The mainstream conversation about aging politicians remaining in office causes me to ponder why people retain leadership positions for too long. Be it politicians or CEOs of companies, what is the thought process of remaining for a considerable amount of longevity?
A Question, We Should All Consider is “When Should You Step Down Or Move On ?
I aim to understand and reconcile those reasons. I hypothesize that individuals lock up positions due to:
1. Ego
2. Identity
3. Selfish Benefits and Greedy Gains
4. Organizational Success
5. Denial of Physical or Cognitive Decline
The seductive whisper of ego often shackles individuals to their roles beyond their influential tenures. The ego manifests as a self-indulgent force, compelling leaders to cling to power due to an inflated sense of self-worth and an insatiable desire for recognition, respect, and control.
It blurs the boundary between confidence and arrogance, often leading them to believe that they are indispensable and that their prolonged stay is beneficial, if not crucial, for the organization or community. This overarching desire for self-validation and fear of losing status and influence can overshadow the intrinsic motivation to serve, eventually leading to impaired judgment, stagnation, and, in many instances, the deterioration of the entities they lead.
It is crucial to recognize the corrosive influence of ego to foster leadership that is dynamic, humble, and genuinely devoted to the collective good rather than trapped by self-serving motives.
Identity is closely related to ego. The psychological comfort and social validation derived from prestigious titles can create a fearful attachment to the position.
The mainstream conversation about aging politicians remaining in office got me pondering why people retain leadership positions for too long. Be it politicians or CEOs of companies, what is the thought process of remaining for a considerable amount of longevity?
The ego manifests as a self-indulgent force, compelling leaders to cling to power due to an inflated sense of self-worth and an insatiable desire for recognition, respect, and control.
It blurs the boundary between confidence and arrogance, often leading them to believe that they are indispensable and that their prolonged stay is beneficial, if not crucial, for the organization or community. This overarching desire for self-validation and fear of losing status and influence can overshadow the intrinsic motivation to serve, eventually leading to impaired judgment, stagnation, and, in many instances, the deterioration of the entities they lead.
It is crucial to recognize the corrosive influence of ego to foster leadership that is dynamic, humble, and genuinely devoted to the collective good rather than trapped by self-serving motives.
Identity is closely related to ego. The psychological comfort and social validation derived from prestigious titles can create a fearful attachment to the position. Many people struggle with leaving their position because their identity is tied to their job. The same can be said of any position. The reluctance to relinquish such roles, driven by an over-identification with them, impedes organizational evolution and stifles the emergence of new perspectives and innovative ideas.
The relentless pursuit of financial gain often forms the invisible chains that bind individuals to leadership positions long after their season of effective influence has waned. Many leaders stay in place because they must pay off their mortgage or their kids’ college tuition. We are all incentivized to make financial gains, and there is nothing wrong with having this motivation. However, it becomes detrimental to the organization when a leader is looming only for these reasons.
A logical reason to stay is because the organization is profitable or successful. This is tricky because it plays into the “if ain’t broke…” belief. However, the danger is a leader’s deep-rooted reliance that the organization’s success solely depends on their presence. I’ve also heard leaders say they want to stay because the job isn’t finished. In most cases, the job will never finish and is meant to evolve. This belief can create a reluctance to pass the torch, potentially stifling the innovative potential and adaptability of the entity.
It seems obvious, but declining health (physical and cognitive impairment) is a reason to exit your post. Age is the main dispute making headlines in the present day. I hope these individuals surround themselves with a team of truth-tellers who have their best interests in mind. More aptly stated, the best interest of the people they lead. Sadly, I have not seen that.
So how long is too long? I’m only of average intelligence, so I don’t know the answer.
I stayed in various roles such as a college vice president, Director of Public Safety, Head of a municipal law department for no more than 3 years in most instances, and I decided to leave each after a pretty intense soul-searching exercise with myself. I set my ego and identity aside. It was a financial risk because I was not yet eligible to collect my pension when I left. The organizations were healthy and thriving, as indicated by the selfless men and women employed, and community support. But I felt personally stagnant, and I knew that my internal strife would soon manifest and my people would suffer. I was scared to leave for all of the reasons I’ve cited that people stay too long. It turned out to be the right decision for me and each of my organizations. They needed new energy, and I needed to learn who I was able to pursue a new employment adventure, where I could explore new challenges for my entire adult life.
