The federal cabinet’s decree to end the maximum age limit of 65 years for key appointments (read powerful posts) will bring no good to the present and future working of our institutions. Though the government states that it intends to benefit from experience and expertise, the potential downsides threaten to outweigh any perceived benefits. Consider: Fresh and qualified professionals within orgnsations will feel demotivated when they find their path to progress closed. Every professional wants career growth and career progression grinds to a halt when senior positions are indefinitely occupied by those nearing retirement or even after their retirement. This not only stifles morale but also leads to a talent drain, as capable professionals seek opportunities elsewhere. Lots of questions can be raised about the government’s claim of enhanced efficiency through retaining “experienced” leadership. Research suggests that extensions for senior officials often translate to a decline in performance. Unchallenged by the prospect of retirement, these in-house managers can become complacent, resistant to new ideas, and ultimately hinder progress. A boss on extension is always a burden given their high salaries and hefty perks. In terms of finances, extended positions translate to a heavier burden on public or organisational resources. These funds could be better utilized for training and development programmes that cultivate a more dynamic and future-proof workforce. The argument that exceptional talent deserves special consideration fails to hold water. A robust system for identifying and recruiting qualified individuals, regardless of age, is a far more sustainable solution. Countries like Japan, known for their respect for elders, still enforce mandatory retirement ages to ensure a healthy balance of experience and fresh perspectives. The body which recommended a ‘no-age limit’ to build a “diverse talent pool” raises more questions than building a talent pool. The body should be recommended for sociological studies that recommend that true diversity encompasses not just skills, but also generational perspectives. Apart from public organisations, when we see private sector examples, the pitfalls of clinging to outdated leadership models serve harsh lessons. Media houses with editors clinging to power forever in Pakistan have seen financial instability and staff dissatisfaction. This trend mirrors the potential stagnation that awaits public institutions under the new policy. A clear message needs to be sent: leadership positions are not meant to be a personal fiefdom. Those seeking permanence can explore careers in politics or business, sectors where age limits are less restrictive. The government must reconsider this short-sighted decision. Let’s prioritize building dynamic institutions for the future, not ossified ones clinging to the past. *