While making the presentation, I recalled that event of a bus of Hispanic tourists in which the tour guide has to prevail, and says to the tourists of the bus: "If you please shut up, you can hear the rumble of Niagara Falls.”
I am fully aware of being the last obstacle between you and freedom and, after such a full day, I will try to be reasonably light.
When one intervenes after so many illustrious speakers, I feel what the eighth husband of Elizabeth Taylor must have felt, who said to her: "I know what I should do, but I do not know if I will measure up".
In any case, and after the generous presentation, I beg you to drastically reduce expectations, because frustration is the distance between expectations and achievements; you will leave less frustrated with the less expectation you have.
And, before entering the subject, a few notices.
First, one thing that I remembered this morning listening: Do you know what a person who speaks two languages is called? Bilingual. A person who speaks three languages? Trilingual. And a person who speaks only one language? North American, with all affection.
Now the warnings are coming. The first is that I love to recommend books. I consider that any person should be a "lion,” they should read a lot; [TRANSLATOR NOTE: In Spanish, the word león, meaning lion, is used here jokingly to mean a person who reads a lot, given that the suffix –ón is used as an augmentation to the word leer, meaning to read] and just by mistake, the great books are in the bookstores of the airports. Throughout this time I am going to try to recommend to you, 4 or 5 books of which I consider fundamental; the last of them was written in the sixteenth century.
The other warning is what I intend with my work. I worked in multinational, I lived 10 years outside of Spain, then I had my own company, and later, by the advice of my father, may he rest in peace, those advices that dads give, he said: "Why do you dedicate yourself to sell things, if what you like is to study? You like to investigate; you like to deal with people."
And I sold my company, and in these last, almost 25 years, I have been working with management teams in different countries of the world, so far in some 50 countries around the world: In America, from Canada to Chile; I'm missing El Salvador, Nicaraguas, and Honduras; in the rest of the countries, I enjoyed it.
In my work, I was telling you, I try to do something I learned in a Spanish city. You have Argentines in America, we have those in Bilbao. Do you know that conversation of an Argentine with his son? Are there any Argentines here?
The Argentine says to his son: "Hey, kid, what do you want to be when you grow up?"
And the kid says: "Dad, me, like you."
And dad says: "How so?"
And the kid responds: "To have a son like me.”
Well, you have Argentines and, if you are bad at self-esteem, an Argentine speaks and then it will go up.
We have those of Bilbao, people thrown to the front, daring people. They told me about a man from Bilbao who hired a helicopter to fly over the city and, when he was flying over the city, he asked the pilot, "Hey, Chauvin, why did you want to fly over Bilbao?" And he said: "Well, to see how Bilbao is without me."
Well, I, in this time, invite you to come with me to the helicopter and reflect on some considerations related to leadership.
Leadership is as old as the human being. From the moment there were two people, one wanted to lead another. If they were a man and a woman, you already know that she would direct, because you know that there are two types of couples: Those in which she takes charge and those that don’t work properly.
Leadership is as old as the human being. In my work, I have tried to investigate the issue of leadership through different civilizations: In Pharaonic Egypt, in Greece, in Rome, and in other organizations. I will use some references from Imperial Rome to address this necessarily optimistic transformational leadership.
I have learned a lot from all the participants; Gustavo, I disagree because I'm an optimist. They say that an optimist is a misinformed pessimist. I consider rather that a pessimist is an optimist with astigmatism; he or she should go to the doctor, regulate his or her glasses well, because we should be pathologically optimistic.
In Rome, in Imperial Rome… Rome is a civilization that lasts from the year 753 before Christ, until the year 476 after Christ. It begins with two brothers, Romulus and Remus, but does not really start until one throws the other one out; because in organizations there are a few absolute truths (the same as in life), and one of them is that for a project to work it is essential that the one who governs is an odd number of people always inferior to 2.
Rome begins when Romulus commands. If one wants something to work, there is a person in charge; if someone wants something not to work, appoint a committee. We want something to work, one person responsible.
In Rome, the word power was said in 3 ways; I simplify a little, but not too much.
In the first place, the word imperium was used. Imperium was the power of the magistrates; the Roman magistracies were united to the imperium. And one of the magistrates was the consuls. The consuls had imperium, the consuls are the equivalent nowadays to the delegates of the Government in the different regions of a country.
People wanted to be a consul, people wanted to have imperium. Why? Because a consul ruled two complete legions. After the Reformation of Mario, at the beginning of the 1st century BC, a complete legion is made up of 5,900 Italic soldiers, 5,900 auxiliary troops (not italics); we're talking about approximately 24,000 soldiers.
But people did not want to be consul for this, people wanted to be consul for the second: Public finances, taxation, was subcontracted. What I am going to say does not happen in Guatemala, but in other countries it does.
