In 2010 Glenn Dubin reflected upon the enduring organization and culture he and co-founder Henry Swieca had infused into Highbridge Capital Management over the course of almost two decades. Since the firm's launch in 1992, New York-based Highbridge had grown to become a diversified investment platform comprising hedge funds, traditional asset management products, and credit and equity investments with longer-term holding periods. The company employed more than 315 people at offices in New York, London, Hong Kong and Tokyo, and managed $21 billion for prominent institutional investors, public and corporate pension funds, endowments, foundations and family offices. Highbridge was known by many on Wall Street as a "benchmark," largely due to the firm's investment performance and to the diversity and dynamism of the organization. Investors had come to rely on Highbridge's consistent returns and attention to risk management. The firm comprised a group of gifted, committed professionals as a result of Dubin's longtime focus on talent, nurturing a culture of collaboration, building a sophisticated risk management and technology platform, and maintaining a robust operating infrastructure. In 2009, J.P. Morgan completed its purchase of Highbridge-a strategic partnership the two organizations began in 2004 when J.P. Morgan Asset Management purchased a majority interest in the firm. In 2010, Dubin described his desired impact on the increasingly complex and sophisticated organization: "I hope that my legacy will be a bigger and more diversified Highbridge-but one that has the same culture and core principles of excellence, staffed with individuals with high integrity and an interest in successful collaboration. This is the only way I know to ensure that our initial goal of creating an organization that can outlive its founders will be achieved."

Will we ever learn? We'd barely recovered from Enron and WorldCom before we faced the subprime mortgage meltdown and more scandals that shook our trust in businesspeople. Which raises the question: Do we trust too much? In this article, Stanford professor and social psychologist Kramer explores the reasons we trust so easily - and, often, so unwisely. He explains that genetics and childhood learning make us predisposed to trust and that it's been a good survival mechanism. That said, our willingness to trust makes us vulnerable. Our sense of trust kicks in on remarkably simple cues, such as when people look like us or are part of our social group. We also rely on third parties to verify the character of others, sometimes to our detriment (as the victims of Bernard Madoff learned). Add in our illusions of invulnerability and our tendencies to see what we want to see and to overestimate our own judgment, and the bottom line is that we're often easily fooled. We need to develop tempered trust. For those who trust too much, that means reading cues better; for the distrustful, it means developing more receptive behaviors. Everyone should start with small acts of trust that encourage reciprocity and build up. Having a hedge against potential abuses also helps. Hollywood scriptwriters, for instance, register their treatments with the Writers Guild of America to prevent their ideas from being stolen by the executives they pitch. To attract the right relationships, people must strongly signal their own honesty, proactively allay concerns, and, if their trust is abused, retaliate. Trusting individuals in certain roles, which essentially means trusting the system that selects and trains them, also works but isn't foolproof. And don't count on due diligence alone for protection; constant vigilance is needed to make sure the landscape hasn't changed.

After Disney's Michael Eisner, Miramax's Harvey Weinstein, and Hewlett-Packard's Carly Fiorina fell from their heights of power, the business media quickly proclaimed that the reign of abrasive, intimidating leaders was over. However, it's premature to proclaim their extinction. Many great intimidators have done fine for a long time and continue to thrive. Their modus operandi runs counter to a lot of preconceptions about what it takes to be a good leader. They're rough, loud, and in your face. Their tactics include invading others' personal space, staging tantrums, keeping people guessing, and possessing an indisputable command of facts. But make no mistake--great intimidators are not your typical bullies. They're driven by vision, not by sheer ego or malice. Beneath their tough exteriors and sharp edges are some genuine, deep insights into human motivation and organizational behavior. Indeed, these leaders possess political intelligence, which can make the difference between paralysis and successful organizational change. Like socially intelligent leaders, politically intelligent leaders are adept at sizing up others, but they notice different things. Those with social intelligence assess people's strengths and figure out how to leverage them; those with political intelligence exploit people's weaknesses and insecurities. Despite all the obvious drawbacks of working under them, great intimidators often attract the best and brightest. In the author's research, some individuals reported having positive relationships with intimidating leaders--some being profoundly educational and transformational. So before we dispose of the great intimidators, we should stop to consider what we would lose.