You may be doing a great job in your leadership role, but I implore you to hold up a mirror and determine if you’re past your expiration date — which has nothing to do with age. Are there junior leaders waiting in the wings who aren’t being provided an opportunity to lead because you are taking up a spot? If you’ve done your job well, you should be able to walk out of your organization knowing it’s in the capable hands of those you’ve developed to take your place. You should be kicking down doors for others to walk through.
A great leader knows when to leave because astute judgment and self-awareness are paramount to effective leadership. Recognizing when to step down or move on is often as crucial as knowing when to step up.
People struggle with leaving a profession because their identity is tied to their job. The same can be said of any position. The reluctance to relinquish such roles, driven by an over-identification with them, impedes organizational evolution and stifles the emergence of new perspectives and innovative ideas.
The relentless pursuit of financial gain often forms the invisible chains that bind individuals to leadership positions long after their season of effective influence has waned. Many leaders stay in place because they must pay off their mortgage or their kids’ college tuition. We are all incentivized to make financial gains, and there is nothing wrong with having this motivation. However, it becomes detrimental to the organization when a leader is looming only for these reasons.
A logical reason to stay is because the organization is profitable or successful. This is tricky because it plays into the “if ain’t broke…” belief. However, the danger is a leader’s deep-rooted reliance that the organization’s success solely depends on their presence. I’ve also heard leaders say they want to stay because the job isn’t finished. In most cases, the job will never finish and is meant to evolve. This belief can create a reluctance to pass the torch, potentially stifling the innovative potential and adaptability of the entity.
It seems obvious, but declining health (physical and cognitive impairment) is a reason to exit your post. Age is the main dispute making headlines in the present day. I hope these individuals surround themselves with a team of truth-tellers who have their best interests in mind. More aptly stated, the best interest of the people they lead. Sadly, I have not seen that.
So how long is too long? I’m only of average intelligence, so I don’t know the answer.
A great leader knows when to leave because astute judgment and self-awareness are paramount to effective leadership. Recognizing when to step down or move on is often as crucial as knowing when to step up.
Cough syrup produced in Baltimore in 1888 contained the following ingredients: alcohol, cannabis, chloroform, and morphine. Less than a decade later, Bayer would successfully synthesize both aspirin and heroin. Heroin was based on the German word “heroisch,” which means “heroic.” Bayer marketed heroin as a cough suppressant that was not as addictive as morphine.
If you were to open the 11th edition of Encyclopedia Britannica from 1910 and look up “morphine,” you’ll find the following passage: “In the cough of phthisis, minute doses [of morphine] are of service, but in this particular disease morphine is frequently better replaced by codeine or by heroin, which checks irritable coughs without the narcotism following upon the administration of morphine.”
In 1924, the US Congress banned the selling, manufacturing, and importing of heroin as it soon became clear that the drug had the highest rate of addiction. Bayer lost its trademark rights to heroin and aspirin in 1919, following the defeat of Germany in World War 1.
Pilot ejected for undisclosed reason —> Aircraft disappears, missing plan posters appear on street lamps —> Entire F-35 fleet grounded for 48hrs —> Pilot ejected because of weather —> Pilot ejected because of malfunction.
Who do I get in contact with for a military PR writing gig?
$28,000/mo. retainer and I’ll make sure every incident cover story moving forward is at minimum as believable as the tooth fairy.
Add another $20k/mo. and I’ll fix their recruiting problem too.
Bizarre !!!
The 911 call has been released involving the pilot who was forced to eject from the F-35 jet that went missing.
In the 911 audio, the pilot could be heard explaining what had happened.
He explained that he was flying at 2,000 feet and was forced to eject due to “an aircraft failure.”
“We need to get rescue rolling, I’m not sure where the airplane is. It would have crash-landed. I ejected.”
“I was at 2,000 feet… An aircraft failure.”
He also asked the dispatcher if she had heard any reports of a plane crash.
People currently detained in jail will be released September 18False. A defendant currently being detained can petition the court for release. They’ll get a hearing where a judge will make a determination about their eligibility to be released.
Judges no longer decide whether a defendant is detained while awaiting trial.False. Judges have the final say about whether or not a defendant remains in jail while awaiting trial.
Suspects charged with murder are eligible for pre-trial release.False. Defendants accused of murder are not eligible for pre-trial release.
Police are no longer allowed to arrest suspects for minor misdemeanors/crimes.False. Police must issue citations for suspects accused of low-level misdemeanors and petty offenses unless there is a clear public safety threat. If an officer determines a suspect is a threat to public safety, he/she can make an arrest.
