Essential Leader

Barack Obama: a 21st Century Leader

We stand at the beginning of the 21st century facing a time of incredible change, increasing complexity and worldwide challenge. The extent of the issues and the intricacy of their interrelatedness demand a caliber of leadership not easily found yet necessary for humanity to move safely through the 21st century and beyond. What is needed in the 21st century are enlightened leaders who can guide civilization to a secure destination. A 21st century leader is one who leads with both competence and character; one with the experience and knowledge to understand the topics they are responsible for, and the courage, faith, justice, prudence, temperance, love and hope to wield it responsibly (Kolp & Rhea, p. 20).

In considering one of the most visible leaders of the 21^st century, Barack Obama has shown a number of traits that match a more 21st century style. Perhaps most notably is his ability to provide a vision for change that inspires hope, faith, connection and service.  In a BusinessWeek article describing Obama’s first trip to Europe, it said that he “inspired by actively listening, acknowledging, relating, confronting, setting boundaries, and defining an inescapable future — and in that sequence. He did not favor the new at the expense of the old; he did not favor friends at the expense of others; he was more concerned with impact than results. Obama impressed by listening to the arguments and demonstrating how much he knew of the issues on the agenda and how interested he was in understanding them. He solicited reactions to counterarguments that he offered and also took personal notes” (Mourkogiannis, April 24, 2009).

While this is not a description of “action” in the traditional sense – no war was won or deal signed – the abilities to listen, understand, respect, share, enlighten and inspire are the oil that greases the machine to get there. It's this nuance that we need in our leaders to successfully face this new era of change, challenge and opportunity.

show me the... capital...?

 

I love the simplicity of the four questions to creating value or building worthiness that are offered in Kolp & Rea’s book, Leading with Integrity (2006). These value-laden questions guide us as we become better human beings in the world, whether our world is career, home, social. As we progress to become better leaders by being aware, paying attention and taking action we also can progress by asking ourselves to do the following: reflect, be compassionate, act for social justice, and learn from mistakes.

It is such a simple idea that as we are better in the way we relate to others, more socially capable, grounded and “good” (as in value-filled, worthy) so it goes that our influence and outcomes in the world increase. Ironically, simple is not always the most modeled and practiced. I love to think that we could move to developing individuals – leaders – who invest in social capital as a first step in building effective “capital” making.

This definitely strikes home for me, as I had a relative who truly was an entrepreneurial genius. His ideas were bound to make money – and they always did, ultimately, for someone else. The reason he was never successful was due to his lack of integrity in the way he did business and treated other people.

And so, maybe as human beings, we really are looking for leaders and business people who can show us the capital (social!)… because that’s what counts.

Was Hitler a Leader?

            As I considered who to take a closer look at as a leader, many inspirational and high quality leaders went through my mind. I considered exploring the styles of Caroline Myss, Ghandi, the Dali Lama, and many others. But there was a conversation that kept coming back to me and had me stuck: Hitler. In class, we had been discussing how one’s values make such a difference in their leadership style. What I got stuck around was: how someone like Hitler, who truly followed his convictions, could create such devastation? How could someone so horrific in history be considered a leader? I decided to pursue the answer to my own question.

            So much of it depends on how one defines what leadership is. There are many different styles, and there are those who are successful and those who are not. There are also situational leaders, and then there are those who seem to be able to lead no matter where they are. Leadership, it seems, rests not on one specific definition, but on a continuum – making room for someone like Hitler to be included.

            The complex circumstances of the times that allowed him to come into power are incredible, but like it or not, he was a leader. In my mind however, he was a failed leader of catastrophic proportions. If there is value to what he did, it was to show us how not to be as leaders. May history never repeat itself!

~LC

Temperance vs. Taking a Stand

    Kolp and Rea’s (2009) discussion of temperance is a valuable one. Learning how to manage one’s own behavior can make the difference between a huge success and a disastrous failure at times. Most of the time, it’s a cumulative effect however; the making of our reputations.

    At the same time, leadership is also about knowing when to take a stand – and pushing something to the extreme if need be. How does this fit in with temperance?

    I believe tempering one’s own behavior is the internal guide-post that allows a good leader to determine when to push and when to back off. If one has practice at tempering the extremes, it becomes easier to discern the subtleties of a situation that allow for taking a stand. It also makes the stand itself more meaningful as it is recognized as not part of one’s usual behavior – and therefore it must really matter. On the flip side, without the discipline of temperance, one’s reputation for jumping to the extremes could undermine an attempt at taking a real stand when it’s needed.

    Temperance then, becomes not only a way to modify one’s behavior and check one’s decision making process, but also serves to build one’s reputation as a solid, dependable individual.

    Is there a time though when temperance could get in the way? I admit, I struggle a bit with this one in that I see the value of it, but also feel within myself a desire to push the limits at times.

~LC

When Leadership Calls

In our last class I raised the issues of fairness and expectations when “leadership is thrust onto a person”, and I found myself back on it in chapter nine’s topic of prudence.  Kolp and Rea makes a great analogy with a quote from John Climacus, “when we draw water from a well, it can happen that we inadvertently also bring up a frog” (p. 178).

Even though the authors were trying to make the frog an analogy for vice, I took that the frog could be a “role”. You see, yes life is full of grays and vices do come with virtues, however there are times where certain roles come as part of the virtue package.  Leadership is not something taken, but given.  When people come to you for advice, mentoring, guidance, and counseling, I see it as an acknowledgement of yourself as a leader.  Perhaps that’s the purpose of servant leadership, stepping up when the occasion calls on you to be a leader.

Now I’m not saying the leadership role is something permanent, because we have already discussed that leadership is hardly ever a lifelong position, and in fact it can be seen as a borrowed or rented position.  No, what I’m saying is that leadership can be exercised through intention individual choices. For example, perhaps in a meeting there is an option that is morally right, but goes against the culture or the politics of certain individuals in the organization.  No one is stepping up to discuss the undiscussable out of fear.  If you speak up, because it’s the right thing to do, you may just by speaking give others the courage to do the same.  One small act of leadership has the potential for positive change.

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.