Then, and now, the politicians had a certain spirit of recollection, so that in the first century BC there is an expression (1st century BC, we are talking about the triumvirate formed by Pompey, Marco Licinio Crasso, Julius Caesar), this expression arises: A consul has to steal enough to meet three objectives: First, return the money he borrowed to buy the senators and be named consul; (and this was also requested on credit. I do not know where the banker, the banking man is; at that time credits were returned).
The second, the second objective, was to be able to live the rest of their lives from what they had stolen.
And the third (and in this in my country it happens often too), pay the best lawyers to not have to return the money; 1st century before Christ. But we are not going to talk about this.
Secondly, in Rome the term potestas was used. Potestas is the power that each one of us has according to what one puts on our professional card. If on my professional card I say that I am the world president of Unilever, then you, financial director, will have to obey me.
Potestas is what an administrator, a manager, a directive has. And what is a manager? A manager is the person who makes those who depend on him or her do what they have to do, that is a manager.
There are some countries where the translation of a fundamental book for management has not arrived; it is not essential, but it is very important that they are the complete works of Asterix and Obelix. I know that in some countries it is not, in others I know that it is. There is a moment when Julius Caesar decides to go water skiing; for that, a centurion hires two Nubians who hit the rowers with enough force so that Julius Caesar can do water skiing. That's a manager: They achieve results; a manager is the person who achieves results.
But in Rome they used another term to talk about power, and that term is the auctoritas, the auctoritas. The auctoritas is the homage that a person generates regardless of the potestas he has. The auctoritas is what creates the leader or, in other words, a leader is the person who has auctoritas.
And what is a leader? A leader is the person who makes those who depend on him or her, want to do what they have to do. In other words: A leader is the person who generates commitment.
A manager achieves the hitting of the rowers, but when the hitting stops, he rowing stops. A leader is the one who makes people want to row; it is the person who achieves the commitment.
So that in any organization there are four types of people: People who have potestas and have auctoritas. "She's the boss, he’s the boss, and I acknowledge that, I follow that person."
There are people who have potestas and do not have auctoritas. "She's my boss, he's my boss. I hope they get the A flue." It's different, it's different.
I was asked in a training program for partners of one of the great global auditors, KPMG, who works in many of their countries, one of the partners asked me in that session, he told me: "I have potestas, I have associates, managers, juniors. How do I know if I have auctoritas?"
And I said to him: "Look, this is quite simple: The day you are not in your seat, when talking about you, people do it by your name or in reference to your ancestors." It's different, it's different.
There is a third possibility...
This for the translators, I apologize, I understand that it is difficult; but we make it a translation, because English is the language in which those of us who do not know English understand each other. Then when you find someone who knows English they are annoyed, but I’ll translate it if necessary.
There is a third possibility: Those people who do not have potestas, but have auctoritas; they do not have potestas, they do not order, they do not have any charge, but they are the reference people, and when something happens, you ask that woman, that man, because they have the intellectual leadership. And then there are people who have neither one thing nor another.
Many of those present here have potestas, I understand that many have auctoritas, and I understand that everyone is here because they wonder if it is possible to develop the auctoritas. That is: "Can I improve my leadership? Can I do something to learn leadership? Am I a leader? Or am I not a leader?"
I have developed two methodologies to develop leadership. I usually work with management committees of large, small, medium-sized companies, and I have been designing a method, a methodology for the development of the leader.
I propose that leadership is a language, a language that, like any other language, we have to learn; because languages are not learned by osmosis, languages are learned with effort.
Of the years that I lived outside of Spain, I lived 6 in Italy. There are people who think that Italian is like Spanish but with a little accent. No.
An acquaintance of mine, he was an architect, he wanted to buy an American [TRANSLATOR NOTE: Meaning a type of suit or coat], and he went to a store and said... He had not put any special effort into studying the language, he entered a store and said: "Voglio un'americana" ('I want an American'). The clerk looked at him surprised (a suit, right?); the clerk looked surprised and said: "Un'americana?" And he said: "Yes, un'americana per l'estate," ('An American for this summer'). And the clerk said: "Anch'io" ('I would too').
In Italian this is not an American, this is a giacca, and an American is an American lady; they are different things.
And sometimes we assume that they follow us when we do not speak the language of the leader, and we say: "They do not understand me.” No, no, it's not that they do not understand you; it's that you do not speak to them in terms they can understand.
I put a second and last example. A residency where there lived Spaniards and Italians; they telephone one day, a Neapolitan mother, her son Lino was studying at the Sapienza in Rome, and he called this lady and said: "C'è Lino?" ('Is Lino there?').
And the Spanard picked up the phone and said: "No, è ucciso." ('No, they killed him').
The lady said: "Ucciso!" ('Murdered?!').
And he said: "Si, signora, ucciso.”
And the lady said: "A che pray?"
And he said: "Alle tre."
