Last month was the 144^th anniversary of Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, considered to be one of the most important works in the English language and a cornerstone of the American culture and government. It is also a classic example of how to reframe an issue.

At the time this speech on the Pennsylvania battlefield, the future of the United States literally hung in the balance. Tens of thousands of Americans had already died; the Southern military was formidable; and, support for Southern secession was strong in the North where many were tired of the costly war. Lincoln was not universally popular. In fact, his former top general was already preparing to run against the 16^th president in the next election. Indeeed, he was not the featured speaker at the dedication of the Soldiers’ National Cemetery on Nov. 19, 1863.

Lincoln used the occasion to remind citizens why the war was important. Using eloquence, passion and logic in 266 words, Lincoln refers to the nation’s dedication to two ideals mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, the original ideal of “liberty” and the ideal that became central to the Civil War: “that all men are created equal.” From this event forward, the conflict was about liberty, equality and the importance of keeping the union together contrary to the “leaders” calling for states’ rights, slavery and oppression.

In Lincoln’s Virtues: An Ethical Biography, William Lee Miller describes how Lincoln traditionally won over an audience. This refers to his Cooper Union address, (Feb. 27, 1860), which was a stepping stone to his winning the Republican presidential nomination. Lincoln was not noted for his speaking ability. His was a case where content, substance, carried the day.

As he stepped to the podium and began to speak, the first New York impressions of this western man known only by reputation featured (of course) his height, his unhandsomeness, his ill-fitting suit, and his Hoosier accent. And then there came that surprised upgrading of first impressions that we have said would mark Lincoln’s entire course through life. The way he won over his audience, as he worked his way through his manuscript, was not oratorical elegance but by sheer preparation and relentless clarity. Lincoln’s speeches were marked by clarity, logic, intelligence and aptness. They were not dependent on the spontaneous excitement of the moment, the orator’s flights often are, but were carefully written out beforehand. This particular speech would began with a factual argument so complete as to overwhelm a reader and probably a hearer. (pp. 376-377)

Corporate and political leaders today can learn from how Lincoln was a master at framing issues. Courage, substance and a clear vision. Don’t be afraid to use them.

A year ago, Alan Murray observed in the Wall Street Journal that “Bob Nardelli still doesn’t get it.” At the time Nardelli was still head of Home Depot and in the throes of declining stock prices, low employee morale, high customer anxiety and an overall reputation for being … well, not someone you would invite to your home or have a cold beer with.

Alan contrasted Nardelli’s dilemma with Jeffrey Immelt’s (who had been selected over Nardelli for the top GE job) experience with General Electric where Immelt’s poor stock performance mirrored his former colleague’s.

However, Immelt had been recognized as one of the world’s top CEO’s and GE seen as one of the best places to work. Alan observed that Immelt reached out to corporate critics, made his operations more transparent, advocated good corporate citizenship AND asked his board to forego his cash bonus and award him “bonus shares.”

Immelt recently celebrated his sixth anniversary at GE and Nardelli left Atlanta last year for Detroit.

It will be interesting to observe whether or not Nardelli took some useful knowledge such as the role of the CEO in managing perception and issues as well as the numbers from Atlanta or just his $240 million compensation. We’ll watch and report.

It’s right here on the medical charts – something is wrong with your business.

You have a sobering annual report. An alarming employee-attitude survey. A customer-satisfaction survey that knocks you back in your seat.

You suspected the worst. Now here it is, in plain black and white…or in bright red, if your company is so ill the symptoms are already leeching away your bottom line.

What’s going on? Why do customers feel the service you give them is half-hearted…or, worse, half-something else?

Why do your people constantly snipe? Why do they seem so cynical? How have they gotten so mistrustful of leaders?

There is immense merit for leaders to find ways to emotionally reconnect people to their leaders and their companies. The Rx might be an injection of clear, honest communication.

It might take a prescribed daily dose of re-imagined leadership – real leadership, not “management.” You might simply need fresh air – a new “lifestyle” in your workplaces.

A healthy culture spurs productivity, boosts customer service, retains and attracts good people, improves reliability – all critical drivers of your bottom line.

How do I get more time with my CEO? How do I find out what the boss is thinking about the company, and the economic, technological, competitive, and other external forces changing our customers’ needs and buying habits? How can I draw more deeply on her knowledge, experience, and perspective?

