Address to the Helsinki Women's Business Leaders Summit

From my vantage point, I must say that the precedents you have set, the work you have already accomplished, resonate deeply. It is as though many of the general statements I make about opening new channels of dialogue, exploring common ground, and above all, building foundations of trust, have snapped into focus.

What kind of women start their own company or enterprise? Very brave women. I would never have dared. I always chose big companies with their structures in place. I could walk into the office of the CEO of the largest packaged-goods company in the world undaunted.

But if someone told me that I'd have to find some office space, set up a phone system, unravel the mystery of computers, I would have fled in fright. And gamble my own money? Never.

There's another reason, however, why people start their own companies -- this I learned from men who did it -- no one would hire them.

Some great companies are built that way, where the focus is on the struggle to survive. The founders have their own vision -- as well as a darker side: They couldn't tolerate anyone else's views. But the minute your company gets to be more than one -- or beyond the devoted start-up team -- you face new challenges.

At that point, you need to master the two C's: collaborating and communication. Let's take the last one first. The first stage of communicating is to speak up. Remember when you left the room because someone said what you were thinking? This you cannot afford. So think ahead about what you might want to say -- and say it.

And as you formulate or articulate your policy or views, remember that you are the message as well as the messenger. The two are never separate.

For example, how can we achieve the ambitious goal of reaching the young? And who will be the messenger? Fortunately for us, our own Secretary of State is world-renowned and liked and so comfortable and confident that he could be a superior messenger in a situation many officials would run from. So in February of 2002, Secretary Powell appeared live on MTV to take on any all questions in two hours.

Secretary Powell tackled everything -- from AIDS in Africa to the U.S. as a "destroyer' -- with a television studio audience of young people, about 75 in Washington and 190 in studios in six other cities around the world – Cairo, London, Milan, Moscow, New Delhi, and Sao Paulo – and a viewing audience of some 375 million globally.

[A portion of Secretary Powell's appearance on MTV on February 14, 2002 was shown.  Following is the transcript of the excerpt.]

MR. NORRIS: Mr. Secretary, we're going to check in with our London studios for our first question from there from a young person standing by with Edith. Edith.

MS. BOWMAN: Thanks, John. Yeah, we have Edith here who has our first question from the U.K. She is from Norway. Edith, what's your question?

QUESTION: Hi. Hello, Mr. Secretary.

SECRETARY POWELL: Hello, Edith.

QUESTION: I'm wondering, when I talk to my friends about the U.S., we think about how do you feel about representing a country commonly perceived as the Satan of contemporary politics?

SECRETARY POWELL: Seen as what?

QUESTION: As the Satan of contemporary politics.

SECRETARY POWELL: Satan? Oh. Well, I reject the characterization. Quite the contrary. I think the American people, the United States of America, presents a value system to the rest of the world that is based on democracy, based on economic freedom, based on the individual rights of men and women. That is what has fueled this country of ours for the last 225 years.

I think that's what makes us such as draw for nations around the world. People come to the United States. They come to be educated. They come to become Americans. We are a country of countries, and we touch every country, and every country in the world touches us.

So, far from being the Great Satan, I would say that we are the Great Protector. We have sent men and women from the armed forces of the United States to other parts of the world throughout the past century to put down oppression. We defeated Fascism. We defeated Communism. We saved Europe in World War I and World War II. We were willing to do it, glad to do it. We went to Korea. We went to Vietnam. All in the interest of preserving the rights of people.

And when all those conflicts were over, what did we do? Did we stay and conquer? Did we say" "Okay, we defeated Germany. Now Germany belongs to us? We defeated Japan, so Japan belongs to us"? No. What did we do? We built them up. We gave them democratic systems which they have embraced totally to their soul. And did we ask for any land? No, the only land we ever asked for was enough land to bury our dead. And that is the kind of nation we are. So, far from being the Satan, I think we are the protector of a universal value system that more and more people are recognizing as the correct value system: democracy, economic freedom, the individual rights of men and women to pursue their own destiny. That's what we stand for, and that's what we try to help other countries achieve as well.

