In this thought-provoking episode of Next Act Ninjas, host Rachael Van Pelt tackles a timely and controversial topic: the age of political leaders and what it means for leadership today. With prominent figures like President Biden stepping down due to cognitive decline and former President Trump running for office at 78, the debate over age, leadership, and mental fitness is more relevant than ever. Rachael explores how this issue impacts not just politics, but those in their 50s and 60s striving for longevity in their own leadership roles. Should cognitive testing be required for leaders? How does age factor into experience, adaptability, and effectiveness? Join the conversation as Rachael breaks down the pros and cons of older vs. younger leaders, the ethics of cognitive testing, and the growing concern about ageism in leadership. Don’t miss this deep dive into leadership, longevity, and the evolving standards of "fitness to lead."
Chapters
00:00 Aging Politicians and Fitness to Lead
01:25 Is Age a Strength in Leadership? The Power of Experience
02:59 The Power of Fresh Perspective and Agility
04:30 Leadership Beyond Age: Political Savvy and Influence
06:27 Should we be Assessing Fitness to Lead?
08:00 Cognitive Decline and Leadership: The Slippery Slope of Cognitive Testing
11:09 Ethical Concerns: Should Cognitive Testing Be Mandatory?
13:37 Navigating Leadership Transitions Without Ageism
Welcome back to Next Act Ninjas, the #1 podcast for mastering your lifestyle longevity. I'm your host, Rachael Van Pelt. Today, I'm diving into a topic that has been making waves in politics right now, the age of our leaders and how to determine fitness to lead. With many prominent political figures well into their 70s and 80s, there's a lot of debate about whether age is a strength or a liability. Clearly, with President Biden stepping out of the election a couple of months ago due to cognitive decline, this issue has become more relevant than ever. And we have former President Trump running at age 78, making him the oldest candidate ever to run for US presidency.
But I don't want to talk politics today. I want to talk about what this "too-old-to-lead" debate means for those of us in our 50s and 60s who are looking forward to the future. Could this fuel more ageism in politics and other leadership roles? Should we be testing for mental fitness and telling leaders when it's time to step down? Today we're going to explore these controversial topics and address the fine balance between tapping into a wealth of experience versus making way for the next generation of leadership.
But first let's acknowledge the power of experience. As we age, I think many of us would agree that our knowledge and expertise are irreplaceable. In politics, this is the case as well. Older leaders are seen as a source of stability and institutional memory, which can help us navigate complex issues with a long-term view.
Winston Churchill became prime minister in his mid-60s and he helped guide Great Britain through World War II. Ronald Reagan in his 70s helped usher in a new era of economic policy and diplomacy for the United States. The wisdom and perspective that come from decades of experience are invaluable. Older politicians often possess a deep understanding of the political landscape, foreign relations, and the nuances of policy making. Their decision-making is informed by years of learning through trial and error. And let's not forget the resilience that they get from having lived through major world events. Events such as war, economic downturn, political shifts.
I mean, just think about your own life for a minute. Aren't there things that you understand now that you wouldn't have grasped 20 years ago? Experience is an asset, isn't it? It sharpens our judgment. It gives us the ability to anticipate long-term consequences. These are traits we see in seasoned politicians. On the flip side, there's a strong argument for younger leadership. As the world evolves, technologically, socially, environmentally, younger leaders are argued to be more "in tune" with societal needs and the rapid pace of change. In recent years, we've seen a couple of 30-something-year-olds rise to the role of prime minister. For example, Sanna Marin, Finland's former prime minister, and Jacinda Ardern, New Zealand's former prime minister. They represented a new generation of leadership with innovative approaches.
Young leaders like those, they've "grown up" in the modern world where challenges such as social media and artificial intelligence and climate change are core concerns to constituents. Their policies often reflect the concerns of younger generations and they offer solutions that speak to the future, not just the past. And because they've had to keep up with the rapid technological advances throughout their life, many young leaders have had to learn to be agile.
That said, agility isn't just for the young, is it? Some older leaders are incredibly nimble. They're innovative, they're forward thinking. Just as some younger leaders struggle to think on their feet or to pivot their policies as needed. The real question is whether a leader can adapt and remain relevant in our fast-paced, quickly changing world.
But what else makes a great leader beyond just staying relevant, having fresh ideas and agility? Political leadership, especially at the highest levels, requires refined political savvy, negotiation skills, influence. These qualities often take decades to hone and they're critical in getting things done, aren't they?
Just think of someone like Lyndon B. Johnson who was considered a master negotiator. He knew how to work both sides of the aisle to push the Civil Rights Act through in 1964. That's not just because he understood the issues of the day, it's because he knew the right people. He'd spent years building alliances and he was able to stand up to powerful interests.
Good leaders, regardless of age, simply possess the ability to influence others, whether through personal charisma or tactical negotiation or sheer force of will. They know when to compromise and when to stand firm. And in many cases, this is something that only comes with time and experience. It's about understanding the complex web of power dynamics, not just in your own country, but on a global stage. For older leaders, this political influence can be their most valuable asset. They know how to play the game. They've been playing it for years. But for young leaders, influence and negotiation can be a weak point, particularly when it comes to building long-term relationships and alliances.
Just think about your own leadership roles. Do you find it easier to navigate complex relationships, both personally and professionally now, compared to when you were younger? If so, then you've probably cultivated those skills over time, in which case you'll understand why some of the most effective leaders tend to be older, right?
But is there a line when age is no longer an asset but a liability? Clearly good leadership isn't just about age, it's about effectiveness. But how do we measure effectiveness? How do we measure "fitness to lead"?
