Leaders and directors in an organisation are normally older people. Some people think younger leader would be better. Do you agree or disagree?
There are several obvious points in nominating older workers for high positions in an organisation. However, in such a fast-paced changing society, I believe that youngsters are more appropriate to be leaders or directors.
Young people are both physically and psychologically eligible to be leaders. They are generally more energetic, dynamic and healthier as compared to their older colleagues. Pressure and stress of leadership are believed to be more efficiently addressed by young workers. Thus they have greater strength, which entails greater devotion. More significantly, decisions made by young people are likely to having thriving results. While old leaders prefer defending orientation, their younger counterparts are motivated by taking risks, with meticulous consideration. Thanks to their decisiveness and courage, more and more lucrative projects are carried out and successfully gain substantial revenue for businesses, for example.
Opponents claim that oldsters have irreplaceable strength: experience. Nevertheless, this is no longer convincing when taking rapid obsolescence of knowledge nowadays into account. People in such decisive positions are required to have strong senses of adaptability and open mind. These characteristics are undoubtedly essences of youth and limits of experienced employees. Some people also say that older officers are more likely to get respect than young ones. This opinion is not grounded and biased, since there are various leaders in their thirties or even twenties are honored by the whole organisation.
The writing above has highlighted the flaws in the argument for old leaders, while explain why younger workers should be given chances to experience leadership. Considering today society's competitiveness and changeability, youngsters can work to their full potential and attain inspiring achievements once they are empowered.
old leaders vs younger workers
There are several obvious points in nominating older workers for high positions in an organisation. However, in such a fast-paced changing society, I believe that youngsters are more appropriate to be leaders or directors.
Young people are both physically and psychologically eligible to be leaders. They are generally more energetic, dynamic and healthier as compared to their older colleagues. Pressure and stress of leadership are believed to be more efficiently addressed by young workers. Thus they have greater strength, which entails greater devotion. More significantly, decisions made by young people are likely to having thriving results. While old leaders prefer defending orientation, their younger counterparts are motivated by taking risks, with meticulous consideration. Thanks to their decisiveness and courage, more and more lucrative projects are carried out and successfully gain substantial revenue for businesses, for example.
Opponents claim that oldsters have irreplaceable strength: experience. Nevertheless, this is no longer convincing when taking rapid obsolescence of knowledge nowadays into account. People in such decisive positions are required to have strong senses of adaptability and open mind. These characteristics are undoubtedly essences of youth and limits of experienced employees. Some people also say that older officers are more likely to get respect than young ones. This opinion is not grounded and biased, since there are various leaders in their thirties or even twenties are honored by the whole organisation.
The writing above has highlighted the flaws in the argument for old leaders, while explain why younger workers should be given chances to experience leadership. Considering today society's competitiveness and changeability, youngsters can work to their full potential and attain inspiring achievements once they are empowered.