Police are no longer allowed to remove trespassing suspects. False. Police maintain the discretion to remove and arrest anyone who poses a threat to the community.
Sex offenses and residential burglars will be released while awaiting trial.False. Judges retain power to deny pre-trial release to defendants accused of sex offenses and residential burglary.
Domestic battery, stalking, violations of order of protection and most gun charges are detention eligible offenses.True.
Prosecutors are required to seek detention of a defendant awaiting trial if they want a suspect to remain in jail.True.
Victims must be notified that a suspect is being released while awaiting trial.True.
On Monday, in Room 100 of the Leighton Criminal Courthouse, history will be made.
Mary Marubio is the presiding judge of the Pretrial Division of the Circuit Court of Cook County.
“People who have recently been arrested and who are awaiting pretrial conditions will be coming here receiving those conditions and then being released from custody,” she said.
When those first proceedings begin, Illinois will become the first state to eliminate cash bail.
When asked if this law make us more or less safe, Marubio replied, “I believe it’s going to make us more safe.”
That’s not everyone’s view.
Criticism of the no cash bail overhaul was harsh. Supporters called the skepticism fearmongering.
After a challenge from virtually every State’s Attorney, Illinois’ highest court upheld the law paving the way for the new system to take effect.
Here’s how it works.
Beginning Monday, police must issue citations for suspects accused of low-level misdemeanors. Those individuals will be given a court date and released.
For more serious crimes, where a suspect is arrested and remains in police custody, a decision about pre-trial release will go to the court.
Conditions for release are set in an initial hearing. Then, the prosecutor can request a defendant remain in jail.
Witnesses are allowed and the victim will be notified.
Sharone Mitchell is the Cook County Public Defender.
“The whole thing about money. The ability to be able to pay money, just isn’t part of the scenario anymore,” Mitchell said. “Before the Pretrial Fairness Act, a judge could make a determination that a person is eligible for release, but they had to pay a certain amount of money. The new system basically makes a determination about whether someone is eligible to be released, just like the old system, and the judge, just makes a yes or no decision. “
The judge will issue a ruling after listening to arguments from the prosecutor and defense attorney.
“We look at the person’s background and that includes prior convictions, even prior juvenile adjudications, past failures to appear,” Marubio said. “And we look at the nature and circumstances of the offense in front of us.”
The law defines detention eligible offenses — some of them are domestic battery, stalking, predatory criminal sexual assault, violations of order of protection, most gun charges and murder.
The law tweaks how police treat some suspects, enumerating offenses that require release. Among them: petty offenses, certain misdemeanors, people charged with burglary where no one is harmed and battery without great bodily harm. But police maintain discretion to take a suspect into custody.
“There are some charges that themselves don’t quality for detention,” Marubio said.
Rather than a defendant arguing they should be released awaiting trial, it’s assumed that they will be. Now it’s up to prosecutors to push for a defendant to remain behind bars.
“The discretion is with the state to file that petition and to be clear, that’s the standard now,” Marubio said.
In Cook County, the state, the defense and the court are ready for this transformation of the criminal justice system.
“It’s pretty sad that for so long we made decisions about whether somebody should be detained based upon the money that they had in their pockets,” Mitchell said.
“Now people that don’t have the money, who are non-violent aren’t being held because they don’t have the money and people who are violent or dangerous, who might have the means, can’t pay for their way out of jail,” Marubio said.
Starting on Monday at 12:01am, anyone suspected of committing a crime will have their case put into the new system. People arrested before then, or who are already being detained, will have to petition the court for a hearing under the new rules.
Fact Checking on No Cash Bail in Illinois
People currently detained in jail will be released September 18False. A defendant currently being detained can petition the court for release. They’ll get a hearing where a judge will make a determination about their eligibility to be released.
Judges no longer decide whether a defendant is detained while awaiting trial.False. Judges have the final say about whether or not a defendant remains in jail while awaiting trial.
Suspects charged with murder are eligible for pre-trial release.False. Defendants accused of murder are not eligible for pre-trial release.
Police are no longer allowed to arrest suspects for minor misdemeanors/crimes.False. Police must issue citations for suspects accused of low-level misdemeanors and petty offenses unless there is a clear public safety threat. If an officer determines a suspect is a threat to public safety, he/she can make an arrest.
Police are no longer allowed to remove trespassing suspects.False. Police maintain the discretion to remove and arrest anyone who poses a threat to the community.
