800-CEO-READ Excerpts

Excerpt from Words That Work by Frank Luntz

The following excerpt is taken from "Corporate Case Studies," Chapter 7 of Words That Work: It's Not What You Say, It's What People Hear by Dr. Frank Luntz.

VII Corporate Case Studies

Jack Welch understood the power of words that work better than anyone in corporate America. True, he had his critics who complained that he was unnecessarily blunt and occasionally too aggressive, but he was universally appreciated for his candor and applauded for his results. “I used my words to give our people a more outward focus on the customer so that they would always try to satisfy that customer,” he told me emphatically. “That’s why I said again and again: ‘Companies don’t give job security. Only satisfied customers do.’” I asked him why, if language is so important in motivating employees to please customers, corporations and CEOs so often get the words so wrong. He pointedly refused to criticize his former colleagues, but he did have a message for every employee reading this book:

“I used to have coffee with the assistants and the staff once a month when we were restructuring the company, and they would ask me whether they’d still have a job after we were done downsizing staff functions. I’d tell them to look at their phone logs. If they were primarily filled with calls coming from the field with customers wanting to buy something, that’s a good sign of job security. But if the calls were coming from the corporate office to the field just to get data for me, their days may be numbered. The message I was sending was clear: their job was not to kiss our fannies. Their job is to make things, sell things and do things. I communicated quite plainly that you’d have job security if you were customer focused, and you wouldn’t if you weren’t.”

Words that work in business don’t merely inject themselves into memory and compel you to act; at times they actually mean the difference between millions of dollars and billions of dollars. The following stories are ripped straight from the corporate world, and I was an active participant in most of them. For those of you who define success in terms of revenues and profits and like to keep score via bank accounts, 401(k)s, and the Dow Jones Industrial Average, this chapter is for you.

The one component that virtually all successful corporate communication efforts have in common is the decision to take a proactive approach. In today’s anti-corporate, deeply distrustful, and highly politicized environment, there’s a simple linguistic equation: “Silence = Guilt.” Two graphic examples I am personally acquainted with:

• For years, Wal-Mart did not respond to an increasingly serious set of public, community, legal, and governmental challenges, and now it finds itself on the defensive in neighborhoods where it wishes to locate or expand, and at open war with public interest groups that once hailed the company for low prices and job opportunities.
• Vons, the Southern California division of supermarket giant Safeway, consciously made the decision to encourage its store directors not to talk to employees or customers about labor issues in the run-up to the terribly destructive strike in 2004, and it paid the price in employee agitation and an angry consumer marketplace during and even after the strike.
• Halliburton, the defense contractor, ignored the public outcry over its suspect accounting and billing procedures, despite efforts by public relations experts to step in and coordinate an explanation and response. Their silence may have been driven by concern that any public statement would reflect poorly on former CEO Dick Cheney.

Regardless of the facts, even if it’s unfair to do so, it’s only human nature for audiences to regard silence as a tacit admission of wrongdoing. Every attack that is not met with a clear and immediate response will be assumed to be true.

This may seem obvious, but an examination of the public behavior of public companies suggests otherwise. Whether in the midst of an employee strike, corporate scandal, or just a bad quarterly financial report, a company’s communication with the public must be proactive, consistent, and ongoing. Whether a difficult event is about to take place--or a crisis has just landed in your lap--the rules are the same. The key word is more: more conversation with the affected community rather than less, more information rather than less, and more details rather than fewer. If the words are right, there is no such thing as overkill.

So let’s take a look at what has happened when the principles of simplicity, brevity, credibility, consistency, novelty, alliteration, aspiration, visualization, questioning, and context--the ten rules of communication--have been applied to real-world communication challenges. Let’s see what happens when communication professionals have truly embraced the theme of this book: It’s not what you say, it’s what they hear....