If a leader's physical or mental health is in decline or they can no longer perform at the level required, it might be time for an honest assessment. Experience is a huge asset, but we all know that aging brings challenges, especially in terms of health and cognitive ability. In President Biden's case, early stage dementia became a clear factor that led to his stepping out of the presidential race. His decision highlights the importance of knowing when to pass the torch. But how do we know when and who gets to decide?
Now, some have argued that we should implement cognitive testing for political leaders as a way to ensure that they're mentally sharp enough for the job. But I want to dive into that a bit deeper. This is a sensitive issue. Is it reasonable to expect older leaders to undergo cognitive testing? On the surface, it seems like a good solution, right? If you're leading a nation or a company and you're 70 or 80 or older, wouldn't it make sense to confirm you're mentally sharp enough for the job? After all, those roles do involve managing crises, making decisions with global consequences, and they can influence millions of lives.
But the conversation is much more complicated. First, measuring cognitive ability isn't like measuring blood pressure or cholesterol levels. It's much more nuanced and subjective. Cognitive decline is not a uniform process. It can happen slowly or quickly. It affects individuals very differently. Some people in their 60s and 70s remain just as sharp as ever, while others experience noticeable drops in their mental acuity. Moreover, there are natural mental fluctuations that happen on a day-to-day basis. A poor night's sleep, stress, even medication side-effects can cause someone to perform poorly on a cognitive test. And age-related cognitive changes, they're not just about memory loss. They may involve a reduced ability to process complex information quickly. They could involve a reduced ability to multitask or to respond to a highly stressful situation. All of these nuances make it tricky to measure cognitive decline in a way that's fair and accurate.
The science behind cognitive testing is imprecise. There are standardized tests that we use to measure mental acuity, but these tests are far from perfect. They measure specific skills, such as short-term memory or problem solving or spatial awareness, but they don't fully capture how someone might function in a high-pressure situation. The brain is incredibly complex. A decline in one area doesn't necessarily mean a decline in all areas. Some people, for example, may have slower processing speeds as they age, but their ability to reason and strategize remains intact. Others may experience short-term memory loss, but they remain sharp when it comes to long-term planning and decision-making. In other words, a politician or business leader might ace a cognitive test and still struggle to lead effectively in a highly complex or stressful situation. Conversely, someone might show mild cognitive impairment on paper but still excel in negotiation and decision-making and strategy.
Then there's the question of bias. Cognitive tests, like many medical assessments, can sometimes produce skewed results based on educational background or cultural differences or even socioeconomic status. People from different backgrounds may score lower on a cognitive test simply because they're not familiar with those kinds of questions that are being asked. And it has nothing to do with them having any kind of cognitive decline.
Moreover, cognitive decline isn't the only metric by which we should be evaluating a leader's fitness to lead. Emotional intelligence, political savvy, lived experience, they're all key factors that contribute to good leadership. If we simply focus on cognition, we risk oversimplifying what makes an effective leader. As a result, we could sideline leaders who still have valuable perspective, simply because they didn't perform well on a cognitive test.
Making cognitive testing a requirement for leadership also raises significant ethical concerns. There's the issue of privacy. Should a sitting politician or CEO be required to disclose the results of their cognitive test publicly? We live in an age where health privacy is protected by laws like HIPAA, but should the public have a right to know the mental state of those in power? Maybe. But what about the stigma attached to those cognitive declines? If a leader shows even mild signs of decline, the political or social fallout could be severe. It could be career ending. It could end a career prematurely, even if they're still capable of performing effectively.
And we have to consider the slippery slope of implementing these requirements. Today, it could be cognitive testing, tomorrow, maybe it's physical fitness tests based on the idea that healthy body supports a healthy mind. At what point do we stop trusting people to make their own judgment about when they should step down? There's also the precedent it sets for other fields. If we start requiring cognitive testing for political leaders, will corporate boards soon follow suit? Will executives in their 70s and 80s be forced to undergo tests to keep their positions? What about those in other fields like the creative arts? Is it fair to force a CEO to retire at 75 if they're still outperforming their younger counterparts? Bottom line, the implications could extend far beyond politics and leadership, and it could affect many sectors of society.
And there's the ethical issue of WHO decides when someone's no longer fit to lead? In politics, should it be up to the voters to decide whether an aging leader still has the capacity to serve effectively? Or should we trust medical professionals to make that call? What happens if cognitive tests become a political tool used to disqualify candidates unfairly? And if we start requiring those tests for political candidates or business leaders, at what age would we draw the line? Should a 75-year-old senator be required to pass a cognitive test while a 40-year-old senator is exempt? Is that ageism or is it a practical safeguard? I don't know. I don't know the answer to these questions.
At the end of the day, I just know that age alone should not determine when someone is fit to lead. We need to look at the broader picture. We need to look at cognitive ability, sure, but also emotional intelligence and political savvy and adaptability, experience, all those things. And although cognitive decline can impact leadership, there's no easy or one-size-fits-all solution. The tools we have to measure cognitive ability are imperfect at best. And the ethical implications of making these tests mandatory are profound.
For those of us in our 50s and 60s, this is an important conversation. We're at the stage of life where we're often in leadership roles, and there is increasing pressure for us to step aside to let the next generation take over. But it's important to remember that experience, when combined with adaptability, can be a powerful asset. And with advances in longevity, as we've talked about in previous episodes, the ideal age for retirement has become less and less obvious. Now, maybe there's a middle ground where we simply do a better job of transitioning leadership to our successors with better mentoring. That's a topic for another day.
But regardless, I'd love to hear your thoughts. Do you think there should be age limits for leaders? How do you feel about testing for so-called "fitness to lead". Connect with me in the comments. I'd love to keep the conversation going. And if you haven't already, please subscribe and share this episode with others who are interested in longevity and leadership. Until next time, live well, love more, age less, my friends.