He was about to cause a heart attack in a good Neapolitan mother for confusing the verbs uccidere and uscire ('kill' and 'go out').
We complain sometimes that they do not follow us, and what we have to do is learn the language of leadership. That language is composed of about 250 words and behaviors, which find themselves divided into three chapters.
The first chapter of the language of leadership is technical preparation. We want to be leaders, we have to know what we are talking about. If you have been appointed Logistics Director of a Rent-a-Car company, you will have to know a lot about logistics and a lot of renting and a lot of leasing and many things that have to do with that sector and your position.
There are people who want to be followed without knowing what they are talking about, and what it provokes is laughter. "But what is this man, this lady, talking about, if he or she does not know what they’re is talking about?" Well, if we do not know what we are talking about, we cannot lead anything.
Therefore, to lead the first thing we have to do is each one in his own, in finance, in CSR, in logistics, in whatever, try to know a lot and more each time; and whoever believes that they knows everything about their field is dead. Is it not true? We have to spend our lives learning.
Second chapter, second great chapter of the language of leadership: Behavioral and directive skills. Sometimes they are called soft skills, as if they were easy to learn, and it is not true.
Negotiating, presenting, empathizing, motivating, deluding is not easy, you have to learn it; and there are organizations that when someone is technically good, they promote them, without any preparation, and he who is promoted makes a fool of himself. Why? Because nobody reads balance sheets without having learned accounting, no one leads without having developed leadership.
And is it possible to learn leadership?
I am going to recommend the first of the great books. The second great author of leadership, chronologically, lived in the fourth century BC.
I tell you a little history, to understand the book. There was a man named Philip, Philip of Macedonia. This gentleman had a family doctor, whose name was Nicomachus. One day Philipo asked Nicomachus: "Hey, would you know someone who could be my son's coach?" And Nicomachus said: "Yes, my son."
There are many politicians who say this and it is not true, but in the case of Aristotle yes, because Aristotle is the second greatest wise man in the history of mankind, and becomes the coach of the boy, of Philip, who was called Alexander the Great, the third person in the history of humanity has governed more people.
The father names him two coaches: One is Aristotle and another is a personal trainer; this was called Lysimachus, who developed his muscles, and Aristotle developed the main muscle, which is here. There are people who think that this is only to be able to comb their hair, but there are also things inside, right?
Aristotle is the one who sets out to test him, to teach him, to develop the muscle of the brain.
Aristotle married; he married a lady (before there was no need to explain it, now, the world being as it is, yes). Then he marries a lady, and from his loves… this lady was called Pythia; of their loves a girl was born, and they named the girl after her mother, Pythia.
But Pythia mom died, and "It is not good for the man to be alone," and he remarried, and remarried with another woman, he returns; in this case she is called Herpilis, and a boy was born of their loves, and he named the boy after his father: "Nicomachean.”
Those of us who are parents, I understand that many of us. Who are parents? Many. Tell me if you don’t agree with this: What we want is for our children to be happy; we want our children to be happy.
There is another universal truth on this subject. They say that a child changes your life; that's not true, a child ends your life; another thing is that the life that begins is more wonderful, but with yours it's over.
Well, those of us who are parents, we want our children to be happy, and Aristotle does too, and he writes a book, a book entitled Nicomachean Ethics. Nicomachus, name of the son’ "Ethics…” Ethics has been talked about before, I'm going to do it too.
Ethics is a word of Greek etymology, it has two etymologies; to simplify: éthos [ήθος], morals.
The title of the book, as you are going to find, Nicomachean Ethics. The title of the book is “Morals for my son” or, in a more popular editorial, the title of the book “For you to be happy, kid,” but in that formulation you will not find it.
You will find it as Nicomachean Ethics, a book that I recommend in a specific publishing house. You can find it in a paper or in an e-book format in the LID (LID) publishing house, not because the translation is mine (which it is), but because I have tried to make a contemporary Spanish version that is understood in the 21st century for people who diverge from the type of language of the fourth century BC. Well, Nicomachean Ethics in the LID publishing house.
In that book Aristotle picks up a conversation with his son. The son comes to say:
“Dad, (I translate loosely) dad, daddy, can I be a leader? Can I learn to be a leader?
And the father, Aristotle, the second greatest wise man in the history of mankind, told him, says:
“Yes, boy, yes, you can learn to be a leader.”
“Why?” asks the boy.
And the dad responds, “Because each of us is two in one.”
Each one of us is the combination of our first nature with our second nature. The first nature is the set of physical, psychic, psychiatric realities with which we came to this world and with which we will leave this world; there are things that do not change. But on the first nature we can build second nature.
The second nature is the most important thing in our life; the second nature is the set of habits that make each one of us be as we are. What is second nature? The second nature is the set of habits that each of us develops.
