Essential Leader

Intent vs. Purpose

Kolp and Rea speak briefly on intentionality on page 181, but is a far bigger concept.  Last Friday and Saturday, I had the privilege of attending a leadership conference held by Oregon PTA.  What struck me in the last couple workshop I attended was the question of intent.  The topic of the workshop was "Effective Practices for PTA Boards."  The facilitator stressed purpose over and over again (which I agree is important), but I believe there should be an equally strong emphasis with the concept of intent.  Purpose is defined as "something set up as an object or end to be attained."  While intent is "the state of mind with which an act is done."  

For example, one woman was frustrated with some of the teachers at her school who left a pricey technological gift unwrapped in the corner.  "They were expensive and now a waste of money," she lamented.  I asked her what her intent was - "to give the teachers a valuable teaching tool."  She laughed when she realized that her intent had been satisfied, but that she could not force the gift to be used. 

Many of the participants of this conference were concerned with meeting attendance and membership increases.  When asked what their purpose was the answer was often "to make parents better parents" or "to raise lots of money for education."   This is all well and good, but one must also question his/her intent within this process.  While they may go hand in hand, quite often they don't.  "Intentionality is our way of stretching between what is and what will be, or could be." (Kolp & Rea, p. 181)  We must honestly and prudently, with wisdom, look within and ask ourselves of our intent.  Purpose will then follow. 

“Time, season, right time”

As I read Kolp & Rea this week, I could not help but reflect on the element of faith that it takes to be temperate. Faith in the Good. I wonder, then, if lack of attention or awareness is also connected to a lack of faith. Maybe faith itself is about presence – now, in the right time.

I also noted that awareness and attention are cultivated in quiet still moments. And without this, life becomes frenetic and lacks the attention to create choice. There is a line on p. 195 about balance vs. juggling that powerfully demonstrates this idea, “balance is different from multi-tasking, which is a kind of juggling. … For the juggler, there can be no rest; to stop is to lose it. Juggling is constant motion. But nothing changes and no difference happens….”

And so, then looking for the virtues – the faithful way of living behind them, it is curious to not that the meaning of Tempus, the Latin root of temperance, has a meditative pulse: time, season, right time. It harkens to the words of Ecclesiastes – all things come to fruition in the right time and season. And according to Kolp & Rea (2006), one must simply be aware and pay attention to how we are using our time, or spending our lives, so that at the right moment we can shift and let the next thing bloom.

If tempus is the root of temperance, then living out the virtue of temperance has the power to bring peace or harmony through choice and ownership. If I reflect on my life, ask questions that provide me with choices, I am able to take more ownership of my everyday actions, their value and meaning in my life.

EI: A Means or an End?

            In their explanation of temperance as a virtue, Kolp and Rea (2009) assert that “The concept of emotional intelligence (EI), the ability to work with people effectively, is a means, not an end” (p. 198). While energized at the connection they made between temperance and emotional intelligence, my mind protested their restriction of EI with this question: Is it only a means and not also an end?

The bone I am picking derives from the same literature they cited, Primal Leadership (my chosen book on leadership). From what I’ve read so far, Goleman Boyatzis, and McKee (2002) affirm that EI incorporates significant physiological processes including highly complex neurological maneuvers. Goleman et al. (2002) explain that “The neural systems responsible for the intellect and for the emotions are separate, but they have intimately interwoven connections” (p. 27). Furthermore, EI can be cultivated over time through thoughtful, intentional practice guided by four domains of practice: self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, and relationship management (Goleman et al., 2002). This suggests that the capacity for EI—physiologically and psychologically—is a potential outcome for everyone.

But Kolp and Rea (2009) clarify their assertion that EI is a means rather than an end by stating that “To be a virtue it must point to the good” (p. 198). This is an important clarification and raises another question: Is the opposite of EI emotional dissonance? It seems to me that both describe a condition one develops. Certainly they are crucial factors determining how or if one expresses either temperance or prudence. As I see it, the development of EI goes beyond its prerequisite role for developing temperance and prudence. But as a stand-alone component of leadership, does EI point to the good?

Willie Smits restores a rainforest

Tonight's topic is Corporate Social Responsibility.

By piecing together a complex ecological puzzle, biologist Willie Smits has found a way to re-grow clearcut rainforest in Borneo, saving local orangutans -- and creating a thrilling blueprint for restoring fragile ecosystems.