There is another important principle of communication: "It's not what you say, it's what they hear." This lesson is one we keep learning. In November 2001, we tried to portray the consequences of terrorism, so we experimented with "what we wanted to say."

These posters were drafted quickly for use in a Lebanon focus group that had already been scheduled.

Caption Reads "Terrorism Has No Future: Over 7,000 lives were lost to terrorism last year. Over 2,000 of them were children."

Caption Reads: "Terrorism Has No Future: The lifespan of a human being is 68 years.The lifespan of a terrorist is 28 years."

The stimulus looked good to me, but the response was: "I see pictures like this every day." (Death has no shock value.) "What one person calls a terrorist, another person calls a freedom fighter."

With this wake-up call, we then moved to encompass a broader view of the toll of terrorism, and a clearer definition that terrorists build nothing – and are willing to murder innocents.

The point is that even you, the founder, the visionary of a company or organization cannot get away with just talking at people. Simply informing is not enough, if only because we can't rely on the openness and neutrality of our audiences.

The communications process, unfortunately, is not a simple three-state process: "speaker-message-listener."

The message is actually moving two ways simultaneously. It's your stimulus and their response. Audiences, or listeners, insist on adapting your message to their history, their point of view, their closely held passions, myths, biases. So the three steps become four: "speaker-stimulus-response-listener."

Here at the State Department, where our mission is to inform and influence, we have to accept the relative indifference and potential bias of the intended audience – or even their hostility. This means changing the end of the telescope that you've been peering through. Instead of shouting to get out your message, you focus on the response you wish to evoke -- it's not what you say, but the response you desire.

Focusing on the desired response brings you to the threshold of persuasion. This orientation is considerably less self-focused. We do adapt our policies and statements to our many constituencies. It happens every day out in the field, and our diplomats are very skilled at doing this one-on-one.

Still, it's not that easy to accomplish a desired response one-on-one, much less on a broad scale. Almost every novel, story, debate, and political process deals with how often these interactions go wrong. We are constantly trying to strike that balance between what you think you are communicating and the actual response you get from your audience.

So how can you discover enough about them to gather the proper response? Well, how do you do it with the men in your life? You know them, oh-so-well . . . too well?  You must know the subject audience so well you can "walk in their shoes."

Don't fail by failing to communicate -- with your partners or your customers. Learn what they feel, how they function. Gather input everywhere. And as you gather customers, know and live those customers' lives. That's the secret of Ray Kroc, who founded McDonald's, or Thomas Watson of IBM. And it's the key to the work of our overseas embassies.

Watch out for people who are making products for themselves. Consumer research is both art and science. It has to be done by a sensitive expert. In the early days, that's you. Later, the role becomes a critical hire -- by the way, always try to hire people better than you are.

Now a word about that other "C" -- collaboration. All natural leaders – like myself in the 5th grade – do not like collaboration. But what a magnifier the ability to collaborate is. My greatest lessons in collaboration have come here at the State Department. President Bush and Secretary Powell (and many others) worked literally around the clock to amend, moderate, harness the forces necessary to achieve UN Security Council Resolution 1441 on Iraq.

Two months ago, such a resolution was almost unthinkable. What does that take? A recognition that the end goal is large. Constant dialogue knits the collaboration in place. In the 2-month march leading up to the UNSC resolution, Secretary Powell made 150 phone calls to various foreign ministers and met directly with his counterparts in 100 separate meetings. The amazing thing -- given the anxiety, cynicism, and doubt surrounding this collaboration, and with the world watching -- is that the vote was 15 yeas and no nays.

Everything we do in public diplomacy at State is the result of collaboration. We ask Pakistani journalists to come over and see for themselves. We used our TV Co-Op program to give them the equipment to do simultaneous transmission. We crossed our fingers that the real U.S. would emerge.