Sex offenses and residential burglars will be released while awaiting trial.False. Judges retain power to deny pre-trial release to defendants accused of sex offenses and residential burglary.
Domestic battery, stalking, violations of order of protection and most gun charges are detention eligible offenses.True.
Prosecutors are required to seek detention of a defendant awaiting trial if they want a suspect to remain in jail.True.
Victims must be notified that a suspect is being released while awaiting trial.True.
Social Security and Supplemental Security Income benefits are expected to rise again next year, a new estimate shows, and more changes to the SSI program could soon be on the way.
Monthly benefits are likely to grow by 3.2% in 2024, according to a projection this week from The Senior Citizens League, a nonprofit that advocates for seniors.
While far lower than the 8.7% jump this year, it’s an above average increase, the group said.
The change in benefits is due to an automatic cost-of-living adjustment, or COLA, that Social Security and SSI beneficiaries receive annually to account for inflation. COLA is based on third quarter results from the government’s Consumer Price Index and The Senior Citizens League said it made its estimate using data collected through August.
The group’s latest report comes as a bipartisan group of lawmakers in the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives are reviving legislation that would increase the amount of money that SSI recipients can save without lllosing their benefits.
Under rules dating back to 1984, individuals cannot have more than $2,000 in assets at any time. The limit for couples is $3,000.
The measure dubbed the SSI Savings Penalty Elimination Act would increase those caps to $10,000 for individuals and $20,000 for married couples while also tying the figures to inflation going forward.
“SSI’s arbitrary and outdated rules make no sense,” said Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, one of the bill’s chief sponsors. “It’s long past time we end these out-of-date government restrictions and allow Americans on SSI to save for emergencies and for their futures without putting the benefits they rely on to live at risk.”
There were high hopes that the bill would pass last year, but it ultimately failed to gain enough traction. Now, those backing the current measure are touting their expanded support including members of both parties in both houses of Congress for the first time in decades.
In addition to Brown, the legislation is being introduced by Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., in the Senate and Reps. Brian Higgins, D-N.Y., and Brian Fitzpatrick, R-Pa., in the House.
More than 7 million Americans, including many with disabilities, rely on SSI. At present, the maximum federal benefit under the program is $914 per month for individuals and $1,371 for couples.
“Decades of inflation and inaction have turned a crucial safety net program into a tightrope,” said Darcy Milburn, director of Social Security and health care policy at The Arc of the United States. “The current asset limits trap people in poverty, create barriers to work and make financial independence virtually impossible.”
The Social Security Administration is expected to officially announce next month what the COLA will be for 2024.
Once word got around that it was going to be for 2 1/2 hours, interest started to wane. Kids have sports, there are still rounds to be played, and the pool is already closed. there may be another event when the HP folks send their nannies, household help, and landscapers to the Country Club for a “poor peoples’ lunch”
– A northwest suburban man appeared in court at the Dirksen Federal Building Wednesday after being arrested and charged for allegedly taking part in the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.
Robin Lee Reierson, a 68-year-old from Schiller Park, is charged with assaulting a federal officer and entering the Capitol Building.
Robin Lee Reierson of Schiller Park was charged. He appeared in court after being arrested and charged for allegedly taking part in the January 6 attack on the Capitol.
The judge released him on his own recognizance Wednesday after he agreed to turn over his firearms to his son.
Prosecutors released photos that they say are Reierson pushing officers and attempting to grab one of their batons.
An Argonne National Laboratory employee has been arrested on federal charges for assaulting police officers at the U.S. Capitol during the Jan. 6 insurrection.
Robin Reierson, of Schiller Park, was arrested Wednesday morning, and made his first court appearance in federal court in Chicago. He was released on bond, and ordered to answer the charges in federal court in Washington, D.C. Information on his next court date was not immediately available.
Reierson has been charged with one count each of civil disorder, assaulting officers, entering and remaining in a restricted building, disorderly and disruptive conduct in a restricted building, engaging in physical violence in a restricted building, disorderly conduct in a Capitol building, and physical violence in the Capitol Grounds.
Robin Reierson is facing multiple federal charges, accused of assaulting police officers outside the U.S. Capitol during the insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021.FBI
According to the charges, Reierson was caught on video as he pushed against a metal barrier that police officers were holding in an effort to keep rioters out of the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, during a joint session of Congress to formalize the election of President Joe Biden.
Reierson also could be seen pushing officers with both hands, and lowering his shoulder into officers, before trying to grab an officer’s baton. He also could be heard on YouTube videos telling other people in the crowd, “Don’t stop, keep going. Put the cameras down, keep going.”