Aristotle says to his child: "Boy, child, kid, acts are performed and habits are collected.”
I like to add: "Habits are sown and character is collected; character is sown and destiny is collected.”
We can learn leadership; we can make the effort to sow leadership acts, to collect leadership habits that give us the character of a leader who is forging our destiny. Because each of us (and before I drank tea without enriching), each one of us is what we are not; each one of us is what we want to become; each one of us is our illusions; we are our expectations, and there are people who with very few years are premature old people, and there are people who with many years are extraordinary entrepreneurs.
A few weeks ago I was in Madrid and saw that they had opened a store near my office, and a takeout store. I went down, bought paella, and was paying when the owner's door opened, of that... I did not see him, he saw me, and he said, "Man! Mr. Fernandez Aguado buying at my store!"
This man (we have known each other for many years) has just started his business with 73 years of age, with an illusion of a child with new shoes. Wonderful. Let's not be premature elderly, let's be youths to whom the years give wisdom.
Not long ago, the president of Houston International told me, he said to me: "For me, young..." (68 years old he is) he said to me: "For me, young is everyone who is my age and less.” Fantastic, fantastic. We have to be young, we have to be open to learning, we have to be open to acquire new habits.
I have a lot to thank many people in my life, and fundamentally my wife, who knows how to order me well, and it has taken her years, right? But now I see fruit and I go for it.
I have lived for many years boasting of any... I saw fruit and ran, and now I see fruit and I go for it. Acts are sown and habits are collected. Sometimes it takes 10 years to convince you, thank you, but it is achieved, it is achieved in the end. Pick, shovel, pick, shovel, insisting, insisting.
First great fundamental book: Nicomachean Ethics, of Aristotle.
I was telling you that the leadership dictionary has three parts; we have talked about two: We have talked about technical preparation, of behavioral preparation; and the third part is what serves to differentiate the leader from the manipulator; they are not the same.
The leader is the person who arrives at a human group, converts it into a team and transports it to a better place than the one they were in when he arrived; that is a leader. A manipulator is one who arrives at a human group, keeps it as a group and transports it to a place worse than the one they were in when he arrived.
Years ago (because we are becoming less young) I directed a training program for Hispanic-American leaders, for three years. The selection was very demanding: Only people with five years of real managerial experience, three languages, the best academic results could go.
There I made lots of friends that I now have in all the countries of America, and one of my pleasures to come to America is to talk with those old friends, today many become public-private leaders in all these countries.
A student of that program told me, a Cuban, she told me a joke. She told me that a Cuban and a Spaniard were talking, and the Cuban says to the Spaniard:
– How’s everything in Spain?
– Well, it’s going, with our troubles, the crisis (which has ended), now another one that wants us to return to the crisis. Anyway, we're going, right? How about Cuba?
– At Cuba, we can’t complain.
– Why’s that?
– Well, just that: We can’t complain!
Well, we have to differentiate, we have to differentiate between the leader and the manipulator, because they are not the same, even if they drag people; they are not the same.
I give another example. The second to last book that I have published is a study on management, on the occasion of the centenary of the Bolshevik Revolution, which is entitled “Comrades of Lenin Today.”
In the studies I did to write that book I include a conversation (supposedly a conversation) between Stalin and Lenin, Lenin Vladímir Ilich Ulyanov, the revolutionary.
He had had two strokes in 1923; the last one he has in January, 1924, of which he dies, and this conversation is recorded at the beginning of January, 1924.
He says... Stalin and Lenin are talking; Lenin says to Stalin, his successor, he says: "Comrade, I hope they follow you as they have followed me." And Stalin said to him: "Do not worry, comrade, if they do not follow me they will immediately follow you.”
It is different to be a manipulator leader; and what differentiates the leader from the manipulator is the third chapter of the book of the language of leadership, which is ethics, which are values.
The leader sees people, and more specifically sees the person; the manipulator sees masses, the manipulator sees people to use. The manipulator is a social engineer; the leader (and this is one of the fundamental characteristics of that character) is the one who only knows how to count up to one, only see that person. The manipulator sees people.
I am going to recommend another book, that although it is not of the essentials, but it is a satisfactory book because, contrary to what one might think, there have been presidents of the United States who had heads; and I'm going to recommend a book by a president of the United States who had a lot of head, perhaps to compensate for others; this was called Eisenhower.
Eisenhower was the commander-in-chief of the allied army in the Normandy landings. When, on June 22, 1944, the first waves landed, 150,000 allied soldiers, the one responsible is Eisenhower; and then, when the 3 million soldiers who begin the invasion of Prussia, it is Eisenhower.
The Germans, when they retreat from France, Belgium, Holland, are planting the minefield. Eisenhower is worried, because there are numerous deaths in his infantry.