We ensured that the TV crews had genuine access to senior officials – meaning interviews with Secretary Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary Armitage, and USAID Director Natsios. They were able to travel freely and develop features on the Pakistani community, Pakistani victims of the World Trade Center attack, and the Islamic Center in Baltimore.

Each feature was uploaded by satellite for immediate broadcast in Pakistan. This is coverage of a live broadcast of a Pakistani journalist interview with the world's most talented diplomat . . . this five-year-old Muslim girl.

[Read the transcript of the TV Co-op clip or view clip formated for DSL/cable or dial-up modem, or listen to the audio-only file.]

Equally important, I think, the Pakistan TV crew themselves were moved by the intensity of their experience and their interaction, which no amount of technology can replicate, and which has an unseen but powerful multiplier effect. The sum can be larger than the parts.

On the anniversary of 9/11, we wanted to encourage the world not to forget -- because for all of us the war on terrorism is by no means over.

Our public affairs bureau, in constant dialogue if not constant harmony with cynical reporters, a film, Covering Catastrophes, of reporters themselves describing their reactions to 9/11. This film reached two audiences. First, we made it available to working journalists overseas who identified strongly with their colleagues captured on camera. Second, the public affairs professionals in our embassies provided the film to local television stations for broadcast to foreign publics in countries all over the world.

African journalists in Dar-es Salaam, Tanzania, who had covered the terrifying Al-Qaeda embassy bombing in 1998 were amazed by the film, which echoed their own experiences. It aired in Africa, Jamaica, and in our embassies in Kuwait, Dublin, Kabul, Beirut, Budapest, among other places – carrying a nonpolitical message of humanity. That's collaboration.

The lessons of collaboration hold true for you as well. Draw in on every point along the line of delivery to your customer. Befriend the broker, the distributor, and the store outlet.

Here at State, that's the work of the regional bureau with in-depth expertise on the region and its governments. There's the field -- embassy to you -- where Ambassador Bonnie McElveen-Hunter would tell me a thing or two if we were on the wrong track. There's the Justice Department, who doesn't like it if we get sued.

There are the foreign governments and the people.

All these players were on the scene when we launched mini-documentaries intended to talk about religious tolerance through the eyes and ears of Muslims living in America.

In preparation for out documentary series, we looked at the widespread misperceptions that are deeply held in the often hostile Muslim-majority countries. The following are examples of some of the common statements made in local media and sermons in influential mosques in the region:

Our polls show a long and growing belief that the U.S. is anti-Islam. Across all nine countries surveyed by Gallup, respondents at the 50% level and above feel that:

• U.S. does not have a positive or significant concern for the Muslim world nor learning about Arab/Muslim issues.
• West makes few attempts to communicate or to create cross-cultural bridges.

In December 2001, the Congressional Research Service concluded: "For many years a widespread perception among Muslims in the Middle East that U.S. society is fundamentally alien if not hostile to Islamic beliefs and values. A perception that is not confined to militant clerics; rather, it is shared by large numbers of people in the region."

No meaningful dialogue can start without addressing this deeply held belief. To dislodge such strongly held biases, we need to:

• Attain new information,
• Provide it in a relevant manner, and
• Deliver it through a credible source.

Few things are as emotional as a clutched-to-the-chest belief, so we cannot simply assert we are not anti-Islam. When President Bush visited the mosque several days after 9/11, that message was heard. It was an act of respect and support.  But we need ways to sustain the attention.  So, first, we look for a way to build a bridge. What do we have in common?

At first glance, some of our value ratings are far apart. For example, Saudi Arabia ranks "modesty" as its 6th most important value in their society; the U.S. ranks "modesty" 40th. Saudi Arabia ranks "obedience" 36th. Yet "freedom" is ranked 3rd by the U.S., but only 25th by Saudi Arabia and 37th by Indonesia.