The FBI received a tip a week after the riot that Reierson, an employee at Argonne National Laboratory, in southwest suburban Lemont, was involved in the attack on the Capitol.
It took until last October for local police to confirm Reierson’s identity, and this past January and February, federal investigators conducted surveillance of his home, and confirmed he was the man in the videos.
Robin Reierson is facing multiple federal charges, accused of assaulting police officers outside the U.S. Capitol during the insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021.FBI
The feds also obtained toll records showing Reierson’s cargo van traveled through Indiana, Ohio, and Pennsylvania on the day before and the day after the Capitol riot, as well as credit card records for gas purchases along the route between his home and D.C. on those days.
Personnel records from Argonne also confirmed he took vacation days from Jan. 5, 2021, through Jan. 8, 2021, according to the charges.
An Argonne spokesperson confirmed Reierson works there as a lead welder, and has been an employee at the laboratory for 40 years.
A suburban police officer was decertified for a crime she committed 15 years ago.
Now, Zenna Ramos can’t be a police officer in the state of Illinois – or anywhere in the country.
“I took responsibilities for my actions,” Ramos said through tears.
Earlier this year, she decided to leave the CiceroPolice Department to work for Riverside PD. She was only on the job for two months when the Illinois Law Enforcement Training & Standards Board de-certified her for stealing a T-shirt when she was 23 years old.
Now 38, the crime happened in 2008. Ramos stole a T-shirt that was just under $15. The charges were later dropped.
State Representative LaShawn Ford and the Village of Riverside support the former officer. Ramos has been open about her past, and her boss says that’s what made him want to employ her.
“Yes, she made a mistake in 2008. But what she has done since that date is the more important part. Over the last 15 years, Zenna has worked tirelessly to better herself. She has gone to school and studied criminal justice,” said Matthew Buckley, Director of Public Safety for Riverside.
“The incident happened because of a $14.99 situation at the mall at JC Penny’s I believe where she received a misdemeanor,” said State Rep. Ford.
The Cook County State’s Attorney confirms Ramos was put on the Do Not Call list after receiving notification from the Illinois Law Enforcement Training & Standards Board.
The board released this statement: “… I can say pursuant to the Police Training Act, and amendments made by the SAFE-T Act, we have a continuing duty to ensure all sworn law enforcement officers are free of any disqualifying criminal offenses as provided by statute.”
Zenna is no longer working as a police officer, but was reassigned to another job within the Village of Riverside.
Roy F. McCampbell's Blog 
A Question, We Should All Consider is “When Should You Step Down Or Move On ?
The mainstream conversation about aging politicians remaining in office causes me to ponder why people retain leadership positions for too long. Be it politicians or CEOs of companies, what is the thought process of remaining for a considerable amount of longevity?
I aim to understand and reconcile those reasons. I hypothesize that individuals lock up positions due to:
1. Ego
2. Identity
3. Selfish Benefits and Greedy Gains
4. Organizational Success
5. Denial of Physical or Cognitive Decline
The seductive whisper of ego often shackles individuals to their roles beyond their influential tenures. The ego manifests as a self-indulgent force, compelling leaders to cling to power due to an inflated sense of self-worth and an insatiable desire for recognition, respect, and control.
It blurs the boundary between confidence and arrogance, often leading them to believe that they are indispensable and that their prolonged stay is beneficial, if not crucial, for the organization or community. This overarching desire for self-validation and fear of losing status and influence can overshadow the intrinsic motivation to serve, eventually leading to impaired judgment, stagnation, and, in many instances, the deterioration of the entities they lead.
It is crucial to recognize the corrosive influence of ego to foster leadership that is dynamic, humble, and genuinely devoted to the collective good rather than trapped by self-serving motives.
Identity is closely related to ego. The psychological comfort and social validation derived from prestigious titles can create a fearful attachment to the position.
The mainstream conversation about aging politicians remaining in office got me pondering why people retain leadership positions for too long. Be it politicians or CEOs of companies, what is the thought process of remaining for a considerable amount of longevity?
The ego manifests as a self-indulgent force, compelling leaders to cling to power due to an inflated sense of self-worth and an insatiable desire for recognition, respect, and control.
It blurs the boundary between confidence and arrogance, often leading them to believe that they are indispensable and that their prolonged stay is beneficial, if not crucial, for the organization or community. This overarching desire for self-validation and fear of losing status and influence can overshadow the intrinsic motivation to serve, eventually leading to impaired judgment, stagnation, and, in many instances, the deterioration of the entities they lead.
