Our insights

Legacies at Risk, and How Stimulant Use in Successors Can Undermine Family Continuity

12th January 2026 / Written by Harbor London

Typically, succession planning may be approached as a legal, financial, and governance exercise; focused on structures, timing, and the orderly transfer of responsibility.

While these elements are doubtless essential, they can obscure a parallel reality: succession is also a psychological and behavioural process, shaped by an individual’s capacity for judgement, emotional regulation, and sustained responsibility over time¹. In this sense, readiness for succession cannot be inferred exclusively from age, education, or formal role allocation².

Within this broader frame, patterns of stimulant use can sometimes function as a hidden destabiliser in next-generation preparedness³. Unlike overt or more clinically-obvious crises manifestation, stimulant use may initially appear compatible with high performance, social integration, or academic success in contexts of significant wealth trajectories^4-5. In some scenarios, it might even be tacitly framed as functional; enhancing productivity, stamina, or social fluency⁶. Clinically, however, these patterns of substance misuse can exert subtle but cumulative effects on decision-making, impulse control, sleep regulation, and emotional stability: capacities central to effective leadership and stewardship^1-2,6.

Importantly, such risks may emerge well before formal succession milestones⁷. The years preceding leadership transition – usually marked by high educational pressure, identity formation, and a significant weight of expectation – can represent a particularly sensitive window⁸. Recognising this period as one of developmental and psychological significance allows families, advisors, and clinicians to identify vulnerabilities early, without resorting to alarmist or punitive responses^2,7-8.

Make a referral to Harbor London today →

Stimulant use in the next generation

Stimulant use among younger adults has become an increasingly documented phenomenon across multiple contexts, encompassing illicit substances such as cocaine, alongside the non-medical use of prescription stimulants, including medications indicated for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)^9-12. One study, for example, found that as many as 33% of university-age individuals may use stimulants solely for the purposes of academic enhancement⁹. In educational environments, such substances are often colloquially referred to as “study drugs,” illuminating a perceived role in enhancing concentration, endurance, or cognitive output during periods of sustained demand^13-14.

Research focusing on university-age populations (18 years and older) consistently indicates that non-prescribed stimulant use is most commonly motivated by performance-related pressures rather than recreational intent alone¹⁵. This distinction is clinically relevant: substances adopted as tools for optimisation may be integrated into daily functioning more seamlessly, reducing the likelihood that emerging dependency or maladaptive patterns are recognised early, either by the individual, or by those around them^9,12,16.

Potential nuances in culture and context

Within elite academic, professional, and social environments, stimulant use may be further normalised by cultural narratives that valorise endurance, competitiveness, and self-mastery^{^6,17}. In some affluent family systems – including those that may be partially shaped by strong expectations around excellence, continuity, and reputation – there may be limited psychological space to acknowledge vulnerability or fatigue^{^18-19}.

Equally, in other cultural contexts, substance use might be concealed due to reasons of stigma, identity-based concerns, or the prioritisation of external functioning and stoic endurance over outward expressions of distress^20-22. It is important to note, however, that such dynamics are neither universal nor deterministic, and stimulant misuse is observed widely across a diverse range of socioeconomic and cultural groups^9-14.

Ultimately, stimulant use is best interpreted as existing along a spectrum¹⁰. Experimental or infrequent exposure does not automatically meet the diagnostic threshold for a substance use disorder, although it may still carry meaningful psychological, behavioural, or developmental risk²³. Clinical concern arises when patterns become repetitive, secretive, or psychologically relied upon; particularly when substance use begins to compensate for exhaustion, anxiety, or identity strain²⁴. In the context of high wealth and family succession, it is these patterns (more than the presence of use alone) that would warrant careful, proportionate intervention²⁵.

Why stimulants can pose a risk to family continuity

Evidence from neuropsychology and addiction psychiatry indicates that stimulants can impact both cognitive and emotional domains, producing short-term enhancements in focus and alertness while simultaneously creating vulnerabilities in higher-order functioning^26-27.

Judgement: stimulants may reduce the capacity for nuanced, long-term thinking; decisions made under their influence often privilege immediate outcomes over strategic foresight, increasing the likelihood of impulsive or poorly considered actions²⁸.
Risk appraisal: enhanced confidence or arousal can generate overestimation of abilities and underestimation of hazards²⁹.
Emotional regulation: heightened sympathetic activation, irritability, and stress reactivity can emerge with repeated use, potentially leading to interpersonal tension, conflict, and diminished resilience under pressure^30-31.
An illusion of enhanced performance: functional improvements in productivity may mask subtle declines in reliability, consistency, or judgement quality³². Individuals may appear operationally capable while accumulating latent impairments that only become apparent during critical succession moments³².

These dynamics illustrate a core tension: those traits that stimulants appear to amplify – alertness, energy, and drive, for example – can paradoxically erode the stability and predictability essential for family continuity^26-27,32. Short-term productivity gains can therefore conceal a longer-term compromise³².

Decision-making, reputation, and the fragility of trust

Beyond cognitive and emotional effects, stimulant-related patterns can reverberate through relational and institutional networks. Families and advisors rely on predictability, discretion, and credibility; even minor deviations from these norms may carry disproportionate consequences⁸. Clinical observation suggests that erratic behaviour, including late disclosures, mood lability, or uncharacteristic/misplaced assertiveness, can quickly undermine confidence in a successor’s judgment and reliability.