This is a great example of what a commitment to the "Triple Bottom Line" can do to create a better world and still enhance the economy.

The Goal of Business is NOT Profit.

"If a clear relationship between responsible corporate behavior and financial performance could be proven, even the devils would get on board" (Kolp and Rea, pg 160).

This assumes, of course, that financial performance is the goal of a business. It's not. It's one of several measurement tools that can be used to evaluate a business's performance, but it is not the goal of a business itself. The goal of a business is to perpetuate itself. The way it does this is by giving its stakeholders what they want.

Kolp and Rea focus on three main stakeholders in a corporation: the shareholders, the employees and the consumers. The shareholders' goal is to make a return on their investment into the corporation. They are giving the corporation their own money (through the purchase of shares) with the expectation of receiving more in return. The employees' goal is based in the exchange of their time for the support of income and benefits. The consumers' goal is to receive the product or service on the most fair terms possible. Each stakeholder's relationship with the corporation is based in an exchange of value given and value received. In order for the corporation to perpetuate itself, it must continue to meet expectations and provide value. If it does not, any one of the stakeholders may pull out of the exchange and put the corporation in jeopardy.

The goal then for the business is not necessarily to make money, but to perpetuate itself by meeting - or exceeding - expectations.

As Kolp and Rea discussed the triple bottom line, and how values are reshaping business, there was a lament in the tone of the discussion that being a "good citizen" in business could not be tied to the bottom line, and therefore, there would always be those who do not get on board when it comes to sustainable practices. However, I disagree.

The changing needs and values of consumers and employees will continue to have a greater and greater impact on the ability of a corporation to perpetuate itself. Consumers are paying more attention to where their products and services are coming from, and what type of neighbor that business is within its community. Many are choosing to purchase from more sustainable organizations. Employees are also reshaping the corporate landscape. As individuals search for more meaningful employment, corporations are loosing high quality people to their competitors when the values don't match. The cost of NOT acknowledging the triple bottom line is the loss of market share as well as valuable assets in the form of quality employees. 

Shareholders will still expect a return, and so the financial benchmarks of profit and loss remain intact as measurement tools. However, as consumer and employee values shift, so to must the level of quality of the corporation itself shift in order to continue to meet its own goal of staying alive and perpetuating itself into the future.

What strikes me as one of the biggest problems with corporate responsibility as out-lined in Leading with Integrity, Kolp and Rea, is the trickle down aspect of corporate policies. My years as a retail clerk with Meier & Frank left me responsible and accountable for circumstances way out of my control. They had a credit application mandate – for every 4 hours I worked, I was expected to solicit customers to apply for a store credit card. My reviews and raises were directly tied into this policy. I found many moral and ethical problems with selling a credit card with an interest rate of at least 22%. There were managers who encouraged soliciting teens and non-English speaking people as “they don't understand what you are saying and will fill out the form.” I was reprimanded and threatened with a “write-up”once for throwing out an application when the non-English speaking customer conveyed to me she didn't understand the form she was filling out. Although I was an exceptional employee with complete customer satisfaction, I was consistently denied the full raise I deserved as I refused to adhere to this policy.
So where does that leave the peon forced to carry-out corporate policies? The Brass at this company boasted of integrity and commitment to people with a subtle behind the scenes money maker. I resisted and paid the price. Yes, I could quit, and eventually did, but my economic situation dictated I work there. This retail corporation used Machiavellian cynicism and greed to ensure those without power carry out their unethical policies. Corporations are able to veil some of their more unethical and corrupt policies by removing their accountability with the blanket “we cannot be responsible for individual store policies.” How does one take a stand without a title?

