Biomarkers of Age and Better Markers of Leadership

"You are never too young to lead, and you should never doubt your capacity to triumph where others have not." – Kofi Annan

Dear Colleague,

I hope you are feeling as optimistic about the future as I am! I was talking to a colleague about the American presidential election and she was enthused by the energy and excitement by young people who are now more engaged in the process. This led us to a discussion about leadership and age.

Until recently I didn’t know there was a difference between biological age and chronological age. Apparently, there is an emerging area of science seeking to understand why two people can appear the same age but may biologically age at different rates. I admit, I hadn’t thought about the subject until I learned Kamala Harris (born October 20, 1964) and Tim Walz (born April 6, 1964) were essentially the same chronological age.

And that led me down a nerdy science rabbit hole.

Studies from Northwestern University’s Human Longevity Lab and others on socioeconomic factors impacting biological aging reveal that chronological age and biological age are not necessarily the same. Chronological age is simply the number of years a person has lived, but biological age reflects how old a person’s body appears based on various health indicators. This distinction is important because some individuals may be biologically older or younger than their chronological age would suggest, meaning that health and vitality are not always aligned with the number of years lived.

As I dug deeper, a study[1] on poverty and accelerated biological aging revealed that individuals living in poverty often experience a rapid decline in physiological functions compared to their chronological age. This acceleration is measured through 11 biomarkers that provide a more accurate reflection of an individual’s health than simply considering their years lived. In other words, sociological factors like where you live, how you grew up, and the challenges you’ve experienced in life can accelerate or decelerate apparent age. These findings challenge the conventional belief that age and health are synonymous and encourage a more nuanced understanding of human development.

This got me thinking. If necessity is the mother of invention, then is it possible that the hardships of our unique lived experiences also influences our development as leaders more than age or even educational pedigree? I mean, is Harvard really that much better than Yale? Duke than Vanderbilt? USC than UGA?

We often find ourselves shackled by conventional beliefs—beliefs that dictate who should lead, how they should lead, and when they are qualified to do so. One of the most pervasive of these beliefs is the idea that leadership capabilities are a direct function of years of experience. But as a biomarker of leadership, does the amount of time you’ve sat in an office indicate one’s talent and performance? ?This notion, deeply ingrained in our organizational cultures, often leads to the undervaluation of emerging leaders who, despite their relative youth or fewer years in the workforce, possess the knowledge, skill, and impact necessary to lead effectively.

It would seem that leadership should not be judged solely by the number of years one has worked. Just as biological age provides a more accurate reflection of an individual’s health than chronological age, leadership capability should be assessed based on knowledge, skill, and impact rather than mere tenure or degrees. These are better markers of leadership.

Leadership, like health, is complex and multifaceted. It is shaped not only by the passage of time but by the deliberate cultivation of knowledge, skills, and impact.

To be effective leaders, we must unburden ourselves from the idea that leadership is solely the domain of those with the most years in the workforce. Instead, we should focus on developing and recognizing the potential within all individuals, regardless of their chronological age. Some of the wisest leaders I’ve ever met haven’t been leaders for long.

By moving away from traditional metrics of leadership, we create space for a more inclusive and dynamic approach to leadership development. This approach recognizes that leadership potential exists at all levels and ages and that the most effective leaders are those who continually learn, grow, and adapt.

What matters most is not how long we have been on a journey, but how far we have come and what we have learned along the way. As leaders, we must embrace this mindset, fostering environments where growth, development, and leadership are accessible to all.

With unwavering belief in your journey,

[1] Dalecka, A., Bartoskova Polcrova, A., Pikhart, H.?et al.?Living in poverty and accelerated biological aging: evidence from population-representative sample of U.S. adults.?BMC Public Health?24, 458 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-17960-w

--

Andrew Cooper is a husband, dad, brother, son, and life-long student of human behavior and leadership. In his spare time he is an author, patent inventor, attorney, and lecturer.