Old and young leaders

[treecbeo]

This is my second post, thank you for reviewing it

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

Answer:
Many people believe that young people should lead companies instead of the older ones. Personally, I completely disagree with this statement because those aged staffs with experiences can bring more advantages for a group.

It is obvious that experienced people have expert power - which can hardly be found in a young leader, to give right directions to their subordinates in work. As a result, an efficient working routine with controllable outcomes will be set up, making a better reputation for company. Furthermore, when an unexpected problem happens, an aged senior staff will be more quickly to find a feasible solution than the younger one since their problem-solving skill has been developed through years. For example, when facing an on-site issue in construction industry, a 20 years experience architect can sit at the office and tell the workers exactly what they can do. Meanwhile, it will take a lot of time for a 5 years leader to find the same solution.

Some people claim that young managers will be more creative in work and can propose positive changes for the improvement of company. Although this opinion is true in some cases, creativity also can be contributed by those older people in many ways. One effective method is that these senior staffs can encourage young employee to conduct their own ideas in working. By doing this, a strong relationship of mentor and mentee will be set to achieve something new in a productive way: the old will help the young on practical side of new idea.

In conclusion, I believe that old individuals should be chosen to lead a company rather than the young for certain reasons mentioned above.

[Luschen]

Hi Lăn Long Lóc, I think the format of your essay was excellent.
You have really understood how to introduce a possible counter argument and then show why it is not relevant or important.
This allows you to consider both sides while still presenting a consistent viewpoint throughout the essay, so congratulations. I think your conclusion was a little short though. If you can give a very brief summary of your reasons and perhaps a call to action, it will be a much better paragraph - see my suggestion below.
Here in the West, I don’t think we value age as much as in some Eastern cultures, so many words like aged, elderly, and old have negative connotations. Also, the singular “staff” means all the people working for a company or in a particular department of a company. So a worker is a “member of the staff” or a “staff member”, and “our staff is very experienced”. “Staffs” plural would be the employees of two or more companies - each company has its own staff, so four companies would have four staffs. Here are some other suggestions:

@treecbeo

Many people {maybe be more specific - “many experts/pundits/consultants”} believe that young people should lead companies instead of the older ones. {“instead of older employees” sounds a bit nicer} Personally, I completely disagree with this statement because those aged {“aged” has a negative connotation - “veteran” is better here} [staff] with [extensive experience] can bring more advantages for a group.

It is obvious that experienced people have expert power {this sounds a bit odd - maybe “the power that comes with being experts”} - {don’t use dashes in formal essays, use commas instead} which can hardly be found in a young leader, to give right {to give the best directions" seems better} directions to their subordinates [at] work. As a result, an efficient working routine with controllable outcomes will be set up, making a better reputation for [the] company. Furthermore, when an unexpected problem happens, an aged {maybe “a mature senior staff member”} senior staff will be more [quick] to find a feasible solution than the younger one since their problem-solving skill has been developed through years [of testing].{or “years of challenges”} For example, when facing an on-site issue in [the] construction industry, a 20 years experience [year veteran] architect can sit at the office and tell the workers exactly what they [should] do. Meanwhile, it will take a lot of time for [someone who has been a] 5 years leader [for only five years] to find the same solution.

Some people claim that young managers will be more creative in [their] work and can propose positive changes for the improvement of [a] company. Although this opinion is true in some cases, creativity also can be contributed by those older people in many ways. One effective method is that these senior [staff] can encourage young [employees] to conduct {“to pursue” is better here} their own ideas in working. By doing this, a strong relationship of mentor and mentee will be set to achieve something new in a productive way: the old will help the young on [the] practical side of new idea.

In conclusion, I believe that [older] individuals should be chosen to lead a company rather than the young for certain reasons mentioned above. Older employees can use their experience and encourage creativity in their subordinates. Therefore senior staff members should generally be tapped first when filling executive positions.]