Hence, relaying a message on "freedom" may work in the USA, but it will probably not resonate with the Arab world. But the good news is that there are very significant values that these two cultures do have in common: faith, family, and learning. Both countries ranked them as 3rd in their top six values, with "family" 1st for the U.S. and "faith" 1st for Saudi Arabia.

Can we communicate that we care about faith in our country, that religious tolerance is fundamental to us, in such a way that "they hear us?"

Well, we can if we ask Americans who are Muslims to do the speaking.

[A video clip was then shown. View the clip formated for DSL/cable or dial-up modems, listen to the audio-only file, or read the transcript.]

[After the end of the video clip] The elites and government preferred the head of the National Institutes of Health, Dr. Zerhouni. The regular folks liked the baseball game.

Every single one of the participants affected the final product and plan. And you know what: they all get a vote. Because collaborating on sending messages from one culture to another is complex. But it's an elegant goal – this building of bridges.

We also prepared stories for newspapers with a way to respond or to order this beautiful book, with its own response page:

The responses were, as expected, extremely mixed.

[For example,] GEO TV, Pakistan: After running clips of the mini-documentaries and reporting on the goals of the project, the news anchor noted that this was an effort to show how well Muslims are treated in the U.S., "But we all know that the reality is different."  We have to remember that our purpose was to engage in dialogue about Muslims in American and religious tolerance. In this respect, we succeeded.

Since the launch, the program has received a tremendous amount of earned media in the Muslim world: Debates on the initiative appeared on a number of international broadcast outlets, with clips from the mini-documentaries and frank discussion. Outside groups and individuals are asking for copies of the material so they could engage in a dialogue about American values and policy. Europe, Africa, and Asia have asked for customized materials that our embassies will work to place in their countries.

Often, our embassy people are the pioneers, supporting the aspirations of people for the universal values of human rights and freedom.  Three decades ago, we struggled to define and protect human rights in a divided Europe where such rights and freedoms were frequently in peril. Today – in a Europe united, whole, and free – you are putting freedom to work.

And when we work to free women -- whether from the constraints of society or the limits they impose on their own sense of self-worth -- we aren't doing anyone any favors, we are unlocking new worlds of opportunity, growth, and innovation for all.

We no longer need to indulge in the stereotypical debate – the familiar variations of Dr. Dolittle's complaint -- "Why can't a woman be more like a man?" Nevertheless, in my experience, women do bring strengths of perception, relationships, networking, and communication that are both distinctive and vital.

We can look at the role of women in the corporate context that is our chief focus here today -- and see that we can indeed open, or shatter, the various glass ceilings our there -- depending on your metaphorical or ideological preferences.

But if we step back and look at the prospects for freedom and opportunity in the larger world, we discover other truths about the empowerment of women. Certainly women's empowerment has been an important element in our Administration's public diplomacy efforts to combat terrorism and open new channels of communication and dialogue with the Arab and Muslim world. There is no more eloquent images of liberation from the tyranny of terrorism than the sight of women who could once again walk the streets of Afghanistan -- and send their children, especially their girls, to schools that lacked everything except hope.

Every study shows that education -- especially of girls -- provides the highest rate of return of any investment among developing nations. Why? Because we know that when we educate a girl, we improve the health of women and families. We know that a woman who has had even a single year of education has children that have a better chance of living. We know that as the years of schooling increase, the chances of a child living and living well increase as well.

Furthermore, when we educate a girl, we decrease poverty by helping women support themselves and their families. A single year of education usually correlates with an increased income of 10 to 20 percent for women later in life.

Let me conclude by wishing that all of you have found something you love to do. It's not always that way. Advertising -- the business of ideas, creative people, fascinating customers and their stories -- that was the life for me.  But at my retirement luncheon extolling just that -- the joy of it all -- a young woman left the luncheon – and quit.  She said, "I'll never feel that way."

Well, my luck is still holding.  I'm in a tremendous learning curve. I'm working with Secretary Powell, who teaches me something every week about his generous leadership.  And now I've been given a chance to give something back.  Thank you.