I believe that one of the most challenging problems facing today´s business leaders is finding the right balance between the devolution of power to so-called autonomous units within a corporation and the exercise of power and decision making at headquarters. While I agree that any corporation should embrace `principle-based`leadership (in most cases just paying lip-service to a mission statement will be detected by the media sooner or later anyway).

However, I see a problem in the simple fact that the bigger a corporation is, the less the right hand knows what the left hand does.

Another issue would be that many global corporations did not manage to sign the UN´s Global Compact, or signed only parts of it.

My question therefore would be: Is the cost of risking to have your reputation ruined by only paying lip-service to a mission statement actually less than investing in the kind of reputation you talk about? And if the answer to this question is `yes`, what would entice a corporation to a) streamline its (probably) international subsidiaries to adhering to this `social` mission statement and b) spending additonal money on community building?

While doing research for a Gettysburg Address article, I clicked to your site.

You fellas really need to read for background. Consider the question that brought folks to such a point that they were wanting none of the solutions offered them by business or government.

The people wanted a proper wage for what they did, a claim on what they created, and their birth right which might include the natural resources of the cave they were born in. Slaves in the worse conditions had food, shelter and a good master provided them half a day to do their own bidding. All they were ever really robbed of was their culture, personal will, identity and self determination. Their dignity.

The principle Lincoln realized was in conflict with the powers of his day was that of liberty. Most focused on the right to own property. Industrialist wanted slaves, mechanical ones were best, but those made of flesh would do also. Production for profit was the goal, competition was the only obstacle they wish to be challenged by. The sky was the limit.

The only thing different now is the world is the limit.

Lincoln once Driver has not implemented the disconnect_all method. at C:/Perl/site/lib/DBI.pm line 565
END failed--call queue aborted.
observed that if all the same forces come together, what happened before is sure to happen again.

Same story, different day. This time will we be wise enough to consider the larger questions of all humanity, or we will suffer for it again. You speak of a purpose to build brand, community, benefit, energy, unfiltered communication, and most of all trust. Trust is a good word. So is integrity.

Lincoln was recognized for his integrity. It was his only tool. He didn't have but a single year of formal education. He was an observer and thinker who never claimed to have all the answers, but how clever he was. He didn't have answers, he recognized them.

He chose what was right, whether or not he would profit by it. Fortune was destiny.

The 1860 election had four presidential tickets. Every one of the gentleman had 20 years plus experience in governing. All but one had been aligned with or authors of two or more fixes to the pressing problem. Not a one of them had defined it properly. Each one had spent their political capital on at least one act, a resolution, compromise, doctrine, law, movement, or policy measure. They had press releases, speeches, debates, campaign slogans, and cartoons. All they accomplished is tighter wound spring.

Lincoln won. Then the real work began.

If it's not of the people there is no desire for it, if not for the people there will be no function to it, and if not by the people there will be no value in it.

Define desire. Observe. Think.

If you can't do that, then try not to do harm.

Sandy

Sandy
Thanks for your posting
I was just in Gettysburg with my kids this week Met a fantastic man, Prof. Gabor Boritt, a Lincoln scholar I asked him about Lincoln and slavery Why the Emancipation Proclamation applied only to the slave states, not to the border states Prof Boritt said that Lincoln exercised his wartime powers to implement the Emancipation Proclamation That he did not have the power to free the slaves in border states in 1863 because they were not in rebellion Then Lincoln pushed the 13th amendment to the Constitution to free the slaves forever as the Civil War neared its end He understood the need to bring along the people and that the Emancipation Proclamation would create "facts on the ground" that would create the conditions for easy acceptance of the 13th Amendment Thought you might be interested

Richard,

Yes, that is interesting. We have a tendency not to look for the rest of the story. That's why we need professors who are dedicated to doing it for us.

Northern industrialist were likely no more interested in the 13th than were the Southerners.

Every industrious adventurer wanted the railroads. The westward lines were build by cheap labor. I cannot imagine the backbreaking labor that must have been. Nor can I imagine those workers were paid much better than slaves.

Lincoln is remembered for the Emancipation Proclamation. Yet when we look close it was his railroad clients who pushed his nomination and supported his campaign. It was their interest he served. Which is not to say the others might not have done similarly, but as we can see by all their efforts leading up to the campaign, the topic was their focus. Lincoln was the only candidate who did not have a promised solution. He continued to say it was such a large question that only the people would actually settle it.

I wonder what he thought of prejudice. He expressed it himself often admitting that he believed a Black man not to be equal to a White. I think he was referring to socially equal, not necessary equal in wit or strength. He obviously believed they deserved equal protection under the Constitutional law. The law is what he had a keen sense about.

Sandy,

I asked leading Lincoln scholar Gabor Borit about this very question--why Lincoln was not a more open supporter of racial equality early in the Civil War. Borit says Lincoln had a keen sense of the political temperature of the country and that Lincoln had to do this at the "right time". Not a justfication, just an explanation. Borit is at Gettysburg College if you want to reach him.

Richard

Richard,
It would be very interesting to know a scholar's opinion. I've studied Lincoln and the events, but not nearly to the detail I'm sure he has.
My experience in politics and parliamentary law has brought me to a new understanding of Lincoln. I consider him most rare among presidents in that he recognized the will of the people was a force no one could stop. To attempt to avoid war was going to lead to more division. There were constant outbreaks of criminal type events against slaves and slave owners. Every question in the Congress and Senate was colored by the question. Thoughout the debates and his presidency, Lincoln consistantly stated that it would be the people who would decide if the contest would be settled by fighting it out. Equal to that opinion seemed to be his recognition of the US Constitution which recognizes the people as the ultimate assembly of deliberators.

I agree the best he could do was use timing as a tool to make the best of a bad situtation.

Sandy