Which type of leadership is better in comparison?

Let's start with a problem brought about by youth. Not long ago, a state-owned enterprise promoted rejuvenation in accordance with the requirements, and the leader took the lead and replaced the personnel director with a young person. As soon as this young man took office, he had to promote rejuvenation and make recommendations for reserve personnel.

At that time, several old and middle-level people were not happy and retorted on the spot: Younger, our old comrades support it. But you can't use age to exclude us. You can not promote us older, but you can't make the age line public.

In the end, there was a lot of uproar, and the company leaders could only criticize the personnel director to resolve everyone's opinions. In fact, this is that the young personnel director does not know how to do things, has no experience, and there are some things that can only be done, not said.

1] Advocating youthfulness, history has gone through three rounds. The most recent one was around the year 2000, when a group of young college students were lifted up in a rocket. There are pros and cons, some cadres are full of vigor and vitality, bringing the company out of a new atmosphere.

Some cadres were too young and did not respect the old comrades, which led to the disbandment of the ranks.

2] Advocating rejuvenation, mainly according to the age of the cadre team, the implementation of surgery. Because within the system, you can go up and down, resulting in layers of bloat, but you can't "eliminate" it. People, no merit, but no mistakes, why do you let them give up their positions?

So, just draw a line with age, one size fits all, and no one compares anyone? Although it is a bit "unscientific", it is implemented like this, and if it is not done, this work will not be able to be pushed.

3] Rejuvenation is also a last resort. It is best for the team to implement a combination of old, middle and young. However, due to historical reasons, the age level of our cadres is relatively concentrated.

For example, the group of secondary school students concentrated in 1963, why? Because that group of secondary school students, there are a lot of them, and they occupy most of the positions. The age is relatively concentrated, and there is no structure of the old, middle and young, if we do not engage in rejuvenation now, then the age cover will be covered layer by layer.

Therefore, it is necessary to carry out surgery as a last resort, and directly draw a line according to age, and forcibly promote the youth. For example, the implementation of the 55-year-old retirement system allows veteran comrades to retire from their posts five years ahead of schedule, so that young people can take up positions as soon as possible and welcome a vigorous future.

I think it's better to be a lower-level leader, which is to think from the perspective of ordinary employees, but in reality, this type of leader often doesn't last long.

"Lower-type" leaders are better, because these leaders will be more concerned about the work attitude and mood of their subordinates, will be better to their subordinates, and will be more humane.