1. Trust is a major issue for corporations and CEOs. In what ways do you incorporate language or other elements designed to build or maintain trust in your CEO into the work or counsel that you provide?
2. In an environment where the line between internal and external communications is disappearing, what direction are you taking in advising your CEO on communicating to employees? In what instances, if any, are you still taking or recommending different approaches in messaging for the two audiences?
3. What impact has the global nature of your company's business had on the way your CEO needs to communicate and on the direction that you have provided?
4. In the past two years, what has been the biggest change (in either topic, forum or style) that you have seen in the way CEOs in general are communicating with the public (internal and external)?

Trust is a major issue for corporations and CEOs. In what ways do you incorporate language or other elements designed to build or maintain trust in your CEO into the work or counsel that you provide?

Valerie Di Maria: If you're lucky, you don't have to give too much counsel to your CEO and management team because they get that they always need to act in a trustworthy way. It is the action that is the most important thing. It isn't just about the language. If communications people are part of the management team and are there when decisions are being made, they should speak up when things are gearing off course. You should counsel on action and not just on how you're going to “portray” what you do. At Willis, we try to be very straight about what's happening. Even if it's not positive, we just address it head on.

One example of this occurred after we announced a major acquisition in May this year. Our CEO, Joe Plumeri, headed off to visit some of the office locations that would be added with the deal. His first stop was to visit the headquarters of the other company to say that he didn't know what would happen eventually but acknowledge that the merged company wouldn't need two headquarters in North America. He was very straightforward.

Robert Friedman: This is a particularly relevant question for Eli Lilly and Company. Over the past decade, there has been growing distrust of the pharmaceutical industry among the public, media and politicians. So Lilly early on developed a corporate brand to address people's concerns and set our aspirations for how we wanted to be perceived as a company. Among the four tenets of our brand is being “reliable and trustworthy.”

To live up to these characteristics requires actions more than words. So, we decided to become as transparent as possible about our business. For example, Lilly was the first company in our industry to publish online all of our clinical trial data; the first to publish our educational grants; and the first to back a new bill that would require pharmaceutical companies to disclose gifts and payments to physicians in the U.S.

Our recently retired CEO, Sidney Taurel – who remains as Lilly's chairman until the end of this year – also builds personal trust and credibility by linking his words to actions. When we lost our Prozac patent earlier than expected in 2001 – and with it 25 percent of our revenues – Sidney held a global town hall, linked by satellite to all 46,000 Lilly employees around the world, to explain belt-tightening measures – including loss of raises, bonuses and other actions. He explained that the higher one's rank in the organization, the greater the financial hit would be; and because he felt he should be affected most, he would work that year for $1. Despite the tough news conveyed, people left the meeting with renewed faith that Sidney would lead us through the crisis. They spoke about him “working for a dollar” for years after.

Our communications style and techniques support and model these actions. To me, credibility and trust derive from clarity and conciseness. We work hard to cut the corporate jargon and use straightforward language. We try to find the balance between the optimism necessary for a leader with the realism critical to motivating people. To extend our concept of transparency, we ensure Sidney and other executives take questions from audiences – and are candid in their responses (in fact, “active listening and responding” is another of our brand attributes). We invite the toughest questions people have. We've had annual reports titled “Answers” and “Straight Talk,” in which we've answered questions like “Are drug prices fair?” and “How will Lilly grow this year?”

Jon Harmon: Trust is a basis for engagement with all of our stakeholders – whether they're analysts, dealers, employees or investors. So it is always a factor for me in any communication. Navistar's CEO Dan Ustian has a style that lends itself to building trust. He doesn't brag, but he is clear about the positive changes that are taking place at Navistar. I think it's important to provide perspective in a way that is open and clear, so I advise executives below Dan to take this approach, too.

Dan already naturally has the right approach, but there still are some areas where we are being deliberate about building trust. For instance, one of our objectives is to get employees to ask tough questions during town hall meetings so that they can get a real-time response, which would be more relevant and meaningful than having questions submitted in advance of a meeting. But people are reluctant to ask the tough questions. We want them to know that they can ask and expect to get a straight answer. So at our last town hall meeting, we distributed three-by-five cards and required that people submit questions before taking a lunch break. Dan and other executives answered as many of the questions in person as time allowed. And for the questions that weren't answered in the meeting, we posted the questions and answers on our intranet. Within the course of a week, our executives addressed 150 questions online, in a straight and simple way. Employees responded very well to this.

William Margaritis: It goes without saying that in today's world, trust is really becoming a more important issue in how companies position themselves. At FedEx, it starts with having our founder and chairman, Fred Smith, really walk the talk. Not only does he inherently build trust through his own behavior, he also sends a semiannual publication to all employees' homes that uses public research and other third parties to validate and reinforce the importance of trust. He shares this with executives to make sure they understand just how important this issue is and how to ensure that their own behaviors must reflect integrity and trust if management is to be credible in the eyes of the workforce.

Trust is such an important issue because people are looking for more than a transaction. They're asking, “Who is this company and what do they stand for?”

