English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Is it more correct to say

a) John was appointed as manager of ACME.


b) John was appointed manager of ACME.

Or are they interchangeable?

share|improve this question
John was appointed manager of ACME sounds more natural. According to OALD however, as is optional. – Irene Mar 30 '12 at 11:08
up vote 6 down vote accepted

Then there's also:

c) John was appointed to be manager of ACME

All three are interchangeable in terms of meaning, but the one without as or to be is the most common:

If you're looking for one to use, I would go for was appointed manager, just because it sounds more natural.

share|improve this answer
This same result is supported with 'director' as the noun, and the sample size is slightly larger, too. – Matt B. Mar 30 '12 at 13:52

If you look for 'appoint' in online English-English dictionaries like Merriam-Webster, Longman, Collins, Macmillan or others you'll see both cases where 'as' is used and those where 'as' is omitted. To me absence of 'as' makes the appointment sound that much more solemn and serious, i.e. its more formal. But I guess its a matter of style and personal preference and both options can be used interchangeably.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.