WORDS THAT WORK CASE STUDY: FROM “GAMBLING” TO “GAMING”
One of the best examples of an industry tackling its greatest image weakness and turning it into its most beneficial strength just by changing a single solitary word (two letters, really) is the “gaming” industry--formerly known as the “gambling” industry. After a long tenure as Chairman of the Republican National Committee, Frank Fahrenkopf took his well-honed political and communication skills into the corporate arena as president of the American Gaming Association. Turning gambling into gaming wasn’t his idea; the strategy had been implemented years earlier.* But Fahrenkopf intensified the effort in a seemingly simplistic yet revolutionary re-branding strategy for the entire industry; with one single, powerful word, a new context was set for all that goes on in Las Vegas, Atlantic City, the Mississippi Gulf Coast, and at all the commercial and Indian casinos in a majority of states across America. “Gaming” changed everything.

What’s important to understand is that the underlying products and services changed not a whit. Same slot machines. Same deck of cards. Same dice. Same casino advantage. But the switch from “gambling” to “gaming” in describing one’s behavior contributed to a fundamental change in how Americans see the gambling industry.

Here’s where the communication principle of visualization plays such a major role in the perception transformation. All of the old, unsavory associations (e.g., organized crime, pawnshops, addiction, foolishly losing one’s fortune) gave way to a lighter, brighter image of good clean fun. “Gambling” looks like what an old man with a crumpled racing form does at the track, or sounds like the pleas of a desperate degenerate trying to talk a pawnshop punter into paying a little more for his wedding ring, or feels like the services provided by some seedy back-alley bookie in some smoke-filled room. “Gaming” is what families do together at the Hollywood-themed MGM Grand, New York, New York, or one of the other “family-friendly resorts” in Las Vegas. “Gambling” is a vice. “Gaming” is a choice. “Gambling” is taking a chance, engaging in risky behavior. “Gaming” is as simple as playing a game with cards or dice or a little ball that goes round and round and round.

This linguistic swap coincided with a genuine image makeover right in the heart of the world’s gaming Mecca. For a time in the 1990s, Las Vegas sold itself as family friendly, a sort of Disneyland suitable for kids and parents alike--a theme park full of shows and attractions, with “gaming” only one diversion among many. Instead of the spinning teacups there were spinning roulette wheels. Instead of the pinball machine or the arcade games lighting up, it was the slot machine that rang and jingled. True, the child-themed Circus Circus hotel had been around for ages, but now the Circus Circus model was being applied up and down the Strip (otherwise known as Las Vegas Boulevard, when the kids were around), from Treasure Island with its pirate ship battle to the Excalibur and its nightly jousting performances.

And for a while, it worked.

But like veteran Vegas performers Paul Anka and Tom Jones, as well as some of America’s most successful cities, Las Vegas is constantly engaged in the act of revitalization and rejuvenation. The family-friendly Vegas didn’t last, but thanks in part to the more innocuous “gaming” label, the city was able to return to an older, more adult incarnation without all the bad connotations. Today, the performances in Las Vegas are more risqué than ever, even at mainstream, family-oriented hotels such as the MGM Grand, where nobody under eighteen can get into La Femme, a topless French review. If the 1990s were the family decade in Las Vegas, the first decade of the twenty-first century is the “What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas” decade (perhaps the best city promotion since “I Love New York” in the 1970s).* It has become, once again, an outlaw town, a place where average Americans can cut loose without the neighbors watching, even if just for a long weekend, because the normal rules don’t apply. But the family interlude was a crucial stage in the evolution of the city--and the industry as a whole. That evolution, and the reinvention that came along with it, would not have been imaginable without the shift from “gambling” to “gaming”: a word that worked.

WORDS THAT WORK CASE STUDY: “BANKS” VERSUS “CREDIT UNIONS”

Here is an example where the language effort was focused on enhancing an image rather than choosing between words. The state and local credit unions have two small trade associations to represent them in Washington, and both of them hired my firm in the mid-1990s to take on the hard-charging, big-spending, politically pushy banking lobby and help credit unions promote a more favorable regulatory climate. This was a challenge I was destined to lose. The banks had all the money. The banks had all the political contacts. The banks had every advantage but one: language.

While I wouldn’t quite go so far as to say that the word “bank” has a stigma, it does have many strongly negative connotations--and many of them are visual and location-centered. Just say the name and people visualize high ceilings, marble lobbies, expansive wooden desks, and a fancy décor that customers have to pay for through all the hidden fees. It’s one reason why you rarely see the inside of a bank in their advertising, and when you do, it’s always a close-up of a pleasant teller and not the bank president’s opulent office. Sure, visualize is communication rule eight, but that assumes the picture is a pleasant one. For “banks,” it’s not.

“Credit unions,” on the other hand, are to “banks” what the TV show Cheers was to the local neighborhood bar--an idealistic setting and place to do business that you hoped existed somewhere other than inside your television set. I didn’t create this analogy: Thirty credit union members themselves in Cleveland and St. Louis created it for me in focus groups we conducted a few years ago. “Credit union” creates the perception of being small, intimate, kind, and caring--where you actually know the teller and the teller knows you. Whereas “bank” conjures up visions of concrete buildings and robber barons with vast unattainable wealth, “credit union” evokes the friendly people who work inside--for you. Banks are Mr. Potter from It’s a Wonderful Life. Credit unions are the Building and Loan Community.

Also important in the credit union advantage is the idea of membership. Being a “member” rather than a “customer” sounds much more inclusive, participatory, and friendly. Returning to the Cheers analogy, “credit unions” are places where “everybody knows your name, and they’re always glad you came.” In fact, if I were the head of one of the national credit union associations, I’d hire Sam Malone, Norm Peterson, or Woody Boyd as my national spokesman. No matter what he said, it’s the image he’d conjure up that matters.

Sure enough, the credit unions were able to pass legislation favorable to their expansion over the cries and very public pressure from the banking establishment. The banks eventually spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in a futile effort to fight back, but with every contribution and expenditure, they only reminded members of Congress why their constituents loved their little credit unions and hated their dreaded banks.

Ahhh, the power of visualization.

WORDS THAT WORK CASE STUDY: FROM “HONEST DATA” TO “ACCURATE DATA”--AND THEN SOME...

In the wake of the Enron scandal, the accounting profession in the United States faced the biggest public relations crisis in decades. With the indictment and dissolution of Arthur Andersen, the Big Five swiftly became the Big Four--and the remaining public accounting firms faced the enormous challenge of defending their integrity, their business practices, and their very right to continue doing business. In the spring of 2002, when pressure on the industry had reached its highest intensity, I undertook a language project for PricewaterhouseCoopers--a research-based effort to discover and define the lexicon of corporate accountability and the role of the accounting profession in achieving it.

The tough times called for a true crisis communications lexicon. Listening to accounting professionals across the country and, more importantly, their accounting clients--including the CFOs of many of the most powerful companies in the world--it was painfully clear that PwC’s old, pre-Enron language had to go. There had to be a complete reshaping of their messaging to match the changing priorities and responsibilities of the profession. After three months of extensive research, we offered PwC a complete revision of the way they defined themselves, their profession, and the services they provide:

The Language of CFOs and Corporate Accountability

DON"T SAY...	DO SAY...
Honest/credible/truthful data	Accurate data
Interpretation	Analysis
Responsibility/professionalism	Accountability
Capital markets	Investors/The public interest
Innovative approaches	Principles and rules
Attested to	Certified
Experienced	Independent
Breadth of services	Back to basics
Codes of conduct	Internal controls and accountability procedures
Comprehensive	Easy to understand

Some of these words transcend the accounting profession and have become essential descriptive terminology in the post-Enron corporate scandal environment:
“Accurate” data is more important than honest, credible, or truthful data because it is a statement of fact rather than someone’s explanation. For similar reasons, “facts” and “fact-based” are more powerful descriptors in the legal world than “evidence.” It may seem like a distinction without a difference but it really does matter. Facts are indisputable. Evidence is open to interpretation.
“Responsibility” and “professionalism” are obviously important, but “accountability” trumps them because it implies enforcement and perhaps even punishment for failure. We want all our institutions and all our leaders to suffer if, in some way, they have made us suffer or let us down. We truly live in unforgiving times.

“Attested to” is far less effective than “certified” because the former is perceived to be about human judgment and the latter suggests a specific process or procedure followed, along with a guarantee.

The phrase “back to basics” appeals because it represents a change in focus and a shift in priorities to those things that matter most. A “back to basics” approach is particularly popular in times of economic instability or personal anxiety.

WORDS THAT WORK CASE STUDY: FROM “CELL PHONES”TO “INTEGRATED ENTERTAINMENT”

In rare cases, applying words that work is about focusing on people’s fears rather than appealing to their hopes and dreams. Today’s digital, portable, cellular, interactive world is the perfect illustration. Not long ago we were hired by a cell phone company that was in the process of buying up one of its rivals. They wanted to use the purchase to reshape their public image not just as a simple provider of cell service but as an “innovative twenty-first-century deliverer” of “comprehensive integrated entertainment” that people could “always count on.” And yes, each of those words matters individually as well as collectively.

“Innovative twenty-first-century” language is both visual and aspirational, encouraging consumers to imagine the digital benefits of the future rather than accepting the analog limitations of the present.

“Deliverer” is seen by consumers as more active and aggressive than “provider,” enhancing the company’s credibility and differentiating them from their less consumer-friendly competitors.

The words “comprehensive” and “integrated” come right from the mouths of consumers themselves. The second biggest complaint of personal portable device users is that the various components, including even the service itself, do not function together easily. The idea that each and every component would work seamlessly together addressed one of the two fear factors of cellular use.

“Entertainment” is the novelty component. No longer will consumers see their cell phones as merely tools to make calls. From text messaging to listening to music to taking photos to watching live television broadcasts and even movies, their cell phones will soon be able to do it all--and do it well.

“Always count on” is the foundation upon which everything else is built because it addresses the single biggest complaint as well as the primary aspiration of all cell phone users worldwide--that they actually work. Consumers aren’t demanding all the new bells and whistles, even if they do appreciate them. They just want their phones to work--always--or in their words, “I don’t want to think about it.”

And that’s exactly the language customers want and expect to hear from their service provider. Residential customers want to know that their handheld device gives them a “lifeline” to the outside world. Small business owners want to know that their provider will deliver “hassle-free technology” so they have the freedom to focus on the other aspects of their business. And the people who are responsible for all the technology at America’s largest businesses want to know that if something bad happens, “I’m protected” so that it won’t cost their company too much time or money, and it won’t cost them their job.

So instead of telling the cell phone customer all the myriad of positive things the device can do, the wiser and more effective approach is to remind the customer of all the bad things it won’t. Additional words that best address these inherent fears:

• “The Power of ONE.” Consumers want the entire process simplified. ONE-stop shopping, ONE bill to pay, ONE single point of contact if and when something goes wrong, ONE person to hold accountable.
  
• “We deliver.” That phrase, and “Anything, anywhere, anytime, on any device...” both project a robust concept of reliability that goes well beyond mere connectivity.

These case studies offer a wider message for those in the business community. To be blunt, while you are focused on the language of sales and service, you simply do not recognize or care to accept that your own corporate language is contributing to the anxiety Americans now have about the economy in general and corporate America in particular. Since the fall of the Iron Curtain and the spread of elections worldwide, we have collectively concluded that democracy is the only true, legitimate, fair, and representative form of government (though as this book goes to print, the situation in Iraq, as well as the Palestinian success of Hamas, have the potential to undermine that conclusion), but we have yet to award that endorsement on our economic institutions or their structure.

On the contrary, a sizeable minority of Americans reject “capitalism” for its perceived winners-and-losers outcome and for its constant competitive nature. In a poll I conducted in the late 1990s, fully one-quarter of the electorate had a negative opinion of capitalism--and the primary reason was the perceived behavior of corporate America. Since then, thanks to Enron, WorldCom, Tyco, the arrogance of CEOs like Martha Stewart and Richard Grasso, as well as the burst of the Internet bubble, insider trading scandals, and corporate credibility crusader Elliot Spitzer (formerly New York’s hyperactive attorney general and now its hyperactive governor) public faith and confidence in capitalism has deteriorated even more. That may be a long sentence for a short book, but that’s still not the exhaustive list of complaints by Americans up and down the economic ladder. If you ask the average shareholder what they don’t like about corporate America and big business, be prepared to wait at least five minutes for them to finish, and get ready to wipe the saliva off your eyeglasses: Americans are spitting mad right now.* And when seemingly distant and unaware CEOs--the public face of the capitalistic culture--talk over or around the heads of most Americans, you have all the makings of a crisis in corporate credibility.

Linguistically, the first step for corporate America is to stop selling “capitalism.” True, if you happen to be targeting the big winners on Wall Street, that word does have an attractive and positive allure, hence Forbes’s “Capitalist tool” successful tagline to promote the business magazine. But for tens of millions of Americans who either identify with or personify the economic losers in society, the “free market system” has a much less harsh connotation and is much more accessible.

The second step is to drop the word “private” from the corporate lexicon. To most Americans, hearing about “private” markets and “private” offerings conjures up images of private clubs they cannot join, private schools they cannot afford, private jokes they do not get, and private communities that keep them out. Individual consumer privacy is a good thing. Private markets are not.

As with the word “capitalism,” there is a well-defined segment of society that not only appreciates the notion of “private” but will pay more for it. But when it comes to communicating corporate citizenship or enhancing corporate reputation, again the “free market system” wins out. For example, in a poll I took for the pharmaceutical profession (notice I didn’t call it an “industry”) by a two to one ratio, Americans would rather receive their health care from a free market system than a private system. Just a simple shift in a single phrase can and does account for a huge shift in public perception.

And this brings me to two final corporate communication case studies that struck right at the heart of the American economic system. The first had an impact on the millions of unionized service workers that continues to reverberate today. And the second had an impact on tens of millions of shareholders--including most of the readers of this book.

WORDS THAT WORK CASE STUDY: FROM “EMPLOYEE STRIKE” TO “EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION”

Much of my work has been on the corporate side of labor disputes, and it often has involved the service industry. From a supermarket chain that offered its workers a salary plus health care and other benefits that far exceeded nonunion Wal-Mart but still had to endure a lock-out (a phrase that even employees of the company didn’t understand), to the hotel and hospitality industry, which has to suffer through local strikes that are often vicious and occasionally violent, the best strategy to deal with a strike is to utilize the rules of effective communication to prevent it.

Companies need to recognize that the words they use to communicate with their employees in strike situations can be almost as important as the contract provisions themselves. In looming strike situations, silence is death. If you want to know which side is most likely to win public approval, the answer is almost always the side that is communicating more often to the workforce and more frequently through the media. When it comes to labor issues, quantity is almost as important as quality.

The first language lesson is to set the context and accept the fact that most employees start with an anti-company, pro-union bias. Therefore, the corporate side needs to be the first to provide employees with answers to their questions--preferably in writing. Employees tend to accept the arguments of the side that made them first, particularly when they are made with a personal and passionate tone, and a written presentation has more credibility than verbal.

In the strike against the Southern Californian subsidiaries of the supermarket giants Kroger, Safeway, and Albertson’s, the unions dominated the messaging because management made the incredibly stupid assumption that silence was a good communication strategy. When we showed up midway through the strike to help with communication, we were stunned to learn that the employees had absolutely no idea of management’s position. In particular, employees had been convinced by the union that they were losing their free health care when in fact they were only being asked to pay a tiny portion of their premiums. Worse yet, since management at the three supermarket chains had agreed to a communication policy of no communication, they’d turned not just the employees against them but the surrounding community as well. Because of that silence, employees had every right to assume that management “wanted” the strike to “punish” the union, and shoppers had every right to shop elsewhere to punish the striking companies for punishing their employees. Again, for corporations in the midst of controversy, silence = guilt.

True, some companies in some states may find themselves somewhat hamstrung by federal and state labor negotiation laws, but that makes context-setting that much more important. Unions have the initial advantage of “representing” the workforce, and unfettered access to say and do almost anything, but companies can level the playing field by reminding employees that they not only have the power of the paycheck, but they also pay all the benefits that the union takes credit for.

The second language lesson of strike prevention and strike management is to acknowledge that communication goes on twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, and that establishing credibility is a never-ending process. Never, never, never let any union communication go without an immediate rebuttal. A charge made is a charge believed unless and until refuted.

In a looming strike situation with a Denver supermarket chain, the local union boss (who earned that title with his dictatorial behavior) was constantly threatening management not just privately but in the press as well. Behind the scenes, however, management was communicating with the rank and file at a store-by-store and even individual level, responding to every attack with an immediate response. In some cases, the response was so quick and spread so effectively that employees actually found management more credible and responsive to their questions and concerns than their own official union representatives.

A third language lesson is to exceed expectations. Message timing is important. Few things are worse for employee morale than being left in the dark with regard to job-related turmoil. Management should aim for a twenty-four-hour turnaround on personal, one-on-one questions from employees and a forty-eight-hour turnaround to produce written responses to written union communications. Employees expect management to react slowly and deliberately to any union attack or assertion. Exceeding expectations by improving communication turnaround time immediately establishes credibility.

Our work in strike situations allowed us to develop a specific lexicon, a “words that work” dictionary. Companies facing labor action need to keep employees informed by putting out a weekly “Tough Questions: Real Answers” document. Why that title above all others? Since employees assume management will duck the substance, a company that is responsive to the “tough questions” has an advantage. And the “real answers” component is exactly what they want to hear and is more credible than management claiming simple “honesty.”

But written communication is still no substitute for direct dialogue. Some companies call them “roundtables.” We recommend “conversations” because the term suggests a more informal and interactive environment where the “facts” of the dispute can be openly discussed. If you examine some of the major strikes and labor disputes of the past decade, you rarely see management laying out the “facts” behind the conflict. Instead, you hear comments like “what we’re offering is more than fair,” which is not only unpersuasive--it risks coming across as downright arrogant, even obnoxious. No employee who’s on the verge of striking wants to hear that kind of editorializing. It will only harden opposition.

Employing the words-that-work principles, corporations need to communicate with employees in concrete, objective, back-to-basics terms. When talking about health-care benefits, for example, humanize and personalize what the company proposes to spend on each employee by using real statistics from everyday life (for example, comparing the five dollars a week for health care premiums to the cost of two dozen eggs, two gallons of gas, or a single latte at Starbucks) rather than making abstract economic arguments that are harder for individuals or employees to relate to. Similarly, in this era of rising health-care premiums, it is essential for companies to emphasize what they pay for their employees--not just what the employees are required to pay for themselves.

Another mistake companies make is to bash the union leadership when a softer touch would be more effective. We learned early on that beating up on the “union bosses,” even if justified, will quickly turn employees against management. In fact, just that phrase alone says to employees that you fear, disrespect, or are intimidated by the union. That language won’t work in a political campaign, and it will certainly fail in a labor context.

If it does become necessary to go on the attack, it’s crucial for management to draw a bright-line distinction between union “leadership” and union “members.” Unless this distinction is extremely clear, corporate communications will prove counterproductive, offending the people they are trying to influence.

There are three essential statements in labor disputes that allow management to set the tone--and they offer the simplicity and brevity of good communication. The first is aspirational:
“We’re pro-employee and we’re pro-union.”

The second applies the rule of questioning to the discourse, playing on employee doubts and anxieties about what exactly their union is up to and where it’s headed:
“Are you getting value for the dues you’re paying? What do your dues actually pay for? Is your union paying attention to YOUR needs and YOUR priorities?”

And the third applies the rule of personal relevance while undermining labor’s credibility:
“No one wins in a strike...but union leaders continue to get paid. Is that really fair to you?”

This is even more persuasive if the union leaders make astronomical salaries in comparison to union members--which most of them do. The final language lesson, in a word, is more. To win over your employees, emphasize the need for more information, more facts, and a more honest approach.

Applying the results of extensive union opinion research to the ten rules of effective communication, what follows is the appropriate lexicon and the dos and don’ts of management communication to their workforce. Using these words early and often can turn a looming employee strike into employee satisfaction.

PERFECT LABOR DISPUTE LANGUAGE FOR COMPANIES

“THERE ARE GREAT UNION REPS OUT THERE WHO ARE COMMITTED TO OUR EMPLOYEES AND HAVE LONG, SUCCESSFUL RELATIONSHIPS WITH THEM. WE DON’T ALWAYS AGREE ON POLICY, BUT WE WILL ALWAYS LISTEN TO EACH OTHER. BUT UNION LEADERS WHO USE CONFRONTATIONAL TACTICS ARE USUALLY ADVANCING THEIR OWN STANDING AT THE COST OF EMPLOYEES SUFFERING. THERE IS A BETTER WAY.

“Employees deserve representation that will not jeopardize their job stability or ignore the long-term impact of these important decisions. We respect the union leaders’ desire for tough negotiations. But they should also communicate openly and honestly with us and with their employees. After all, your union leaders are paid to do just that.
“We are ready to sit at the table with our local union partners today to find a solution that is fair to our employees and fair to the company as well. We come to this discussion in good faith. We ask only that the union does the same.”

The following linguistic contract negotiation checklist outlines the dos and don’ts of specific words and phrases. This analysis is based on interviews with close to 5,000 union members over the past three years from various economic sectors, but the words will also apply to most employees in most fields. You’ll notice throughout that the language that worked well twenty or thirty years ago has a better alternative today:

THE LANGUAGE OF CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS
DON’T TALK ABOUT...	DO TALK ABOUT...
Peace of mind	Security
Being rewarded	Being valued
Compassion	Fairness
Commitment	Respect, responsibility
Listening to employees	Keeping promises, respecting employees
Finding common ground	Negotiating in good faith
Comprehensive contract	Long-term contract
Balance	Fairness, common sense

DON’T SAY...	DO SAY...
The union is biased.	Full disclosure/ You have a right to hear all sides.
Objective Accurate
Union leaders should not hold local employees hostage over national issues.	Local problems require local solutions.
When a union strikes against a company, it isn’t just hurting the company.	No one wins in a strike.
If the union chooses to strike, [sic] have a legitimate right to stay open.	We will do whatever we can to avoid a strike.
It is the union’s fault, not ours, if the workers have to walk a picket line.	If there is a strike, we will do whatever we can to fulfill our responsibilities to our customers.

Some of this language is absolutely essential, and a few of the words above do conflict with the recommendations in other chapters for important reasons:

Peace of mind is one of the most powerful phrases in the public mind today, but in today’s environment of economic and job anxiety, we put even greater emphasis on security. With employment duration decreasing every year and the media focus on American jobs being outsourced to foreign countries, peace of mind is simply not tangible and explicit enough for the workforce. We want the security of knowing that our job, our paycheck, and our benefits will be there when we need it.

Being rewarded is about financial compensation, and that is obviously important. But being valued transcends dollars and cents. Value is about an employer saying thank you, a colleague expressing appreciation for a job well done, a sense of purpose and belonging. Being valued is a throwback to the days when employees (don’t call them workers any more--a worker is a lower valued job) had a sense of loyalty to their employers because their employers had a sense of responsibility to them.

“Full disclosure” and “you have a right to hear all sides,” and “we want you to read the fine print” are all about giving people all the information they need to make the right decision about their job, their employer, their union, and their contract. Ask employees what they hate most about the period just before a strike vote and they’ll tell you the lack of accurate, unbiased information. The smartest strategic communication decision we’ve seen in the recent history of contract negotiations was when several companies linked their own Web sites right to the union’s Web site. Imagine the surprise, and positive impact, when employers said that their people had the right to see both sides of the contract debate, side-by-side. Companies have learned that if they are willing to provide more information in a more timely fashion than the union--and include what the union is saying in an unbiased manner--employees will come to the company first. And when they see the company is providing more information than the union, it makes them more likely to support the company position.

Excerpted from WORDS THAT WORK by Dr. Frank Luntz (Hyperion, 2007). Dr. Frank Luntz. All rights reserved.

Posted by Rebecca at January 18, 2007 11:51 AM