For FedEx, trust is a huge part of the emotional appeal of the brand. FedEx has earned this with the reliability and peace of mind that we bring to people every day in delivering their precious possessions, but we also try to invoke trust in multiple facets. Much like our chairman, we earn trust from our customers and all of our stakeholders by walking the talk and keeping our word. It is an essential part of working for this company. In Communications, part of our job is to ingrain this idea within our entire workforce and continuously communicate it to new employees. This is a work that never stops. And the best way to do it is through authentic stories seen through our people. When an employee performs a trustworthy act, we celebrate that in video. So other employees who see the stories come to know that trust is a real and important issue for the company.

Go Back to Questions

In an environment where the line between internal and external communications is disappearing, what direction are you taking in advising your CEO on communicating to employees? In what instances, if any, are you still taking or recommending different approaches in messaging for the two audiences?

Di Maria: I used to work at GE, and when you did an all-employee e-mail, it went to people at NBC. So that shows that the line is totally gone. Of course, you emphasize certain things that are more relevant to each audience – employees, shareholders, clients – but it all factually has to be off of the same page. If you're talking to more than five people, you've got to figure that whatever you say is public. So that means you have to be transparent.

For instance, we recently laid out a very detailed strategy to investors and we put it on our Web site, so obviously every one of our competitors can see it. The fact is that even if we didn't put it on our Web site, competitors would find out. If you think you're going to do anything important and people aren't going to hear about it, you're naïve. The best thing you can do is tell your own story, straightforwardly and honestly, rather than having a cone of silence. Whether you're in a business-to-business or consumer environment, people need to feel that they trust you. Trust implies openness.

Friedman: Our internal and external messages sometimes overlap but are more often distinct, because we have distinct goals. Our external speeches are mostly policy–oriented – for example, persuading health care payers and decision makers in the U.S. and around the world about the importance of pharmaceutical innovation for patients and for their economies. Arguments might include that innovative medicines are critical to addressing the health needs of aging populations, or that governments should nurture the life sciences because they are fueling some of the most important industries of the 21st century. If our senior leaders are going to take the time and expense to speak in public, we want the speech to be persuasive and on a topic of industry, national or international importance.

Internally, we focus more on our few corporate priorities – including urging people to transform the way we do business to succeed in an increasingly challenging environment. We also talk about the importance of innovation to internal audiences, but our goals are different – more educational.

We use a wide array of vehicles to reach our Lilly colleagues. Our new CEO, John Lechleiter, has a blog, speaks at staff meetings and town halls, and uses occasional videos to answer important questions on people's minds (“Am I going to have a job?” was the most recent topic). Within two months of becoming CEO, John taught a half-day workshop to the top 1,000 Lilly leaders. During times of change, our philosophy is it's better to overcommunicate than under-communicate.

Harmon: I think the best communication can serve well in both internal and external situations. For instance, Navistar's “news media site” is used widely by employees, the media and others outside the company. We understand that employees are going to get a lot of their opinions shaped by local news media, so we make the same information that we share with the media available to employees. No passwords are needed to access information on the site.

But there are some instances when we use different approaches. Every quarter, our CEO and CFO hold an analyst call. We send e-mail to middle management and above to encourage them to listen in to hear the results of the business. We follow this with a leadership call. The messages are consistent, but we will go a little deeper among ourselves. It is important that employees really understand the business.

Margaritis: At FedEx, we take a very holistic approach between our workplace and marketplace communications. The Internet and all of the innovative communications channels it has created have blurred the lines of communications between “internal and external” audiences. This transparency has made us consider a number of different factors when we communicate to employees. First, you have to research the language that you use to see whether it resonates. Then, you have to find the right channels to communicate those messages. And perhaps more importantly, you have to identify a higher calling – the right inspirational platform that will invoke discretionary efforts among employees. For us, that's providing access. That means we try to deliver the message to employees that their jobs are about more than transportation. It's making people feel that they are playing a part in important moments in people's lives.

Finally, it's important that employees are hearing the same basic message across every channel. So we're trying to synchronize our messaging platform. We're not there yet, but we're getting there.

Go Back to Questions

What impact has the global nature of your company's business had on the way your CEO needs to communicate and on the direction that you have provided?

Di Maria: One, you obviously have to be sensitive to the different cultures and the different language. For instance, we have headquarters in New York and in London. We all speak English, but it is funny how one word here can mean something else there. Secondly, because of the Internet, whatever you say in one part of the world, you should assume will be heard throughout the rest of the world. So you don't want to overplay what is happening in one market at the risk of having a negative effect in another market. At the same time, you have to be transparent.

Friedman: About half of Lilly's business is generated outside the U.S., and we have an internationally diverse executive team. They make dozens of trips outside the U.S. each year – many for informal meetings but also for public speeches.

Sidney Taurel, who, again, just retired, has been our CEO for the past 10 years. In addition to English, he speaks French, Spanish and Portuguese fluently, as well as some Italian and a bit of German. This language facility has been instrumental in making him one of the most influential CEOs in our industry. He interacts with many European leaders and decision makers in their language. We translate speeches for those countries, which adds a week to our process.

