The 100 Most Trusted People In America. (Cartoon characters not allowed)

How has it come to pass that “the most trusted people in America” are actors? Surely the prime example of an actor whom the American people trusted was Ronald Reagan. We know what happened there. Wait a minute, what did happen there?

Maybe our trust in actors is not really that surprising. All the world’s a stage, right? Since it’s impossible to know what’s really going on in the mind and heart of any human being, so someone who can at least provide an illusion of ethical behavior will be very attractive.

And maybe it’s not even an illusion. Maybe Tom Hanks really is an extremely trustworthy person. I wouldn’t be a bit surprised.

The following survey is a couple of years old but it still provides an excellent idea of Americans’ idea of trustworthiness. Today, Tom Hanks would probably still come in first, although I would vote for Bart Simpson. If you’re ready to trust an actor, trusting a drawing might be even better.

http://www.rd.com/culture/readers-digest-trust-poll-the-100-most-trusted-people-in-america/#slideshow=slide16

When Does a Company Become a Cult?

Effective leadership is of course vital to business success. Consequently, strong leaders are revered inside their organizations -- and if they become successful enough, they can become media stars, or presidential candidates, or both. 

As a leader starts to become really big, the influence of that magnification can be felt throughout the company. When Bill Gates was leading Microsoft to world domination, for example, he always -- and I mean always -- wore a sweater with a buttoned shirt underneath it. During those years if you saw a picture of Gates with a group of his executives, they would also be wearing sweaters.

That didn't happen by accident. Gates might never have consciously intended it, but he had created a Microsoft uniform. Nor was he the first leader to do that. When IBM was leader of the pack in the 1950s and 60s, the uniform was a dark suit, white shirt, and thin tie. That was what James Watson, the CEO, wore, so there was no option for wearing anything else. 

This herding instinct extends beyond fashion choices. Power within an organization may be assigned to those employees who  are able to most closely resemble the leader, especially when it's the leader who confers the power. That's when the organization starts to take on a cult-like aspect -- which may not be all bad, except for two things. First, the strong leader won't be there forever. Second, there may be very talented people who are lost to the company simply because they don't "fit in."

Wise leaders recognize the dangers of their narcissistic tendencies. They deliberately cultivate difference and diversity. Others, however, are drawn to the guru role and behaviors it entails. The first link below is a Psychology Todayarticle that identifies some characteristics of a "cult of personality" leader. The second link explores similar tendencies in our old friend, the endlessly fascinating Mr. Jobs. The article is called "The Cult of Steve."

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cutting-edge-leadership/201510/4-dirty-psychological-tricks-used-bad-leaders

http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2015/03/becoming_steve_j

"Woe is I" -- Grammar matters in business, don't it?

Growing up, you learned that two plus two is four, right? And by "right," I don't mean morally right. I mean mathematically correct. For the same reason, two plus two is five is "wrong."

Maybe you also learned -- using the terminology of traditional English grammar -- that any form of the verb "to be" cannot have a direct object. Therefore "woe is me" is grammatically wrong because "me" is an object form of the first person pronoun. "Woe is I" is correct. 

But there's a difference between what's right and wrong in math and in grammar. How we express ourselves in writing and speech has all sorts of cultural baggage. A person who continually makes grammatical errors may seem not only uneducated but actually offensive.

It's surprising, therefore, how many people today make obvious errors of grammar and usage, even at upper executive levels As a recruiter, here's something I've heard more than once: "Whatever you do, don't send me anybody who doesn't know the difference between 'there' and 'there, or between 'your' and 'you're.' That drives me crazy!"

I've also heard (again, more than once) that online communication has changed the rules of  writing. That Twitter's 140 character limit, for example, has put a premium on brevity. What matters now is making your point in the fewest possible words rather than adherence to annoying laws. In fact, adhering too closely to those laws can make you seem not only old fashioned, but just plain old. 

I don't know the correct answer to this. Language has always been evolving. Is it best to go with the flow, or fight to the last split infinitive. I used to tell people that they were free to speak or write any way they liked, but if they wanted to get hired they'd better mind their p's and q's.

Is that still true today? What do you think?

Here's some food for thought from two prominent authorities: 

http://www.theguardian.com/books/booksblog/2015/oct/06/steven-pinker-alleged-rules-of-writing-superstitions

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-b-bradshaw/why-grammar-is-important_b_4128521.html