By Jack Cumming
An email message from Amma Addo at LeadingAge caught my attention. The message was straightforward. It read:
“Greetings LeadingAge Leaders of Color Network!
Do you know a leader who’s making a real impact? Nominations are open for the 2026 LeadingAge Leadership Award. The LeadingAge Leadership Award recognizes an individual in a member provider organization whose leadership attributes have made a significant difference in their organization or local community.
It is open to leaders at all levels, including those who serve in non-CEO and non-C-suite roles. The recipient makes contributions that lead to greater success and impact for their organization, shows exceptional leadership skills in relationships with other community stakeholders, and drives change, especially in ways that can be quantified or measured.
Help us honor individuals who strengthen their communities and drive meaningful, measurable change. Learn more and submit nominations by 8:00 pm ET on February 27. The award will be presented at the 2026 LeadingAge Summit.”
Art Liggins
Arthur Liggins immediately leapt to mind. In the Life Plan Community (CCRC) where I live, Mr. Liggins is a leader in every sense of the word. Click here for a Front Porch podcast featuring Mr. Liggins. I immediately went to work on the nominating form. I should have started with the criteria, but I didn’t. It seemed obvious that Mr. Liggins is a pioneer leading age in a very constructive way.
Filling out the form proceeded seamlessly until I encountered “Nomination Letters of Support.”
“In addition to the above examples of exceptional leadership, provide at least TWO letters of support/recommendation: one from a direct report or peer leader who works closely with the nominee, and in addition, a letter of support/recommendation from another team member, an older adult resident or client, or a resident’s or client’s family member.”
Resident Insignificance
The recurring shock of resident insignificance gobsmacked me. I went to look into the award criteria, and by leaving the webpage where I was filling out the nomination form, everything that I had entered into the online form was lost, never to be recovered. Closer reading revealed a Word template that LeadingAge included to help with drafting, but I had been so eager to get into the specifics of Mr. Liggins’ merits while it was fresh in my mind, that I overlooked this throwback to an earlier technology.
The criteria also emphasized how little residents are valued for their leadership qualities. Topping the list, the criterion with the highest priority is: “Employed by a LeadingAge provider member.” Clearly, the reference to “leaders at all levels” does not include residents who must be consigned to a sublevel.
That tells it all. LeadingAge provider members are not-for-profits, dependent on residents for their revenues. In a sense, the residents collectively employ the provider, the executives, the managers, and the staff to minister to resident needs as they age. Why don’t providers and residents collaborate in that mission?
Advanced Management Program
Recently, LeadingAge announced “LeadingAge’s Fellowship Program for New CEOs.” It is intended to provide “a structured experience focused on reflection, connection, and growth.” There are many people living as residents in LeadingAge member organizations with CEO experience. Why wouldn’t they have representation in shaping such a promising undertaking?
The senior living industry is weaker because, instead of elevating its customers, it often treats them as objects of pity to be cared for. Of course, that’s true of some residents who are failing cognitively or physically. But then there are some employed in the industry who aren’t totally with it either. The divide between resident status and employee status is as artificial as the divide between taxpaying enterprises and those that claim tax exemption.
Let Fresh Air In
This reveals an enormous blind spot that the industry chooses to overlook rather than address. It’s not a reach to call such myopia self-destructive for the industry. We can all benefit if we mobilize the talent in our midst for our common needs as human beings. Some of us are already old, while others among us are only hoping to be old one day. Why is this mindset of disdain for residents tolerated in an industry that claims to have high values?
Let’s tell the industry leaders that we are better when we work together. Let’s collaborate.
This is one in a series of articles exploring how providers, residents, and resident families might work together for better aging.
Completely agree, Jack.
The adage, “It takes a village,” is apropos in the senior living communities we are called to manage.
“Leaders” who discount, dismiss, or patronize these invaluable volunteers are shortsighted, ignorant, insecure, and / or are too arrogant to invite residents into the important conversations we must have. The invaluable contributions residents voluntarily and generously offer pay huge dividends. Understandably, engaging residents may require more effort and may not always produce viable solutions or options. To your point, many residents are more experienced, educated, and accomplished than many of us could ever hope to be. Moreover, we work in their homes, not ours, and many of them will still be part of the village long after we’re gone.
I agree. We are referred to as residents , not customers.
A divide and conquer approach is utilized by management. Management encourages the residents to come to them with their complaints and to bypass the Residents Council. Therefore , we don’t know the scope of an issue or problem. The Council is rendered inoperative and
ineffective.
What you describe is true not only at your community in Connecticut but at every community across the nation with which I am familiar. The exceptions are those few that are cooperative, resident governed, or coliving/cohousing.
Moreover, resident “governance” is generally channeled into committees while corporate decisions are crisper. Committees, like boards, allow individual members to avoid responsibility and accountability. Some members usually emerge as more influential than others simply by personality and seldom by merit. That’s a human reality.
It can be different, as in some Quaker decision processes in which discussion continues until a consensus is reached. We see that power of that in the TV play/film, “Twelve Angry Men,” but most decisions don’t lend themselves to the luxury of taking the time to discuss until even those immune to listening are forced to do so.
As prospective residents come to understand this emasculating culture, they will make different choices and, if they do come into residence, they will not be as complacent as most residents are today. Given the tension between managements wanting control and residents resenting their lack of a voice, I believe that change is inevitable for the industry. Sadly, it will come too late for me or thee.