Our incoming CEO, John Lechleiter, is an English speaker, but has kept up a global pace similar to Sidney's. When our leaders speak outside the U.S., we are sensitive both to cultural differences and to potential time differences required for translation. A 20-minute speech becomes 40 when translated sequentially, so we are always careful to determine the requirements ahead of time. In addition, we rely on local experts to alert us to any nuances in culture or style. We also provide country backgrounders for our speakers that include things like demographic and economic information to specifics about the health care systems and legislative efforts. Given that our executives tackle tough, sometimes controversial issues, we are deferential to the host countries so we don't come off as being arrogant.

Harmon: Navistar is growing pretty rapidly in Russia, India and China, and it puts different expectations to everything we are doing. We are considering how to build the Navistar corporate brand abroad. It would be arrogant to think that I know what our brand should represent in other markets. We need to be very understanding of the uniqueness of a country and of different values and ethics. At the same time, a high water mark in any country will raise up the other countries.

Expansion puts a great deal of stress on a CEO's schedule. He has to empower a team around him to be able to address concerns in different companies.

Margaritis: The CEO has to be a champion of people, culture and social responsibility, globally. In our case, because of our exposure to carbon footprint, our chairman has taken a very active leadership role in trying to ensure our nation's energy policy and independence. When people see that, they say here's a company that's doing the right thing. We are also very strong advocates of free trade and very much view our role in the world as enabling trade for all nations, businesses and individuals. We often talk about this in terms of access, and we fervently believe that trade makes great things possible for everyone.

Go Back to Questions

In the past two years, what has been the biggest change (in either topic, forum or style) that you have seen in the way CEOs in general are communicating with the public (internal and external)?

Di Maria: In general, the good CEOs are aware of the importance of communication and are communicating much, much more. I once interviewed at a company where I asked the CEO about communication, and he said that it wasn't his job! Needless to say, he is no longer CEO! Well, I believe that communication should be the job of everyone in senior management. Lately, more CEOs are seeing communication as a core competency, and the whole C-suite understands the importance of communication.

While CEOs might not be eager to talk to the media more, there has been a huge increase in CEOs seeing the importance of talking to their own employees. As part of that, I think we're seeing a backlash against electronic communication. Face-to-face interaction is becoming more important. When you're trying to establish and maintain trust, you have to look people in the eye; you can't hide behind a computer screen.

Another change is the importance of two-way communication – it's no longer just “us” talking to employees. For instance, our internal Web site, which we call “Good Morning, Willis,” delivers relevant news about the company every work day. One feature is a “Talk with Joe” button, where people can e-mail our CEO about anything and receive a response typically within 24 hours. Joe literally wants to see every question and he is engaged in the Q and A every day.

Friedman: Over some 20 years of listening to and reading speeches, I've seen the time CEOs devote to public speeches ebb and flow. I can remember times when it was common for corporate leaders to take on great public issues – education, health care, the environment and so forth. For the past two years and longer, I've been dismayed by an erosion of public persuasion on the part of corporate leaders. Many are selling their wares or participating on panels. The director of one noted national venue told me she's booking corporate executives less and less because too often they provide audiences with nothing more than a commercial. Other executives have turned inward, focusing on running their businesses.

Given a turbulent business environment, this is understandable. Still, since many of our opponents have megaphones, I think it's the responsibility of CEOs of major organizations to state their case forcefully, concisely and eloquently in public. I'd like to see more of them taking on big issues – something I'm proud to think Lilly does.

Harmon: The most obvious changes revolve around electronic communication. There is a great reliance on e-mails, BlackBerry and other quick communication devices. There is a lot of great stuff about that, but there also is a danger that the CEO doesn't have face-to-face interaction with employees, in particular. Face-to-face is important because it provides a better opportunity for the executive to listen. So in addition to mass messages through e-mail or voicemail, our CEO hosts town-hall-style discussions and regularly visits plants so that he can have more personal interaction with employees.

We're also starting to use electronic communication to facilitate discussions. Some of Navistar's executives just below the CEO level have started a blog. Right now it is primarily an electronic column because there isn't much discussion yet. But there is more to come. In the communication department, we also have been advising executives on ways to make better use of electronic communication. For instance, the company has an annual CSR report that outlines its commitments. The vision is to make this more interactive and turn it into a dialogue.

We also advise executives that when communicating in e-mail, it is important to tell a story rather than doing just a data dump. People aren't going to remember a lot of numbers but they do remember stories. And that's important even when you're reporting financial results. People understand the numbers better when they know the story behind them.

Margaritis: It has to be authenticity – authentic storytelling with emphasis on video and on communicating through new and highly interactive channels. You have to deliver the right message to the right people through the right channel at the time that they want it. So it's also about personalization. It has to be told in a story form – not just a 15-second spot. That's a new paradigm.

Go Back to Questions