These are perennial questions for all of us who prepare communications for CEOs, especially speeches.

But what do we do now? What are the next steps? And how do we persuade the CEO that any of this is worthwhile?

The nub of the matter is this: To get the CEO’s time and attention, we have to get him to understand what is at stake. And what is at stake is not simply the quality of his forthcoming speech to the Chamber or the commencement address he’s giving in May.

Too many CEOs find it easy to brush off speeches when their company is facing eroding margins, still more competition in the most profitable products, angry shareholders, and hostile media. But seldom will a CEO brush off an action that can better focus corporate strategy, solidify internal opinion on key issues, and strengthen corporate communications generally, including with Wall Street and policy makers. Afterall, full and fair valuation is at the top of all CEOs’ priority list.

The next steps are means to move you further along toward the high-quality end of the communications spectrum.

We have prepared suggestions on how to approach the CEO in this matter. In other words, it is about how to get the time and attention necessary to make this process work. These suggestions work. They are not a quick cure-all. No CEO will be turned around overnight; some wont’ be turned around at all. But a number will be. So will the company’s overall communications. UPS and others make that clear. We have prepared these suggestions in the form of a memo you could adapt to your specific situation, we hope you will find these ideas and suggestions useful in other ways as well.

MEMORANDUM

To: CEO

From: Corporate Communications Director

Subject: Communicating in an Anti-CEO, Anti-Business Atmosphere

Date: Today

Customers, investors and employees want more from us, from you as leader of the company. These are tough audiences. Burned on the hype of dot.com fiascoes, and the financial ponzi games and frauds of Enron, MCI and others, they’re not just skeptical, they’re cynical. Nevertheless, they do want to understand and know what is gong on; and we should not allow media hostility or criticism to keep us from explaining our position or viewpoint with people and groups who need to hear from us.

From Wall Street to our own employees, they are hungry for substance, for serious ideas in order to make informed decisions. They won’t stand for hype or pabulum. They want to know exactly what distinguishes us from our competitors, where we see the industry going, how outside forces—from technology to rising health care costs to greater foreign investment in innovation—are affecting us.

This hunger for substance creates opportunity for us. Internally, we can sharpen the focus on our strategy, solidify internal opinion on key issues—thereby rallying the troops—and carry a clearer, more compelling message to Wall Street, our owners and policy makers.

The success of UPS, Pfizer and others shows us exactly how to strengthen our content in ways that matter to the bottom line.

We will need some of your time, not much, but some. We need it order to draw on what no one else in the company has: your knowledge, experience, and perspective. Obviously, we will draw on the knowledge and experience of others. But your ideas and viewpoint will necessarily be at the core of what we are doing.

Our aim is to put together the best statement we can on our most important internal and external issues—the best words and ideas, the most compelling argument. The resulting text will drive all of our communications.

Initially, I will be doing three things: First, talking with key people in the organization to determine one internal and one external issue; second, crafting basic messages about each of these; three, preparing a full text statement about each message—written in plain words, not industry jargon.

At this point, I would ask only that you suggest five men or women who we should talk with in this regard, those whose brains you yourself like to pick. If you would also let them know that I will be getting in touch with them on this matter it would be a big help. Any time you want to talk about this I will as always be available at your convenience.

“Celebrity CEO”—there’s hardly a worse thing to be in business these days, though “perp” still tops it as a disparaging epithet. In the current difficult atmosphere, with the media virulently hostile to CEOs and business generally and with the public also distrusting them, the epithet is unfortunate.

First, it frames the discussion in a less productive way than more pertinent questions would; second, it allows CEOs to make a virtue of their refusal to live up to certain of their duties as leaders of the corporation, that virtue being a tight focus on day-to-day operations.

The more pertinent questions are about specifics of leadership. CEOs do not have to be high-profile; they don’t have to be in the media limelight. But they do have to be leaders. And leaders, effective ones, have to communicate inside and outside the company. That is one of a CEO’s primary jobs. In this hostile environment, CEOs and boards of directors need to be looking at who it is they must communicate with directly—outside the company as well as inside; what issues they should be addressing outside; and how best to communicate with various audiences about these matters.

