As a generalisation, every person should be considered on their merits. Youth certainly brings great benefits, as do the insights and perspectives that come from experience and maturity - one does not compensate for or exclude the other. Yet youth or maturity, in and of themselves, are insufficient to provide what is needed in every context and situation.


If I were to nominate a single attribute that helps flag a high potential contribution at board (or any senior managerial) position, then I would have to opt for Emotional Intelligence (EI). Corporate management is about understanding context, understanding people, and being able to read all of them through a prism of objectivity, fairness, commerciality and compassion. In my humble opinion, EI is more more important than "just" knowing facts and figures.

The mark of competency is not merely knowing facts and figures, but being able to mould them to achieve desired outcomes.

Therefore, it is arguable whether "youth" has the required EI to do this. That some younger people have this skill is indesputable - and that many mature individuals lack such EI is also indisuptable.

Why don't we leave the age-based view of board members behind, and rather focus on the the match between what a board requires, and the best candidate available to fit that role - regardless of age (or gender, nationality, religion, etc).

As historic as Wyatt Roy's election has been, it is easier to secure a ticket to the Grand Final than it is to effectively play in it. Let us give him the room and time to gain the insight to make a valuable contribution - and then judge him by his results. Prematurely using him as a "role model" may pressure him sufficiently so as to impede his ability to perform.