Good governance is a necessity for a well-functioning organization. It safeguards against irresponsible behavior, which is necessary given a company’s accountability to shareholders, employees, customers, and the wider community. Generally, governance is about building transparency, maintaining integrity, and upholding the rule of law. However, we must understand that the nexus of governance and leadership accountability is a more complicated dynamic that deserves a closer look as our society ages. I believe the age of executive leadership will become a topic for increased discussion over the next decade.
Good governance requires accountability at all levels, particularly at the top, from the board to the senior managers. These people have the special role of charting a course for their companies, looking to a future in which their companies can secure success while still looking out for the needs of the various stakeholders. Good governance requires leaders to make decisions that build trust, provide clarity, and demonstrate a dedication to a moral underpinning.
An organization’s culture is determined by its board of directors and top executives. It is often referred to as “Tone at the Top.” When this kind of leadership is visible, it gives stakeholders confidence and puts business aspirations in sync with social goals and ambitions.” This demand becomes greater as leaders age and may be perceived to limit their ability to change or innovate.
Age in leadership is incredibly far from being one size fits all. Some people get older and wiser, think ahead, and make smarter choices. Let’s consider the leadership of Berkshire Hathaway. Warren Buffett (age 94) just announced that he was stepping down as CEO, and Charlie Munger was still active until his death at 99. These two men were unmatched in their disciplined financial stewardship. Michael Bloomberg, 81, exerts his grip with confidence at the top of his media empire while Carl Icahn, 87, continues to play the role of an agent of corporate change at Icahn Enterprises. Their longevity has been widely regarded as a virtue that has set them apart. The proof of this is decades of honed judgment and deep expertise.
However, long-serving leadership comes with its own set of issues. The experience of getting old is very different from one person to another. We are all aware of peers who stay as sharp as ever as they reach their later years, working away with no slippage in their field, while others start to lag when confronted with new technologies or a crisis. Such weaknesses can undermine a company’s faith in its workforce and external partners. These events can threaten the smooth running of operations or fuel questions about a company’s ability to compete.
Science and medicine have helped increase not just life spans but working lives. The first centenarian CEO is not out of the question. However, this presents an awkward question for corporate governance strategies: How can companies guarantee that their aging leaders still do their organizations justice while at the same time looking out for the stakeholder’s best interests if and when age becomes an inhibitor to performing as is expected? We only need to look at our former President as an example.
Rather than strictly perceiving age as a caveat for serving, corporate governance can treat aged leadership thoughtfully by considering its positives and negatives. Older leaders frequently have a lifetime’s worth of experience, a track record of success, and institutional knowledge. These are valuable resources from which a company leverages and can get excellent value. However, an independent board of directors must also actively evaluate and review this equilibrium. These members must be ready to assess senior leaders objectively for the physical and cognitive components and their strategic contributions. Regular performance evaluation, succession planning, and grooming of the second line of leadership are key to this. This ensures stability while allowing companies to remain nimble and respectful of the long-term contributions of senior officers.
Another commonly overlooked concept is the notion of a “beautiful exit” — a graceful, intentional transition plan for leaders as they age. Unlike sudden resignations or coerced retirements, a “beautiful exit” entails openness, wisdom, and cooperation. It enables leaders to do more of their best work, mentor next-generation leaders, and lead the organization to a greater outcome.
For example, Warren Buffett always discussed the necessity of long-run succession planning at Berkshire Hathaway, and even as his tenure extended, his incessant reassurances that continuity plans existed helped build trust among stakeholders. This sort of forward-looking, transparent planning is what good corporate governance is all about. A “beautiful exit” not only serves the leader; it also serves the entire ecosystem that surrounds a company. It guards employees, maintains investor confidence, and solidifies the institution by reducing uncertainty.
Corporate governance is more than maintaining a healthy balance sheet and updating policies. It is an ethos of responsibility, transparency, and honest dealing with all stakeholders. When leaders embody these values, even in challenging times, such as deciding when to move on themselves, they are holding themselves to the highest standards of governance.
The age of the powerful leader for life is upon us. Whether this will be our strength or our undoing depends on how we weave this into the tapestry of reliable governance systems. In other words, do we have the courage to shun complacency and build a legacy based on merit and the facts?
Prepared by Terry L. Stroud – May 2025
