Leaders and directors in an organization are normally older people. Some people think younger leader would be better. Do you agree or disagree?

As in many other things in life, it could be quite misleading to generalize opinions. Labelling things in a binary, polarized way could be in some situations even dangerous. So I'll try to approach

this

question through a non-biased lens, looking at both advantages and disadvantages of leaders being seniors and juniors. For a great leader who deals with problematic challenges daily, both fast decision making and wisdom are equally important, but different organizations require a different kind of leadership. Some organizations best function when decision-making is primarily based on the vast experience and know-how of its leaders, which is probably more suitable for senior leaders.

On the other hand

, there are

also

organizations that value fast-paced and energetic problem solving over experience, which is again probably more suitable for younger leaders. In the former case, those organizations could be considered to be prevalent traditional or well-established companies that already have a stable product. Contrary, startups that are still in early phases of development and don't have a clear roadmap of product, or are constantly dealing with risk-taking moves focus more on experimentation and the "move fast and break things" principle. For those kinds of organizations, younger leaders would be more valuable, since they are often more eager to deal with risky scenarios that senior leaders.

Finally

, if an organization could manage to find the right balance between seniors and young leaders and utilize the best of these two seemingly opposed worlds, that would be an ideal scenario for an organization. The best of both worlds will bring unique strengths, it would have experience of more knowledgeable leaders joined with enthusiasm that younger leaders bring with them.