So then he calls the engineers (which is what smart people do, right? Call an engineer: "This is for you") and ask them to think about solutions for that. They build some tanks: some tanks armed with lateral beams, with rotors that carry chains that are advancing, they explode the mines, and then the infantry passes.
Eisenhower meets Zhukov, the commanding general of the Soviet army, Stalin's right-hand man, and says: "Hey, we are doing this. What are you doing?"
And Zhukov told him: "When I arrive at a minefield I put a triple infantry front; they run, those that remain return, I recompose the front, they return again, and those that remain return; and the rest walks on."
Eisenhower says: "But a lot of people are dying!"
And Zhukov said: "I do not care, I have more!"
The difference between the leader and the manipulator. This fantastic book is entitled “Crusade in Europe,” Crusade in Europe. It is full of examples of strategy for corporations and is full of examples of leadership, of how it is governed, even in such a complex situation, by thinking of specific people.
And what is ethics? Ethics in some places is an instrument to disqualify the opposite. "Its because the members of your party steal, or stole, or will steal, or the three things." Right? "And therefore yours are bad." And there are many people who use ethics as stones to discredit the other.
A few days ago I was in Mexico, and with all that excitement Mexico is living... I am a Galician in love with Mexico. I told the thousands of people I was with... You know already that there are countries in America where all Spaniards are Galicians; there are others where no: There are Spaniards and Galicians; but in Mexico we are all Galicians. And I told them what I was told many years ago in Mexico City (when was still the Federal District), of what is the day of Galician: "It is the less thought of day.” Alright.
Ethics are not stones to discredit the other, ethics is the mirror in which each of us should look at each other tomorrow, afternoon and evening, each of us, to ask ourselves in the face: "Hey, are you decent?" How easy: "Are you decent?"
And where is… Before one of you asked: "Where is ethics studied?" Well, there are many places to study ethics. Sometimes the same thing happens with ethics as with the topic of tastes, right? It is said: "There is a lot of writing about tastes.” It says: "Yes, but you have not read anything,” right?
Well, about ethics there is a lot of writing and a lot of interest. I recommend, to open with, the “Book of the Dead.”
The Book of the Dead is an extraordinary ethical compilation made through the 3000 years of Pharaonic Empire history; and when one reads those texts that go from the year 3000 BC until the year 125, (but the Book of the Dead is formalized around 500 BC), 2500 years filtered from ethical reflection, all that today we think we are reinventing is written in the Book of the Dead.
What happens is that as we have not read it, then: "Hey, and where do we make an ethical catalog?" There it is spoken about fair payment, spoken about what a company is; because, I insist, sometimes we think that we are discovering many things, and what we should do is dedicate a little more time to reflection, just that.
Nietzsche, a philosopher who was very bad in the head (“Fede" to his friends); well Nietzsche said two or three sensible things. One of them is: "Happiness consists in leaving the river of life, contemplating that river, and thinking where you can contribute something; and, after having thought about it, return to the river." We live in the civilization of haste; we live in the civilization of noise.
There is an Austrian saying that, "There is nothing older than yesterday’s newspaper.” I say yes, it's a 5 minute tweet. And we live obsessed by tweets, and by the last stupid thing that the last stunned politician said; with respect to all those who are not, who are here, and many others, right? But it is a profession that in my country has a certain attraction to the stunned, we do not know why. Good.
As I was telling you all, ethical leadership is a redundancy, because the leader is either ethical or not a leader. Faced with another expression, which is group thinking; if it is thought, it is not from a group; and if it is from a group, then it is not a thought, because thought is individual.
Each of us, if we want to develop leadership, we have to look in the mirror. It is said that in Argentina there are 46 million psychiatrists, in my country there are 44 million arbitrators.
We all have a perfidious clarity to point out what others should do; we all know what Trump should do, what Ivan Duque should do, what Merkel should do, what he should do... We are geniuses! But unfortunately the only one or the only one who we cannot give advice to many times is ourselves.
For this topic, another of the great books, a book written in the sixteenth century, late book. The following happened. There was a man named Karel, a 16-year-old boy. He was born in 1500. Karel lived in the city of Liege, belonging to Belgium, a country where many law professors would be needed, that have no idea; they know of many other things, of making beer and such, but of law they do not know anything.
Well, there in Belgium, this boy was playing with the little ring, and then they went to see him. They said to him: "Look, kid, it turns out that there have been two deaths, and now you are going to be Charles V, Charles I.”
His coach found out and ran to see him, and said: "Look, boy, before going to those great managerial heights, I'll write you a book about what it is to lead." That book is entitled Education of a Christian Prince.
Education of a Christian Prince, a jewel, where among many other things Erasmus says, "We carry the defects in two saddlebags: The defects of others, in the saddlebag in front; one’s own defects, in the saddlebag of behind.” And I allow myself to add footnotes that, "We do not use a rearview mirror.”
