place you prefer. Ryan Frederick regularly writes about the attractiveness of place. Your “place,” though, is unlikely to be a senior housing enterprise, though you might consider congregate living.
Given this cultural sensitivity, it’s not surprising that there are many grassroots efforts emerging for senior living. We’ve written on this before. Not surprisingly, grassroots by itself is seldom successful. It gets too tied up in personalities. Most successful grassroots organizations evolve to have professional staff who provide the direction to keep the organization successful and growing.
Hybrid
We see that in the expanding village movement. The more successful “villages” commonly have professional, paid staff. That could mean that successful villages can afford staff, or it may mean that professional staff drive success. In either case, the village movement remains committed to grassroots involvement.
Senior living conglomerates can learn from this. Combining a primary commitment to customers, i.e., grassroots efforts, with professional support is a path that works well in American culture. That is particularly true of service industries as opposed to product industries. Senior living is about as intimate a service industry as can be found.
Threat and Opportunity
These observations lead inevitably to the conclusion that senior living will thrive if it can find a business model that attracts you, the baby boomers still working in senior living, to want to stay living where you’ve worked after you step back from active leadership. This core consumer resistance to corporate living is a key risk facing the industry. The threat is that today’s compliant resident model may become obsolete.
We’ll address that and other industry risks in a forthcoming article. For now, we conclude by noting that communal living need not be corporate. It can be mutual.
