Yesterday the president of the University of Nevada, Reno, Milton Glick, passed away by a stroke. In my impression on him he was a great president since I saw him quite often everywhere on campus. I guessed he liked to visit each corner of campus to meet people and see where in need. Yesterday I sighed up my Twitter and Facebook I got this news and felt shocked. Afterwards I started to look for more information and found news about this with one comment. The person said you could imagine you let a 73-year-old person run your company; go get a younger one. This comment sounds improper, but this is worth to be discussed. I have heard Dr. Milton Glick had been a vice president at another university more than a decade and been a president here for several years. No doubt he was such an experienced educator and leader.
Sometimes I heard some companies or some sports teams wanted to replace older leaders to younger ones. This is because the elderly running companies is typical and companies most rely on their intelligence and experience for support. Nevertheless, some people think younger leaders can bring companies more energy and morale. Risky or conservative, fast or slow, experience or vigor, this has been a controversy for a while, and no one knows which is better. Overall, I prefer older people to be leaders because experience is such an important factor that mostly they can do the right things and make proper decisions. Moreover, the subordinate are more willing to listen to older leaders’ order. This is not an age issue; it is an experience issue. What do you think?
I am from Taiwan, a current MBA student in University of Nevada, Reno. I came to America for language improvement and learning the different culture in and out of class which I cannot learn in Taiwan. I hope I can use these competitive advantages in my future job field.