We are geniuses to know what our collaborators, the university, politicians, and the mothers... (well, no, this is being recorded); and we are clumsy to look at ourselves in the mirror and say: "Hey, maybe in this department, in this university, in this company, it’s not that people are bad; people need leaders, people need reference points," and you are not a reference point.
A moment ago, talking to Maria, we commented that the children will not do what we tell them, they will do what we do. People do not look for theorists, people look for teachers, people look for a leader to imitate; they do not look for someone to tell them stories, rather, "Hey, how are you behaving?"
Erasmus of Rotterdam, Education of a Christian Prince.
I would like that this afternoon you will take 10% of the dictionary, 10%; it will not be bad for a little while. Of those 250 words and behaviors, I would like 25 to apply today. And for this is going to come now (with the permission of the technology, but not yet, that is, the technologists if you would please prepare it) a man, a man named Hannibal, is coming; not Hannibal Lecter, but Hannibal Barca.
The language of leadership changes very little over time, but anyway I will give two strokes to understand what we are going to see and the exercise that I am going to ask you to do.
It was the year 219 BC; what is known as the Second Punic War begins. In Europe, there were three Punic wars that pitted the Roman Empire against the Carthaginian Empire, and those three were lost by Carthage.
In this war, which begins in the year 219 BC, Hannibal recruits 100,000 Iberians to attack Rome. They leave a city that was then called Qart Hadasht; then Scipio baptizes it as Cartago Nova, and today it is known as Cartagena. Cartagena de Indias, inspires its name in Cartagena of Spain, which is the city where Hannibal lives and where he prepares for war.
The army begins to move: 100,000 soldiers, 30,000 infantry men, 30,000 cavalry men, and 47 elephants. They make a tour of the Spanish Levante, along the Blue Coast, they reach the Alps, they cross the Alps.
And we will find him, in these minutes, when he has crossed the Alps: He has lost two thirds of the army; of the 100 000 soldiers he has 30,000 left, not only because of the battles they have had with the Gauls, but because of the Hispanics, the Iberians in general, because the same then as now, because we have a tendency to tire ourselves, right?
And then, there have been many people who have left; that is, “They were going to war? I’ll go elsewhere.” Well, 30,000 are left, half of the cavalry is left and half of the elephants are left; that is, he has an organization in crisis.
I'm going to ask for the following exercise: Grab, grab, take a paper, and a pen, and from the second 0 that appears there, Hannibal, take a numbered note of everything Hannibal does and says.
Then we will share it and you will be able to take 10% of the dictionary; but for it to be engraved, it is fundamental that everything you will see, everything Hannibal does and says, you number it: 1, 2, 3; and we have to get to 25 things.
And now, please, if Hannibal can come.
All right. The rest at home.
If there were less of us, then we could be sharing with each other. I am going to list those 25 words and behaviors and you will be checking to see which ones you have seen and which ones you have not seen.
Hannibal, the manager who wants to be a leader, the first thing he has to do is observe reality. A leader has to have a strategic vision. Hannibal has gone up to see what is happening; he has to do benchmarking, he has to... strategic vision.
Second, he is supporting another manager; he is supporting the one close to him.
Third, he approaches his people. The leader is not like Zeus, who throws lightning from a cloud; no, the leader is close to his people.
I stop listing, but we go for the fourth one. The first thing he said is: "Magnificent.” Notice that he could have said many other things; he could have said: "What a disgusting camp I am mounting.”
He could have said: "How dusty, what disgust!" He could have said: "How bad you cut the strings!" All true, but not motivating. The leader looks at the positive. "Magnificent.”
Now, he has not told them, "With men like you, we're going to drink tonight little glasses tonight." No! The leader instills soul, which is what differentiates a group from a team: The soul; and he says: "With men like you we are going to conquer the market, we will earn a share. Maybe we will not reach that of Nestlé, but we will earn a quota, we will keep growing!" And that is what has to encourage people; is introducing soul.
They offer him wine; and he doesn’t act stuck up, he doesn’t act conceited, right? He approaches them.
Because he could have said: "I… I… look, I… Don Simon (or a little wine there)... No, no, I only drink Arzuaga wine, great reserve.” No! The leader is close to the people, and he says that wonderful word, that you repeat a lot and that we should all use more, which is, "thank you,” "thank you.” How nice that a leader says: "Thank you."
And after drinking that wine, which probably was not a big reserve, he says: "It’s good, it’s good." It is encouraging, and again insists on the collective's purpose: "You will see when we arrive in Rome.” "You will see when we get to improve our product and service."
Now they ask him a question whose example is not good, but the concept is; I repeat: The example is not good, but the concept is.
They have asked about the women. The women there are the bonus, the women there is the variable; they ask him for the variable. And what does he say about the variable? First: "I do not know." Earlier it was said, the leader has to be humble; the leader has no answer for everything. Do not trust the one who says he knows everything about everything, he's a fantasizer. "I do not know.”