With its focus on operations, today’s criticism of “celebrity CEOs” tends to overlook such questions. Peter Drucker reminds us that there is a great deal of work that only CEOs can do: “…the CEO is the link between the Inside, i.e., ‘the organization,’ and the Outside—society, the economy, technology, markets, customers, the media, public opinion.”

Anyone who lives up to the obligations of these duties is not a COO-style operations manager; they are a CEO, a leader. They understand that a major portion of their duties includes looking to the outside, explaining the corporation to the outside, explaining the outside to the inside, having the best information to do both.

In light of this and today’s hostile atmosphere in which so many CEOs are inclined to avoid being this “link”—certainly the “link” to the outside—here are some observations and rules they should take to heart.

• Speaking in public remains a powerful way for a CEO to communicate inside and outside. On policy and direction, as an explanation of what a company is doing, a speech should be the absolute best statement a company can make—the most compelling ideas, order of argument, the most persuasive words. This statement, the best the company can make, should then drive messaging with selected media, with employees, with owners and other investors. This use of a speech makes it a highly cost-effective means of communicating.
• Share a compelling idea with passion. People, including policy makers, are hungry for substance in speeches, real content and real answers. They want to hear how complex, external issues are affecting a company and their own lives: energy, health care, the continuing advances in digital technology, globalization. What are its benefits? What are its downsides? Forget hysteria on either side. Be as factual as you can. People want evidence.
• If a CEO wants a commercial, make a commercial not a speech. Audiences do not want hype. Forget the hype. After the disasters of the dot-com revolution, investors, customers, and the general public are on high-alert for hype. Be straightforward, be specific, and be practical. Substance trumps all. People want to know that a CEO’s company is doing what sets it off from competitors in the various segments of the business, from R & D, to marketing, to using new technology to gain efficiencies.
• Do not tell people your company is honest. Show them. Show them day after day, year after year. Show them in the quality and value of your products and services. The “we’re honest” speech has run its course. Audiences don’t want to hear it any more. The message was always suspect anyway. Who believes a man who says he is virtuous? That he is humble? Ethics is the same. Companies win back trust and keep it by delivering excellent products and the services to back them up—and by keeping their books straight. Being ethical is expected.
• Leaders communicate these matters. It’s not enough to avoid being a “celebrity CEO,” which is actually a very easy thing to do. Instead, a CEO has to learn to fulfill his duties to communicate, which takes serious work. Substance is the thing! This hunger for content is a big opportunity. It is biggest for companies with a real message, with a solid story to tell, a company willing to take a stand on the issues affecting its customers, employees and owners—even an issue with national and international ramifications.

Good CEOs have always been cautious about speaking, making sure there is good reason to do so, weighing the possible benefits against the possible risks. Get out and tell your story—if you’ve got one. And if you’re in business and you don’t have a story to tell, you’re in serious trouble.

Context: The New Rules of Engagement.

The general distrust of corporations—often distrust that generates disgust and disrespect—has created a new set of rules for engagement. CEOs are wary of speaking in public; the media, they believe, will take advantage of every opportunity to make them look bad—reporters will quote them out of context, misquote them, ignore the message of the speech and ask questions so they can write the story they want to write. It seems as if reporters already know what the story will be: They just need some quotes to go with their preconceived notions about the industry, this specific company and its CEO.

CEOs face more legal obligations now than ever. They fear saying anything that might be turned against them in a lawsuit by investors or anyone else. They fear “the quiet period.” In these circumstances, lawyers begin to have a greater voice in what a speech says—and what it does not say—which drains the blood, sweat and tears out of speeches. When the speech is lifeless, audiences react accordingly. So do forums seeking speakers: they will simply stop calling.

The media round-up of all CEOs and big corporations as villains is, of course, unfair. But saying it is unfair doesn’t do a thing to change it. This context is simply part of the environment that CEOs, CFOs and other corporate officers have to live with. So does everyone in PR and other communications efforts.

Speeches remain a vital way to tell a company’s story. They’re an effective way for a company to put together its story in the most compelling way possible; then the text can be used in opinion columns, in internal publications, in remarks by managers to their employees, on the Internet.

Content

Company executives don’t improve the media’s and public’s perception of their company when they go to major speaking forums and say nothing, when they take the non-stand and issue self-serving statements.

