In contemporary society, it is believed that leaders who are in charge of various commitees and organisations are not as old as they used to be in the past. Some people state that the process of younger generations replacing the elderly have a positive influence, while others claim it has significant drawbacks. To my mind, the trend for younger leadership is not as widespread as it is considered to be that provokes a great number of negative effects.
First of all, most of the world leaders in highly developed countires are 60+ which reinforces the idea that younger generations are quite frequently deprived of the opportunity to take part in political affairs of their country. In addtion, the society tends to choose politicians who have gained experience on the international stage and have proved their ability to make measurable decisions. What is worth mentioning is that the parameter of having enough practice and experience is not solely applied to the political sphere: it is equally important on the level of social interactions. For instance, during elections of a class or a group leader, students tend to go for those who are slightly older and will be able to overcome conflict situations that might occur in the future.
However, the negative side of the older leadership is often foregrounded. It is believed that if the possibility of trying their forces is not given to the younger generations, the society will eventually face a sharp decline in its’ development. To my mind, an alternative approach is vital – younger people should be involved in the process step by step, which will then result in their active participation and would become an initial stage of them transforming into leaders.
In conclusion, there is no doubt that mature leaders prevail nowadays but it cannot be fully considered a negative phenomenon.