It is crucial to recognize the corrosive influence of ego to foster leadership that is dynamic, humble, and genuinely devoted to the collective good rather than trapped by self-serving motives.
Identity is closely related to ego. The psychological comfort and social validation derived from prestigious titles can create a fearful attachment to the position. Many people struggle with leaving their position because their identity is tied to their job. The same can be said of any position. The reluctance to relinquish such roles, driven by an over-identification with them, impedes organizational evolution and stifles the emergence of new perspectives and innovative ideas.
The relentless pursuit of financial gain often forms the invisible chains that bind individuals to leadership positions long after their season of effective influence has waned. Many leaders stay in place because they must pay off their mortgage or their kids’ college tuition. We are all incentivized to make financial gains, and there is nothing wrong with having this motivation. However, it becomes detrimental to the organization when a leader is looming only for these reasons.
A logical reason to stay is because the organization is profitable or successful. This is tricky because it plays into the “if ain’t broke…” belief. However, the danger is a leader’s deep-rooted reliance that the organization’s success solely depends on their presence. I’ve also heard leaders say they want to stay because the job isn’t finished. In most cases, the job will never finish and is meant to evolve. This belief can create a reluctance to pass the torch, potentially stifling the innovative potential and adaptability of the entity.
It seems obvious, but declining health (physical and cognitive impairment) is a reason to exit your post. Age is the main dispute making headlines in the present day. I hope these individuals surround themselves with a team of truth-tellers who have their best interests in mind. More aptly stated, the best interest of the people they lead. Sadly, I have not seen that.
So how long is too long? I’m only of average intelligence, so I don’t know the answer.
I stayed in various roles such as a college vice president, Director of Public Safety, Head of a municipal law department for no more than 3 years in most instances, and I decided to leave each after a pretty intense soul-searching exercise with myself. I set my ego and identity aside. It was a financial risk because I was not yet eligible to collect my pension when I left. The organizations were healthy and thriving, as indicated by the selfless men and women employed, and community support. But I felt personally stagnant, and I knew that my internal strife would soon manifest and my people would suffer. I was scared to leave for all of the reasons I’ve cited that people stay too long. It turned out to be the right decision for me and each of my organizations. They needed new energy, and I needed to learn who I was able to pursue a new employment adventure, where I could explore new challenges for my entire adult life.
You may be doing a great job in your leadership role, but I implore you to hold up a mirror and determine if you’re past your expiration date — which has nothing to do with age. Are there junior leaders waiting in the wings who aren’t being provided an opportunity to lead because you are taking up a spot? If you’ve done your job well, you should be able to walk out of your organization knowing it’s in the capable hands of those you’ve developed to take your place. You should be kicking down doors for others to walk through.
A great leader knows when to leave because astute judgment and self-awareness are paramount to effective leadership. Recognizing when to step down or move on is often as crucial as knowing when to step up.
People struggle with leaving a profession because their identity is tied to their job. The same can be said of any position. The reluctance to relinquish such roles, driven by an over-identification with them, impedes organizational evolution and stifles the emergence of new perspectives and innovative ideas.
The relentless pursuit of financial gain often forms the invisible chains that bind individuals to leadership positions long after their season of effective influence has waned. Many leaders stay in place because they must pay off their mortgage or their kids’ college tuition. We are all incentivized to make financial gains, and there is nothing wrong with having this motivation. However, it becomes detrimental to the organization when a leader is looming only for these reasons.
A logical reason to stay is because the organization is profitable or successful. This is tricky because it plays into the “if ain’t broke…” belief. However, the danger is a leader’s deep-rooted reliance that the organization’s success solely depends on their presence. I’ve also heard leaders say they want to stay because the job isn’t finished. In most cases, the job will never finish and is meant to evolve. This belief can create a reluctance to pass the torch, potentially stifling the innovative potential and adaptability of the entity.
It seems obvious, but declining health (physical and cognitive impairment) is a reason to exit your post. Age is the main dispute making headlines in the present day. I hope these individuals surround themselves with a team of truth-tellers who have their best interests in mind. More aptly stated, the best interest of the people they lead. Sadly, I have not seen that.
So how long is too long? I’m only of average intelligence, so I don’t know the answer.
A great leader knows when to leave because astute judgment and self-awareness are paramount to effective leadership. Recognizing when to step down or move on is often as crucial as knowing when to step up.
Share this: