The President as Orator

Oct 24

In an interview that had him reflecting back over his life and political career, Gerald Ford was once asked to name his greatest regret. Said Ford, “I wish I were a better public speaker. I would have liked to be able to communicate more effectively. That is so very important.”

Some presidents are known for their oratory. Two of the 20th century’s great presidential communicators were Franklin Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan, and Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg and Second Inaugural addresses are considered two of the most seminal speeches in US history.

By his own admission, Ford did not belong in this company. He delivered important addresses over the course of his career, but his style was always rather plain – his speeches typically featured short sentences, simple syntax, and few rhetorical flourishes.

Ford held such unpretentiousness in high regard, saying “It is the quality of the ordinary, the straight, the square, that accounts for the great stability and success of our nation. It is a quality to be proud of. But it is also a quality that many people seem to have neglected.”

Everyone – even great orators – might wish to improve their performance as public speakers, but there are good reasons to think that other leadership qualities matter more. These qualities should supersede oratorical wizardry when it comes to selecting a leader, and especially a president.

Consider Jim Collins’ 2001 business bestseller, “Good to Great,” which looks at companies that enjoyed unusually strong performance in the late 20th century, on average outperforming the stock market by many times.

One of Collins’ most remarkable findings concerns the typical profile of a great company’s leader. Most observers would expect such individuals to be charismatic, forceful, master communicators whose personalities dominate their cultures.

In fact, however, Collins found the opposite. He defines what he calls the “level 5 leader.” Level 1 concerns individual capability, level 2 team skills, level 3 managerial competence, and level 4 traditional leadership, but level 5 adds something new and vital.

To understand what level 5 leaders are, it helps to summarize what they are not. They are not attention seekers. They are not celebrities. They are not known for their best-selling, self-aggrandizing autobiographies or their headline-grabbing, outsize compensation packages.

Leaders with huge egos often think more about themselves than the organizations and constituencies they serve. They often regard others as springboards to their own success and hence inherently less important.

By contrast, level 5 leaders are modest and not only do not seek out but actually tend to shun public adoration. They are not constantly shouting, “Look at me! Look at me!” but rather quietly doing their work behind the scenes, keeping attention focused on the mission.

As Collins puts it, level 5 leaders spend relatively little time looking in the mirror and a great deal of time looking out the window, always putting the interests of the company, its people, and the customers it serves above personal success.

Collins points to a level 5 CEO that he labels “the world’s most underpaid,” compared to the value he added to his company. Asked why he refused stock options, this CEO replied, “What incremental value does an extra 100,000 shares have? At some point, you are just satisfying a greed complex.”

The point is not that such leaders eschew ambition. They are very ambitious. But their ambition centers not on their own personal fortunes but those of their companies and their work. You can tell such a leader, Collins argues, by asking, “What are you in it for?”

Above all, Collins emphasizes the trait of humility. Level 5 leaders define themselves not by money, fame, or power, but by the performance of their organizations, whose flourishing constitutes their deep and enduring purpose.

Such outlooks manifest themselves in oratory. As a speaker, Ford was not flashy. He was not a great storyteller. Few reported being enthralled by one of his speeches. Yet Ford at his best kept the focus on what matters most.

On assuming the vice presidency, he admitted, “I am a Ford, not a Lincoln. My addresses will never be as eloquent as Mr. Lincoln’s. But I will do my very best to equal his brevity and his plain speaking.” Such remarks were not for show – Ford truly was an unusually humble public servant.

Ford kept the focus on the country and what is best in it. On becoming president, he remarked, “Our great republic is a government of laws and not of men. Here, the people rule. Let us restore the golden rule to our political process and let brotherly love purge our hearts of suspicion and hate.”

Ford concentrated not on what he could extract from the presidency, but what he aimed to contribute to it. “Having become vice president and president without seeking either, I have a special feeling for these high offices. To me, they are not prizes to be won but a duty to be done.”

Ford was self-effacing and gracious even in defeat. He wrote to Jimmy Carter in 1976, “We must now put the divisions of the campaign behind us and unite the country. I congratulate you on your victory. You have my complete and wholehearted support. May God bless you and your family.”

In retrospect, Ford’s plain spokenness and lack of sophistry represented one of his most endearing qualities. He longed to be able to communicate more effectively, but his manner of speaking conveyed a vital lesson – that no man is greater than the office, and service is always to be prized over self.