“There are few people in the world to whom [the children of the very wealthy] can actually relate, which of course leads to a lack of empathy. The next time you watch Succession, see how the Roys interact with their staff and others outside their circle. Notice the awkwardness and lack of human connection and how dreadfully they treat each other. It’s fascinating and frightening. When one leads a life without consequences (for being rude to a waiter or cruel to a sibling, for example) there really is no reason to not do these things. After a while, it becomes normalised and accepted.” – Clay Cockrell (LCSW), ‘I’m a therapist to the super-rich’ (The Guardian)³³

Reputational exposure is often a concern; social, professional, and digital domains may amplify the visibility of lapses, creating consequences that extend beyond the immediate family unit³⁴. Confidentiality breaches or inconsistent/unpredictable communication, for example, may signal instability to external stakeholders, with implications on public perception³⁴.

Financial inconsistencies, whether transactional or procedural, might further strain the family system, insofar as discrepancies in record-keeping or impulsive allocation decisions can compound mistrust^35–36. Collectively, these processes demonstrate that stimulant use is not always “a private matter,” but can intersect with the structural and relational foundations of succession^8,37.

Early warning signals

Detecting risk in next-generation successors may depend less on the presence of a substance in and of itself, and more on subtle, longer-term behavioural shifts²⁵. Patterns of secrecy, defensiveness, or inconsistent narratives may emerge, signalling internal tension or avoidance³⁸. Sleep disruption, mood volatility, or episodes of grandiosity can reflect underlying dysregulation in emotional and cognitive control^39-41.

Shifts away from what would be considered “prudent behaviour” (such as impulsive spending, or non-adherence to governance processes) can also act as early markers of functional compromise⁴². Overconfidence may alternate with withdrawal, creating an unpredictable pattern that strains trust and oversight^41-42.

Again, these signals are not intrinsically deterministic of misuse, but they do provide a discreet framework for families and advisors to notice potential vulnerability and intervene proactively²⁵.

Why families may delay intervention

High-status families may often postpone or avoid the addressing of warning signs for complex psychological and structural reasons⁴³. There may be fear that confrontation could destabilise succession plans, or create confusion between transient experimentation and emerging dependency³³. Legal and financial controls are sometimes used as substitutes for direct engagement – yet these “guardrails” cannot address underlying behavioural and emotional vulnerabilities⁴⁴.

Furthermore, stigma and denial are amplified in environments where image, reputation, and legacy are paramount^20-22. Families may hope that responsibility alone will encourage maturation, delaying intervention until patterns become entrenched³³.

Clinical intervention as a strategy to safeguard continuity

In many contexts, early and effective clinical input is continuity-preserving: it can strengthen capacity, help stabilise behaviour, and restore the agency required to navigate succession pressures, rather than imposing moral judgement or public sanction⁴⁵. For instance, clinicians are able to differentiate between neurodevelopmental experiences such as ADHD, emerging patterns of stimulant misuse, and dysregulation related to burnout, ensuring interventions are precise rather than reactionary. Moreover, integrated and curated care models that combine psychiatric evaluation, psychological support, and behavioural strategies allow for a fuller, whole-person understanding of both risk and capacity⁴⁵. Private, one-at-a-time residential frameworks can offer the necessary containment and discretion and focus for intensive work without exposure to public scrutiny⁴⁶.

By supporting self-regulation, restoring judgement, and recalibrating decision-making processes, such interventions prioritise continuity over punishment⁴⁷. For example, a young principal struggling with irregular sleep patterns, impulsive spending, and elevated stress would likely benefit from a phased approach: structured behavioural monitoring, cognitive therapy to address underlying anxiety, and personalised psychiatric oversight. Over time, these measures help rebuild functional autonomy while safeguarding both personal wellbeing and familial responsibilities⁴⁵.

Continuity based on capacity, not assumption

Succession readiness is as much a psychological construct as it is a legal or financial arrangement^1-3. The wellbeing of individuals, as well as the integrity of family governance, relies on the capacity of successors to make considered decisions under pressure, manage stress, and maintain emotional and cognitive equilibrium: stimulant misuse, when detected early, should be understood as a risk signal that can then be effectively mitigated, rather than evidence of moral failing or character weakness^25,48.

Addressing such vulnerabilities proactively protects not only the individual but also the wider family network⁴⁵. Early, discreet intervention reinforces judgement, decision-making, and relational stability, ensuring that leadership transitions do not falter under preventable stressors^2,45.

Ultimately, the preservation of family legacy depends on recognising individual capacity as both dynamic and malleable. Structured, evidence-led clinical support enables successors to meet the expectations of their role, sustain trust within the family system, and maintain continuity – without compromising personal wellbeing or long-term stability.

Make a referral to Harbor London today →

Talk to us

Contact

Make a Referral

Refer

Talk to us

Contact

Make a Referral

Refer

Talk to us

Contact

Make a Referral

Refer

Talk to us

Contact

Make a Referral

Refer

Talk to us

Contact

Make a Referral

Refer

Talk to us

Contact

Make a Referral

Refer

Talk to us

Contact

Make a Referral

Refer

Talk to us

Contact

Make a Referral

Refer

Legacies at Risk, and How Stimulant Use in Successors Can Undermine Family Continuity

Stimulant use in the next generation

Potential nuances in culture and context

Why stimulants can pose a risk to family continuity

Decision-making, reputation, and the fragility of trust

Early warning signals

Why families may delay intervention

Clinical intervention as a strategy to safeguard continuity

Continuity based on capacity, not assumption

References:

Talk to us

Talk to us

Contact

Make a Referral

Make a Referral

Refer