Next. The bonus must be earned; the bonus is the result of everyone's effort.
Next. "The bonus is for you." The leader is generous.
If he had been told, "And the women?”
“They’re all for me!"
Who will follow an egoist? Who will follow someone who is greedy? Who will follow someone who is ambitious? The leader has to be generous.
The leader goes then, walks, managing by walking, managing by wandering around. This has not been invented by our friends from the north; this was known to Hannibal 2300 years ago. It governs with the feet, not with the tongue.
What is important? "The elephants.” Well, I’m going there.
The elephants had to smell almost as bad as them, but he goes there; because if he had gone to a spa, to a massage with four hands, and said: "Take care of the elephants for me,” people would say: "That's not serious.” I go to what I consider important.
And what department are the elephants? They are not human resources. The elephants are R & D [Research and Development], because in the year 218, only twice had elephants been used in battle: Alexander the Great a century earlier in India and Pirro, King of Epirus in Taranto, in 281.
They were the competitive advantage, it was what others did not have; and the R & D department, we have to take care of it, and we have to go there, and we have to motivate people.
Because who always sells the same and in the same way will soon stop selling it, because what was revolutionary yesterday is a lie, and tomorrow is a Chinese story; because we have to change, we have to evolve, to the R & D department, to motivate people.
A meeting is called. The leader is participatory; the leader meets with the people. But they ask one another: "And where are you going?”
“I'm going to take care of certain jobs." Because the important thing in this life is not to be reunited; we lose thousands of hours in superfluous meetings.
I am going to tell you a mnemonic rule for meetings; two types of meetings: Brainstorming meetings, there is no time limit; executive meetings, 35 minutes.
Difference between an executive meeting and a brainstorming one: The Cardhu bottle (or rum, 14 years old), which is in brainstorming. One comes to a room, there is no rum, it was executive, 35 minutes. How easy it is, right?
We lose thousands of hours of our life in absurd meetings. We have... and in this the Anglo-Saxons have a lot to teach us (in other things not much; in gastronomy, almost nothing, but in this!): We have to be much more efficient in meetings.
Many years ago, I was the representative in Spain of a British business school. Once a year we met in London, the representatives of each country of that school, to speak with the rector of the strategic design for the following year.
It was a five-year appointment, so 5 meetings, one a year. That meeting never lasted more than 40 minutes, and then 15 minutes with the rector in private, to see the specific topics, and each one at home.
That organized by us, three days of celebration, dinner, revelry. Well, if we go to the revelry, good; but I think it's better when it's fun, it's fun, and when it’s work, it’s work. Effective meetings.
But this would be another issue, which has a lot to do with CSR as well; because, a company (and has much to do with what has been said before, and now we continue with Hannibal), a company has a double objective. A company has an economic objective, needs economic efficiency; at the same time, it needs social efficiency.
And social efficiency, and in this I take words from Kant, a German philosopher ("Manolo" for friends)... Economic efficiency is the creation of the conditions of possibility for the honorable life of all stakeholders.
Double objective; and if I do not have that double objective, I do not have a company, I have something else.
The company name itself says it: a company, is a company. A company is the place (and we must go to the Latin) in which cum panis; and I translate freely: the place where 'bread is shared.’
And if I'm not sharing the bread, I do not live the CSR; and sharing the bread is CSR. This was known to the Romans before the 1st century. Cum panis, 'share the bread.’
The meeting begins. The leader is positive. He says, "Let's drink.”
And then two perverse characters appear, who professional flattering people, people who say, "This is over. The competition is very bad. We are the best. I do not kiss myself because I cannot reach.”
No! The leader immediately stops the flattering, because there is nothing more criminal than vanity; blind vanity. Boasting makes one lose sight; not the physical, but spiritual sight, which is much more important.
I work periodically in my country with the group of companies directed to the ONCE, ILUNION. I know CEOs and I deal with blind CEOs who see much better and deeper than many executives, who do not even need glasses.
He stops them in his tracks and says, "No, we have problems,” because the leader is realistic and does not deceive himself; the leader is realistic. But after describing the problems, he does not hand out handkerchiefs for people to cry, the leader gives solutions, and gives solutions in two areas.
First, strategic alliances; and in medium-sized companies, and of course large ones, the main alliance is not strategic, it is "intra-strategic;” because the greatest enemy of most organizations is not outside, it is inside, it is the friendly fire.
Eisenhower had to intervene because the American flying fortresses bombing the infantry, which thought were German, were dropping their bombs on the French, the Poles, the English, and so on; their allies.
How many times do we lose a lot of energy for internal fights, the friendly fire? Topic that would give much more on itself, but we have to move forward.
