There has been an ongoing debate over the pros and cons of being a leader versus being a follower. Some people believe that being a leader is much better than being a follower; whereas others believe that the former is not that attractive because leaders usually handle more work than followers. I agree with the latter stance.
Does everyone have skills for leadership? The answer to this question is no. For this reason, many companies--perhaps most--attempt to attract good leaders. They often try to invite proven, qualified candidates outside of the company. These companies do not mind paying a great deal of money for scouting talented CEOs. This implies that there are only a small number of people who are considered good leaders.
Even assuming the above is plausible, some are against my view because leaders have the right to control some things within their boundaries. Furthermore, they get paid more than lower-level employees. Hence, with the allure of a high salary, most people would like to assume a leader’s position. I concede this. But, I put an emphasis on my stance since there is one more important matter to consider: Leaders are more likely to experience stress in the workplace.
It’s entirely possible that conflicts and/or cacophonies might frequently occur in any group. At those times, leaders should take care of every small detail of the conflict that has occurred within the group. On the other hand, in the case of followers, they simply focus on their duties. To illustrate, my uncle was promoted to vice president last year, and numerous people congratulated him. But these days, he has often been sick due largely to his overloaded work schedule. After this, I came to realize that leaders might have more advantages than followers, and vice versa.
To summarize, although everyone may hold a different position on this issue, I am for the position that followers can better enjoy themselves because they have less work than leaders, and less work allows them a greater enjoyment of life.
