Uncontrolled power, not age, is the problem with faltering leaders
When older leaders start to falter, age is almost inevitably brought up as a reason for their failing competency.
Our Chief Executive, Dr Carole Easton OBE, says age is a misdiagnosis of the problem and that bad leadership comes from accumulating unchallenged power for too long.
The competency of older people in positions of power is once again under the microscope.
This week Guardian columnist Marina Hyde used the examples of Vladimir Putin, Rupert Murdoch and the Dalai Lama to make the case for older figures to make way for younger ones in the pursuit of progress.
She wrote: “Mandatory retirement might be a thing at some places of work in the US and beyond, but for a certain stature of man, it is evidently not something that needs to be worried about. The idea of giving way to someone a few years younger, to say nothing of a few decades, does not appear to loom large in their minds, degenerated or otherwise…. a remarkable amount of today’s biggest hitters do seem to have long passed the point at which a dignified walk back to the pavilion is in order”.
It is interesting to note in her article, the examples Hyde gives are all men in positions of leadership. And two important issues are at play in these cases: gender and power. No matter their age, the men Hyde refers to do not want to give up their positions of power and even have ways of preventing this from happening.
The issue with many of the examples cited in the article is not age, as it might seem on first reading, but about length of tenure with unchallenged authority. Of course, the two often go hand in hand but it is very important that they should not be confused or conflated.
The question we should be asking is: has that person been in that role for too long to continue to be effective, not is that person too old to continue to be effective?
Age alone should not be a measure of competency. Much is made in the criticism of older leaders that age somehow implies an inevitable decline in competency. But the reality is someone of 75 might be as competent, innovative and enterprising as someone decades younger. Some point to President Biden’s speech gaffes as evidence of dementia, ignoring that this has been a feature throughout his political career.
Not everyone over 65 has dementia, fewer than 10% of over-65s in the UK in fact, and to assign any doubts around competency to this reason is offensive to all. We would rightly find it bizarre if any failings of competency were assigned to a different medical condition such as bipolar in a different age group. The issue then is not age but more about how long someone in a position of power and influence should be able to remain in post.
Over tenures of long periods, people can exert inordinate and unquestioned influence and even find ways of excluding the possibility of their own replacements. This applies, in my opinion, to world leaders as well as leaders of companies and other important institutions. Whether it is running a charity or a country, too much power concentrated among too few for too long can lead to poor decision making, reputational damage, stagnation and decline.
Trustees of charities have a period of tenure and good practice dictates that they move on after six or so years. If this applies, and works well, in the voluntary sector, should it not apply elsewhere? Surely in politics, big business and many other areas of life it is particularly important that people in positions of power cannot retain this power indefinitely?
The question we should be asking is: has that person been in that role for too long to continue to be effective, not is that person too old to continue to be effective?
It is time to drop the false assumptions around competency and ageing and refocus the argument on the risks of excessive power.
