It is true that promoted positions are usually allocated to aged members in many organizations. Yet, people hold polarized views on whether the old or the young would potentially be qualified leaders. On a more personal level, I reckon that although elderly managers can weigh up all aspects, younger ones are more likely to become good directors.
On the one hand, older people can be successful leaders who read between the lines. Firstly, thanks to their extensive experience, they can effectively manage everything and recruit qualified members. If, for example, a company encounters ups and downs due to some financially problematic situations, these individuals will be capable of making an effort to recognize and uproot them in no time. Secondly, those who are employed in such organizations have to be yesman employees, affected by their very dignified old boss. Therefore, these directors can pull their weight, and the staff listens to them. At the same time, a younger-aged leadership might not influence their teams to such an extent.
However, I believe that the other ones can take on primary responsibilities as they are able to look before they leap. The first reason is that they significantly enjoy having boundless energy to handle their affairs. In other words, the missions are personally done by these managers without walking out by making some excuses, including taking work days off for having been ill or sick. Additionally, it is psychologically proven that risk-taking has a reverse relationship with age. Since risk-taking is like blood in a business, it can be gone from strength to strength by young individuals, which benefits the entire organization.
In conclusion, it is acceptable that not only older adults but also young ones can run a company, but there might be some different opinions about which ones are better. All in all, I suppose this should be looked at relatively; I mean, the old are preferable to the young for some aspects and reasons while they can not be considered for the other ones.