People are hungry for substance in speeches, real content. The idea is the thing: An idea clearly expressed in persuasive fashion. Hence, speaking forums are looking for ways to encourage more substance—perhaps allowing an “interview” format akin to the Charlie Rose television show. Anything to get away from what is seen as the “safe” speech, corporate pabulum.

They don’t want to hear a CEO claiming her company is great or that it is focused on customers. They want to know what her company is doing that sets it off from competitors in the various aspects of the business, from R&D to marketing to using new technology to gain efficiencies; they want to know the specific ways they are focused on customers, again, the specifics that set it off from what competitors are doing.

The “we’re honest” speech has run its course. Audiences have been hearing that for more than two years now, and they don’t want to hear it any more. The message was always suspect anyway. Who believes a man who says he is virtuous? That he is humble? Ethics is the same. Companies win back trust by keeping their books straight, and by delivering excellent products and the services to back them up. Audiences don’t want to hear product rollout speeches either, not when they’re expecting to learn something about industry trends or a company’s change in strategy.

They want to know what trends are driving a company’s strategy, how a company differs from its competitors. They want to hear what is driving economic change. They want insights into globalization. What is it? Why is it happening? What are the benefits? What are the costs, the downside?

They want leadership to tell them what the real issues are; they want to get behind the sound bites, charges and counter charges, wild allegations. They want to know what is actually happening.

Business audiences don’t expect easy answers; in fact, they shy away from easy answers. They want more understanding of complex issues. They want a point of view. Where do you stand on this? Why? What are the emerging trends we should be aware of? But they want solid stuff. They don’t want the kind of overblown hype that drove the dot-com boom—all the incredible products and services that an array of bright, young companies were going to produce. They want solid stuff. Facts and trends weighed by the considered judgment of experienced, seasoned, savvy business people—business leaders.

In other words, people—customers, owners, employees and the general public—expect leaders to lead. Where are we going? Where do you think we should go? How do we get there?

Opportunity

This hunger for content is an opportunity for companies with a message, with a solid story to tell, a company willing to take a stand on the issues affecting its customers, employees, and owners—even an issue with national and international ramifications. Companies and CEOs can position themselves as leading the way on these issues, while investing prudently. Some of the top forums still want CEOs to speak: The Economic Club of Detroit, the City Club of Cleveland, Townhall in Los Angeles.

There are plenty of opportunities.

Speakers can gain polish in regional forums and by speaking at colleges [?] and universities. Rotary Clubs around the country provide good forums, whether in major metro areas or smaller communities.

Speeches as Generator of Content

On policy and issues, a speech should be the best statement a company can make; the best ideas, the best words articulating those ideas. When the speech is finished, everyone—from the writers to the officers and others who helped—should have a much clearer idea of exactly what they believe about that issue. Officers should say: “That’s it exactly. I have never seen it so clearly stated. That is precisely what we want to do, precisely what we are doing.”

Employees should react that way as well.

This is the prime virtue of the process that produces a speech: Clarity in understanding; a script to express that understanding.

In reality, then, the speech becomes the text at the heart of all manner of communications. It is in this sense that a good speechwriting operation drives messaging.

The Troubling Gap

The gap between what a corporation says and what actually happens creates a huge credibility problem inside the company and in the marketplace. Among employees, it can create a crippling brand of cynicism—they themselves can see that the hype so far outruns reality that it is in fact not merely hype, which can be accepted, but a lie. When a company’s advertising says it is delivering excellent service—when their leaders’ speeches and internal publications tell employees the company is delivering excellent service—and yet employees know the company is delivering terrible service, the gap creates still more problems in low morale and cynicism; employees have reason to question their leader’s integrity, understanding of their operations, and their ability to lead.

Grassroots Communications

Employees are like everyone else: They expect honesty. They want openness, but they must have honesty. They don’t want to be talked down to, they don’t want to feel left out and ignored. They want to know how they and the circle of people they work with fit into the company’s big picture, something of what is expected of them. They want to know the company’s basic aims.

This is why grassroots communication inside the company is so important. Even if a company refuses to send the CEO and other officers into public forums, it needs to make sure they are talking to employees—talking with employees, engaging in dialogue, answering questions, taking suggestions to heart whenever possible.