Founder-CEOs like Jensen Huang, Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, and others show that long-term leadership can unlock extraordinary results. The Entrepreneur 30 TR Index provides support for this vision, demonstrating how extended tenures fuel sustained growth. Yet U.S. presidents are forced out after just eight years, even if voters want continuity. Do term limits protect democracy—or hold back visionary leaders from reaching their full potential?
Longevity in Business Leadership
In business, longevity is often the most underappreciated ingredient of success. Some of the greatest wealth creation in history has come from founders who remained in leadership for decades, not years. Jensen Huang at Nvidia, Jeff Bezos at Amazon, Elon Musk at Tesla, Mark Zuckerberg at Meta, and Bill Gates at Microsoft all share this trait. They endured setbacks, weathered market collapses, and defied skeptics who predicted failure. Each of these companies faced multiple crises that could easily have derailed them without a founder at the helm to push through the turbulence.
Now imagine if they had been forced to step aside after just a handful of years—the typical corporate CEO’s tenure of three to five years, roughly the career length of an NFL running back. It is unlikely Nvidia, Amazon, or Tesla would have achieved their present scale. Longevity gave these founders the runway to implement long-term visions that would not have survived in a short-term leadership model.
Entrepreneur 30 Total Return Index (ER30TR): Support for Long-Term Vision
This is not simply anecdotal. The Entrepreneur 30 TR Index, which tracks entrepreneurial companies globally, shows that firms led by visionary founders with extended tenures consistently deliver stronger long-term results. The data affirms what common sense suggests: the compounding effects of innovation, resilience, and consistency require time.
The Musk Example
Elon Musk is perhaps the clearest case study in the value of long-term entrepreneurial leadership. When he took over Tesla, the company teetered on the brink of bankruptcy multiple times. Investors doubted the electric vehicle market, competitors dismissed Tesla as a niche player, and early production hurdles nearly derailed the business. A short-term CEO would likely have been replaced after the first crisis.
Instead, Musk’s persistence, and willingness to shoulder repeated risks, transformed Tesla into the world’s most valuable car company, reshaped the auto industry, and accelerated the global shift toward electric vehicles. His multi-decade vision has extended well beyond cars into energy storage, solar power, and autonomous driving.
At SpaceX, the story is similar. Multiple rocket explosions nearly bankrupted the company. Without Musk’s determination over a long time horizon, the United States might not have regained domestic launch capability or developed the foundation for future Mars exploration. SpaceX is now a critical U.S. defense contractor, a leader in satellite communications through Starlink, and one of the most consequential private companies in history.
“If Elon Musk had been forced out early, neither Tesla nor SpaceX would likely exist in their present form.”
These achievements required not just vision but time. If Musk had been forced out early, as happens with many corporate CEOs, neither Tesla nor SpaceX would likely exist in their present form.
The Political Parallel
The same logic can be applied to political leadership. A president, prime minister, or head of state with only a short window of authority may struggle to execute ambitious reforms. In the United States, where the Constitution limits presidents to two four-year terms, no leader can serve more than eight years. This rule was cemented after Franklin D. Roosevelt’s unprecedented four terms. Lawmakers wanted to prevent the rise of an entrenched executive who could accumulate too much power.
The intent behind term limits is sound—rotation in office protects democracy from authoritarian drift. But the question remains: do strict limits also deprive nations of the benefits that come when visionary leaders are given the time to transform their countries?
Global Lessons: Successes and Failures
India’s Narendra Modi, now over a decade in power, has overseen infrastructure and digital reforms that helped make India the fastest-growing large economy. China’s Xi Jinping has pushed long-term industrial and technology agendas, lifting millions from poverty while reorienting China toward self-sufficiency. In both cases, continuity enabled strategies that spanned beyond normal election cycles.
On the other hand, Russia’s Vladimir Putin shows the dangers of entrenched rule. Two decades into his tenure, geopolitical influence has come at the cost of economic stagnation and corruption. Across resource-rich states in Africa and the Middle East, long-serving rulers often divert wealth to themselves and their allies while their citizens are left behind.
“Longevity magnifies both the benefits of great leaders and the damage from bad ones.”
America’s Deliberate Trade-Off
Against this backdrop, the United States stands apart. Its presidential term limits are unusually strict compared to many advanced democracies. In parliamentary systems such as the United Kingdom, Canada, or Germany, prime ministers can serve for decades so long as they win elections and maintain party backing. Margaret Thatcher served 11 years, Angela Merkel 16, Winston Churchill across two stretches.
The American system, however, prioritizes institutional resilience over individual vision. By capping presidents at two terms, it deliberately sacrifices the possibility of transformative, decades-long leadership to guard against the risks of entrenched power.
There is a trade-off here. Term limits prevent authoritarian drift, encourage fresh leadership, and ensure no single person becomes synonymous with the state. But they also cut short leaders who might otherwise continue to deliver gains. Major reforms in healthcare, industrial revival, defense modernization, or climate policy often require 15 to 20 years, not eight, to fully realize.
The Trump Question and Beyond
This tension is sharpened when considering leaders like Donald Trump. Whether one agrees with his policies or not, there is little question that he reshaped debates on trade, immigration, and industrial policy. Should a figure like Trump-or any future president-be allowed to extend influence beyond eight years if voters still want them?
The business analogy suggests yes: visionary, mission-driven leaders can achieve more with time. The political analogy cautions no: entrenched leaders can undermine institutions and tilt the system toward personal gain. Democracies cannot predict which type they will get, so term limits remain a blunt but effective safeguard—preventing catastrophic downside at the cost of potential upside.
The Leadership Paradox
In sum, for great leaders, term limits are a loss. Their vision ends before it fully compounds. For bad leaders, term limits are a blessing. They curtail damage before it becomes irreversible.
“For great leaders, term limits are a loss. For bad leaders, they are a blessing.”
The debate will only grow sharper in a world of rapid technological, geopolitical, and economic change. America’s two-term limit reflects a deliberate compromise—choosing institutional durability over individual greatness. Whether that remains the right choice in the 21st century is a question worth revisiting.
———————————
Disclosure: Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Please refer to the following link for additional disclosures: https://lnkd.in/e29X6rN
Additional Disclosure Note: The author has an affiliation with Babson College, ERShares the XOVR ETF and the Entrepreneur 30 Total Return Index (ER30TR). The intent of this article is to provide objective information; however, readers should be aware that the author may have a financial interest in the subject matter discussed. As with all equity investments, investors should carefully evaluate all options with a qualified investment professional before making any investment decision. Private equity investments, such as those held in XOVR, may carry additional risks—including limited liquidity—compared to traditional publicly traded securities. It is important to consider these factors and consult a trained professional when assessing suitability and risk tolerance.