For instance, both articles utilize clichés and nostalgic sayings, such as living by the “‘Golden Rule’” (Hess) or recognizing that “‘actions speak louder than words’” (McCrimmon). These sayings intend to appeal to the audience, revealing that each of their respective audiences may hold traditional values. Additionally, being that neither author heavily utilizes logos, each author assumes that the audience will be able to relate to the hypothetical situations that they provide. Essentially, by employing clichés and hypothetical scenarios, the writers intend to appeal to the audience’s familiarity toward the subject, explaining why they each focus on the “Golden Rules.” While the two may hold differing viewpoints regarding the topic itself, the premise remains the same: employees should be treated fairly and reasonably, just as anyone expects to be …show more content…
To begin, Hess “is a professor of business administration… at the University of Virginia Darden School of Business” (Hess), which, according to US News, is ranked as number eleven the in best business schools in America ("How Does University of Virginia Darden School of Business Rank”). Specifically, Hess teaches a course dealing with servant leadership and its influence on a business. Being that he lectures about servant leadership, he naturally is knowledgeable and informed about his topic, having deeply studied the effectiveness of the topic. With this, he urges the audience to embrace servant leadership, noting famous examples including Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and Jesus Christ. On the other hand, McCrimmon “has over thirty years experience in executive assessment and coaching” and “is the author of three management books” (McCrimmon). Based on his orthodoxical writing style and thirty years of experience, McCrimmon may have been reluctant to adopt new practices when servant leadership emerged in 1970 since he had already learned a traditional style. Alternatively, McCrimmon will have also witnessed many methods of leadership, gaining a perspective of what is effective and what is ineffective. As a result of this perspective, he encourages the audience to pursue a hierarchical form of leadership, something with history to back its