And the second field: Communication, marketing. But he does not say, "We have to sell more." The leader knows what he is talking about. He creates a slogan, says how to put the ads, how to do the marketing. "We have to put bonfires." He knows what he is talking about, and that is why people follow him.
They bring him a slave and they tell him not to listen, as when a client who is complaining is brought to us. "Go and let it be done.”
No! A client who complains is doing us a favor, because they represents more than 200 that would say the same but stay silent, and what they are going to do is curse our company. We have to listen to them. A leader is a professional listener.
And there is a frame that excites me. After learning, Hannibal thinks. A manager thinking; it impresses me every time I see it. Not running; thinking!
And after thinking he makes decisions, and those decisions are committed, and he goes in person.
The leader arrives at the camp and delegates there, because the leader cannot do everything. But notice that delegating is not saying: "You tie this guy by one foot. You cut her here for me. This one…" No! That's not leading; that is, "Do with your hands what I cannot do with mine because I'm in a hurry.” That is not delegating.
To delegate is to train people to make decisions; and you have to let people act, and then you have to manage the error. But if we stop people, then people will not do anything, because they will say: "Why am I going to move if they are going to fight me every time I do something?" We have to allow others to make mistakes, provided there is good faith, obviously.
He delegate; he then moves next to the most important.
When he lashes the Roman, he says: "Do not beat him." The leader is not revengeful.
To the girl he said, "Stay here!", and the girl leaves; people are almost never where they have to be, but the leader does not get angry, he goes to look for her.
Gentlemen, that's a leader. A leader is a person who, with strategic vision, encourages those who are close to them, approach people, has inspiring words, introduce soul, etc., etc., etcetera.
Ethical leadership is a redundancy, because the leader who is not ethical is a manipulator; no matter how much he summons masses, no matter how much he tricks others with his talk, the leader who does not do what he says, is not a leader.
This happened to Lenin. Lenin had imposed communism, and Lenin was traveling in Rolls-Royce, had two drivers, two cooks, had an immense service, like 15 people, and also always traveled with his wife and his mistress; and he said that having a wife and a mistress was very unpleasant, because it forced him to talk with two mothers-in-law.
Well, one day a communist tells Lenin, "Hey! We had made the revolution to be all the same."
And Lenin replied: "Yes! So that you are all equal."
When in certain countries, not far from this, martyred countries that are suffering from damned tyrants, proclaim themselves leaders; lies! The leader lives like his people and carries his people forward; and when someone is enriched at the expense of others, no matter how much talk he has, he is a scoundrel. And they can record it and put it where they want, because that is the truth.
I'm heading towards the end.
In the 5th century of our era, there were two great thinkers in Europe, one in the East and one in the West.
The one in the west was born in Africa, then he was a professor in Rome, and then he was a professor in Milan.
The 5th century is a century of many crises: The Roman Empire is about to end, the known civilization is dissolving, and many people complained about the times they had to live.
This professor of African origin, called Augustine, would say, "We complain about the times that we have to live. We should not complain. We want the times to change. Let us change, because we are the times."
Thank you very much.
Thank you very much, very kind of you.
Well, I think we fell short with that applause, so deserved for Dr. Javier Fernández Aguado, who has masterfully addressed everything related to leadership, and that is a topic that absolutely interests us all, because we undoubtedly need to learn and develop that kind of leadership.
We want to thank all of you for your presence today, and we also want to invite you to the other sessions that we will have tomorrow, the Educational Session. We will also have the Political and Diplomatic Session and the Judicial Session, to which we are extending the invitation to all of you so that this Summit continues to fulfill the expectations of this important work that is being developed.
We appreciate the participation of all of you, and before we finish we want to mention that we will be doing the recognition and plaque delivery to the new ARSEPAZ members. People who wish to join us are free to do so, and we will immediately proceed to do so. Those who have to leave quickly, well we will understand perfectly.
We will proceed immediately to the delivery of plaques and imposition of pins of the member companies of ARSEPAZ, from different countries of Latin America that today accompany us and that have signed this agreement with the ARSEPAZ alliance.
We want to invite Ivan Sarmiento and Gabriela Lara, who will accompany us for the delivery of these recognitions; and we also want the representatives of the different companies be very attentive to their name, to the name of their company, and when we mention your company, please, you may pass so that in this way you can receive both the pin (which accredits you as members) and the recognition or the plaque of the company that we will be announcing.
[PRESENTATION OF AWARDS]
We want to thank on behalf of the Global Embassy of Activists for Peace, and this CSR session that has taken place here today, for your participation.
For the conclusions that will be drawn from this session, the coordinator of the session will be meeting with the speakers, to whom we invite you to accompany him to do this work, which will be very important in the final part of CUMIPAZ 2018.
A thousand and a thousand thanks. And we will meet tomorrow at the Educational Session. And we invite all the participants for the official photo of this session. You can come closer, please.