The Importance of Transparency, Perfect or Not

There is a battle going on today, raging in front and behind the scenes, for who is running the ultimate show, humanity or the corporation. Today, it is the corporation who holds the most money, power and decision-making authority. As such, companies have the greatest impact on life on Earth (read: well-being on Earth), more than any government or religious institution. If you question that statement, see the documentary “The Corporation” and it will become crystal clear. As 1st world companies have spent the past couple hundred years solely motivated by shareholder wealth, it is no surprise that all other areas of focus took a backseat. Today humanity is demanding a recalibration to respect all living things and the Earth, in addition to making a profit. We see this represented by consumer demand for “corporate responsibility” and “sustainable” business practices. One challenge faced, however, is that “the term corporate responsibility has no widely accepted definition, so how can we achieve a fuzzy objective” (Kolp & Rhea, 2006, p. 155)? The same holds true for sustainability, which may have even more interpretations than corporate responsibility. While this is unfortunate and messy, vision and language uncertainty are common during radical paradigm shifts such as this. As the saying goes, what gets tracked gets measured, and what gets measured gets done, so what is most important now is not to demand complete interpretative consistency, only that every business put their corporate responsibility stake in the ground, and then track, measure and communicate against it. Because “a transparent world will expose imposters” (Kolp & Rhea, 2006, p. 151) and even if the definition of imposter varies, we still know a moral swindler when we see one.

Motives, Results and Training

Kolp and Rea in Leading with Integrity says that Thomas Aquinas believes that leaders are “teachers of virtue and caretakers of human needs” while aiming for “continuing improvement within themselves” and the people they serve “by cultivating and exhibiting high moral standards” (p. 152). I believe this is very true. I once had a boss who I considered, by Kolp and Rea’s standards, an average leader. He cared about his people and was very training focused, but he couldn’t get the results that his bosses wanted. So he was stuck in middle management position and had no prospects of moving beyond that. His motives and intentions were always good, but his results and consequences were lacking. My boss wanted his people to feel proud of their work and be at the top of their game. That required less “productive time” and more “training and learning time.”

Something I think Kolp and Rea failed to acknowledge was the fact that employees desire more educational training as a benefit. Whether it be direct payment for school, partial reimbursements, or confirmation that education will help them in their path within the organization, doing this will help the corporations attract a higher quality pool of talent.  Acknowledging this adds value to the company and I believe would help in making the company a learning organization. To attract top talent corporations will have to be open to what the employees want. They have to have a more circular approach in their management style rather than a top down atmosphere. Top talent will not accept top down approach and they want to be heard and want opportunities to learn and grow.  

The price we pay for...

Sunday’s Oregonian had two pieces that struck me as relevant to the chapter on Leadership and Corporate Responsibility in Kolp and Rea’s work (2006). One was a public review – question of integrity – of the “double-dipping” practices of the state treasury. The other was an editorial on socially responsible investing and it very wittily it began with the story of a woman choosing how to invest – an epidemiologist whose grandfather had made money selling tobacco and candy. Her comment was that she now needed to invest responsibly, to make up for the past.

So, how does this relate to Corporate Responsibility and the triple bottom line? Can we “make up for” our behaviors or practices as individuals and corporations, or is the impact made and the rest is compensation. Is a bit of green here or human rights there or good benefits here enough… when we sell foods that deteriorate health or have practices for profit that take advantage of others? Or a more complex question, even if our positioning is relatively clear, what if the motivation for that positioning is all economic advantage? And how does a company truly add value – that works for the employees, shareholders and customers?

 

As consumers, we are paying more attention to the power of our money to shape the world. Corporations are beginning to pay attention – although, the question of corporate integrity is at stake. These are not easy-answer-issues.  The one thing that is clear is that it matters how we treat each other and the world – whether as individuals or as corporations. And, that the exchange of dollars is a voice in that equation.

What defines success?

In reading chapter 8, “Leadership and Corporate Responsibility” in Kolp & Rea (2006), the kernel that jumps out at me is the question of success in terms of corporate strategy. In a very practical sense, profit is the initial answer to this question, as it is the immediate gratifier of business. What is lacking here is the systems thinking lens that includes the impetus and the outcome together into process analysis.
I wonder, if a piece of the puzzle here in reframing business successes to include citizenship is found in training self-awareness and values lead-leadership into corporate training as a way to allow individuals to get clear on their own interpretation of success. What if an unexamined population in terms of their own definitions of success is what is holding back the evolution of progressive corporate business practices?
If a corporation can only be as strong as its weakest member, then all members who operate with an unexamined measure of success can alter the course of the business practices. Tacit knowledge bases vested in profit as the only measure of success will inadvertently drive pure profitability in lieu of holistic business practices. So, what if the beginning of solving this pickle is to start at the individual level in training self-examination, values-lead leadership and a revised measure of success to organizational members. Then, citizenship can begin at the individual level and spread outward to the whole organization.