Essential Leader

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

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?