Should an Aging Leader Step Aside?

Talk about Joe Biden’s age reached fever pitch in the wake of his recent presidential debate performance, and the attention is not surprising given the stakes. Bombarded with speculation about the president’s physical and cognitive health, and about the health and age of Donald Trump, observers want answers. Are they too old to lead? Are they cognitively intact? Do they lack the capacity to be effective?

Others will address the concerns about Biden and Trump specifically. But the current discussion offers us a broader opportunity to reflect anew on aging and leadership transitions in politics and business, a process driven both by interested stakeholders and by leaders themselves.

Transitions and succession planning should be on the agenda of every organization, of course, and questions about the health and vigor of leaders of all ages are necessary and appropriate. Those affected deserve to be confident that their leaders possess the qualities and characteristics that will enable them to perform at the highest level. That is true whether their leaders are 75 or 45.

But when questions are raised about the effectiveness of older leaders, including questions about whether it is time to step aside, they routinely focus first on chronological age, rather than on competence, capability, and productivity. Why assume that everyone at a certain age is ready for the sidelines? Population health risks do not dictate individual outcomes, and expectations about a person’s capacity to lead are too often colored by generalized biases.

We know better.

At every age, individuals are diverse and different — physically, cognitively, creatively, and productively. The fixation on age ignores individual differences and manifests in a range of blunt practices, including mandatory retirements and age limits for board participation, partnership memberships, and the like.

The specter of ageism is hard to ignore.

In the words of Jo Ann Jenkins, CEO of AARP, ageism is one of the last frontiers of discrimination. Particularly affecting older adults, it reflects prejudice, stigma, and negative assumptions about talent, competence, adaptability, and value. It favors youth and undervalues experience. Ageism continues to infect every corner of society and is reinforced by policies, protocols, and cultural norms across America and much of the world. While organizations and advocates targeting ageism are working hard to make the case that older adults have contributions to make and roles to play, it is unlikely that the debates about President Biden have been helpful to that cause.

Questions about the age of public leaders are nothing new. Ronald Reagan deflected concerns about his mental fitness during a 1984 presidential debate with Democratic candidate Walter Mondale. When a moderator said “You are already the oldest president in history” and expressed uneasiness about the prospect of the president’s performance in a national security crisis, Reagan quipped: “I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent’s youth and inexperience.” Despite the concerns about his age and mental acuity, Reagan’s banter worked, and he went on to win a second term in a landslide election. Ten years later, Reagan announced in a letter to the nation that he was suffering from Alzheimer’s Disease. Whether there were signs of dementia during his presidency remains a matter of debate.

Search the word “gerontocracy” today and you will find dozens of articles that lament what is seen as a government ruled by the elderly and frail. Recent examples in the Senate and Supreme Court loom large. Older officials are routinely criticized for clinging to power despite declining health and what are seen as out of touch priorities and perspectives.

That criticism is often fair. Some leaders are selfish; some are narcissistic. Too many overstay their welcome because they fear change or irrelevance, lack identity beyond their roles, or feel unable to cede control. But before we suggest that every older leader is ready for the sidelines, remember that Nelson Mandela was first elected president in South Africa at age 75. At 93, Warren Buffet still drives one of America’s greatest companies. Michael Bloomberg continues his entrepreneurial and philanthropic accomplishment at 82. Janet Yellin remains a globally influential and respected economist and policy expert at 77. Mick Jagger is leading another Rolling Stones tour at 80. Where would we be had Benjamin Franklin not played an irreplaceable role at America’s Constitutional Convention in his 80s? While he was dealing with the physical disabilities of aging, he was as influential as ever.

Leadership is about the person, not their age, and good leaders should not be forced to depart at arbitrary moments in time. Age alone should not be a disqualifier.

We must also be frank. Aging is the predominant risk factor for chronic and neurodegenerative diseases and older adults may be in greater danger of conditions that could imperil their leadership effectiveness. While decline occurs at different times and in different ways, it is ultimately inevitable. Times change and organizational needs evolve. Younger people must have the opportunity to grow. All things must pass, and there are times for smooth transitions and graceful exits.

“Most leaders, left to their own devices, will not know when it’s the right time for them to leave,” Harvard Business School Professor Ranjay Gulati told The New York Times earlier this year. Understanding when to step back is a challenge for driven, ambitious people. But we should not need term limits. A good leader asks whether it is time to pass the torch: Am I the leader I used to be? Do I have the same drive? Are my skillsets relevant to the challenges of the future? Rather than leading a transition process, do I want to have the keys taken away?

With planning and support, the benefits of a graceful exit can dramatically outweigh the costs of holding on too long. Good leaders understand their strengths and weaknesses. They are more interested in long-term legacy than in near-term power. They believe in succession and desire to empower the next generation, and they find satisfaction in mentorship and in others’ success.

Stepping away does not have to mean the end of relevance. To the contrary, as Harvard Business School’s Bill George has observed, doors are open for leaders who finish strong and go out on top. Board service, teaching, learning, writing, new public and private sector positions, and nonprofit leadership roles present opportunities to contribute in meaningful ways by engaging relationships and employing talents developed over decades.

Most important, collaboration with younger people to ensure a better future for future generations is as critically important as any organizational leadership challenge. As the well-known Greek proverb holds: “A society grows great when old men plant trees in whose shade they shall never sit.”

The sign of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two seemingly opposed ideas in mind at the same time, to paraphrase F. Scott Fitzgerald. Opposition to ageist policies and practices should not mean opposition to honest assessments and generational leadership change. Questioning the capability of a leader based on age alone is ageist and wrong. But the needs of the times and the health and abilities of that leader may mean that it is time for transition.

The noise and questions around the Biden and Trump election contest should not color our judgment about the requirements and attributes of leadership. Every leader, regardless of age, should be evaluated based on their own merit and effectiveness, and every leader should do what is best for their stakeholders. That will not only serve the greater good, but often a leader’s own legacy and future as well.