Donna Morea, president of CGI Group Inc.’s U.S., Europe and Asia business was kind enough to share her thoughts with me on how effective, personal communication by a CEO can make the difference between a successful merger and acquisition and a failed one. You’ll find Ms. Morea’s insights in the latest edition of my column in the Washington Business Journal, Speaking to Rise. (The full text may be locked for a week or two.)

Here’s a sample of what she had to say: “I think it’s mandatory that employees, clients and others hear the voices and see the faces of the executives involved. Interaction with our leadership team gives them the chance not only to hear the message, but to get a true sense of who our executives are and that we mean what we say.”

For the Fourth of July, I wrote a post on the Washington Post’s On Leadership blog about how some leaders (Frederick Douglass and FDR) have been willing to challenge their audiences on a day usually reserved for feel-good rhetoric. l Here are a couple ‘graphs, and you’ll find the rest online.

[G]iven the many challenges the nation faces at home and abroad, you might hear a very different kind of speech this year. Sometimes, a July 4th speaker decides that the times demand something out of the ordinary. He or she tries to lead listeners in a new direction by challenging, not reassuring, them.

One of the most famous examples is the 1852 fourth of July speech by the African American leader Frederick Douglass. He was invited to deliver the traditional address at Rochester N.Y. annual Independence Day celebration.

The latest edition of my column in the Washington Business Journal, Speaking to Rise, focuses on the special challenges facing women executives when they give speeches and presentations. Kathy Clark, CEO of Smarthinking Inc., along with
communications strategists Susan Peterson and Denise Graveline offer observations.

For example, Clark notes that  “Sometimes women fear that because we’re women, if we share personal things, we’ll be perceived as not being professional. In my experience, it’s just the opposite.”

Almost every analyst agrees that a leader, in business or elsewhere, must inspire trust. But not too many folks go on to answer the next question: how can leaders create trustworthiness?

Roderick Kramer, Professor of Organizational Behavior at Stanford’s Business School, does just that in a recent post to the Harvard Business School’s leadership blog, reviewing recent research on the topic.

First, he says, leaders need to credibly communicate that they are genuinely and diligently working for “the well-being and security of their constituents.” Sound obvious, but Kramer quickly adds that good intentions aren’t enough.

The second thing leaders must do is convince people that they are competent. We need to know leaders share our intentions, and they can deliver on them.

Third, leaders must be transparent to earn our trust. That is, “we expect leaders to be transparent about the procedures they use when reaching major decisions, and we expect them to be equally honest and forthcoming about the consequences of those decisions.”

Fourth, and perhaps most surprising, Kramer says  we expect “our leaders to be appropriately vigilant.” Former Intel CEO Andrew Grove liked to say, “Only the paranoid survive, ” because he knew that complacency and inattentiveness could be fatal.

Finally, Kramer says it’s a good thing that trust is fragile – hard to create and easy to lose. Leaders should have to work hard to get it and keep it.

It’s too early to tell whether Chrysler CEO Sergio Marchionne can save that endangered automaker. But it is clear already that he knows how to use speeches to help turn his company around.  A month ago he spoke in New York to the National Automotive Dealer’s Association on (what else) transforming Chrysler. That speech is definitely worth a read – especially because it’s breath of fresh air after all the wease-ly,  responsibility-shirking remarks by Titans of Finance these days.

Marchionne acknowledges his industry’s failures (we “got into businesses we did not know how to run and, in doing so; we created clumsy bureaucracies that impeded innovation in what should have been our core expertise: making cars that consumers want to buy.”) He’s frank about how much Chrysler needs government help.He also lays out specific steps Chrysler is taking to turn things around (more fuel efficient cars, more R&D, better engines, etc) AND he sets out his vision for the revitalized company – (“a profound transformation, both in terms of quality and quantity.”)

One of the things I liked most about the speech is the clever way he addresses one of the biggest questions about the merger – can the conflicting cultures of a European company and an American one really be blended in a way that works?

To take on the skeptics, he does an extended riff on how “Bruce Springsteen showed us the power of change.” It’s not just a throwaway line: he talks about the Boss’s song structure and lyrics in a way that shows he (or his speechwriter) really is a fan. Subliminal message: if this Italian guy knows archetypical American music so well, maybe an Italian firm and an American one can work together to make and sell good cars.