The List is HBR's annual attempt to capture ideas in the state of becoming--when they're teetering between what one person suspects and what everyone accepts. Roderick M. Kramer says it isn't bad when leaders flip-flop. Julia Kirby describes new efforts to redefine the problem of organizational performance. Joseph L. Bower praises the "Velcro organization," where managerial responsibilities can be rearranged. Jeffrey F. Rayport argues that companies must refocus innovation on the "demand side." Eric Bonabeau describes a future in which computer-generated sound can be used to transmit vast amounts of data. Roger L. Martin says highly reliable corporate systems such as CRM tend to have little validity. Kirthi Kalyanam and Monte Zweben report that marketers are learning to contact customers at just the right moment. Robert C. Merton explains how equity swaps could help developing countries avoid some of the risk of boom and bust. Thomas A. Stewart says companies need champions of the status quo. Mohanbir Sawhney suggests marketing strategies for the blogosphere. Denise Caruso shows how to deal with risks that lack owners. Thomas H. Davenport says personal information management--how well we use our PDAs and PCs--is the next productivity frontier. Leigh Buchanan explores workplace taboos. Henry W. Chesbrough argues that the time is ripe for services science to become an academic field. Kenneth Lieberthal says China may change everyone's approach to intellectual property. Jochen Wirtz and Loizos Heracleous describe customer service apps for biometrics. Mary Catherine Bateson envisions a midlife sabbatical for workers. Jeffrey Rosen explains why one privacy policy won't fit everyone. Tihamer von Ghyczy and Janis Antonovics say firms should embrace parasites. And Jeffrey Pfeffer warns business-book buyers to beware. Additionally, HBR offers a list of intriguing business titles due out in 2005.

The past decade may well be remembered as the era of the high-flying, aggressive leader. Corner-office titans like Kenneth Lay, Dennis Kozlowski, and Bernard Ebbers graced the covers of business magazines. Then scandal set in, and the stars fell to earth. In this article, social psychologist Roderick M. Kramer asks an important question: Why do so many leaders--not just in business, but also in politics, religion, and the media--display remarkable adeptness and ability while courting power, only to engage in even more remarkable bouts of folly once that power has been secured? Kramer, who has spent most of his career researching how leaders get to the top, says that the systems through which we select our leaders force executives to sacrifice the attitudes and behaviors that are essential to their survival once they have reached the top. Society has learned to consider risk taking and rule breaking as markers of good leadership. As a result, leaders come to believe that normal limits don't apply to them and that they are entitled to any spoils they can seize. The leaders who do remain grounded exhibit five common psychological and behavioral habits: They simplify their lives, remaining humble and "awfully ordinary." They shine a light on their weaknesses instead of trying to cover them up. They float trial balloons to uncover the truth and prepare for the unexpected. They sweat the small stuff. And they reflect more, not less.

On September 11, 2001, in the space of a few horrific minutes, Americans realized the fragility of trust. The country's evident vulnerability to deadly terrorism rocked our faith in the systems we rely on for security. Our trust was shaken again only a few months later with the stunning collapse of Enron, forcing us to question many of the methods and assumptions underpinning the way we work. These two crises are obviously very different, yet both serve as reminders of the perils of trusting too much. The new doubtfulness runs contrary to most management literature, which has traditionally touted trust as an organizational asset. It's an easy case to make. When there are high levels of trust, employees can fully commit themselves to the organization because they can be confident that their efforts will be recognized and rewarded. Trust also means that leaders don't have to worry so much about putting the right spin on things. They can act and speak forthrightly and focus on essentials. In short, trust is an organizational superglue. Nevertheless, two decades of research on trust and cooperation in organizations have convinced social psychologist Roderick Kramer that--despite its costs--distrust can be beneficial in the workplace. Kramer has observed that a moderate form of suspicion, which he calls prudent paranoia, can in many cases prove highly beneficial to the distrustful individual or organization. In this article, he describes situations in which prudent paranoia makes sense and shows how, when properly deployed, it can serve as a powerful morale booster--even a competitive weapon--for organizations.