Cátedra Rafael Escolá de Ética Profesional - tecnun.es · Rafael Escolá y la excelencia profesional ... formación y compromiso social. Aún era el martes de esta semana,

CAMPUS TECNOLÓGICO DE LA UNIVERSIDAD DE NAVARRA • NAFARROAKO UNIBERTSITATEKO CAMPUS TEKNOLOGIKOA

U n i v e r s i d a dd e N a v a r r aN a f a r r o a k oU n i b e r t s i t a t e aE s c u e l a S u p e r i o rd e I n g e n i e r o sI n g e n i a r i e n G o iM a i l a k o E s k o l a

DONOSTIA-SAN SEBASTIÁN, JUNIO-JUNE 2005 Nº 2

Cátedra Rafael Escolá de Ética Profesional

Felipe PrósperPresentación

Rafael Termes Rafael Escolá y la excelencia profesional

Alejo José G. SisonPresentación de Charles Handy

Charles HandyThe Moral Dilemmas of Modern Society


Felipe PrósperPresentación

Rafael Termes Rafael Escolá y la excelencia profesional

Alejo José G. SisonPresentación de Charles Handy

Charles HandyThe Moral Dilemmas of Modern Society

photo Elizabeth Handy

JOURNAL 2.qxd 12/7/05 12:10 Página 1

JOURNAL / Nº2 / JUNIO 2005 2

JOURNAL - Junio 2005

Dirección: Servicio de Comunicación TECNUNDiseño y Maquetación: Sonia Uribe GarteizFotografía: Archivo fotográfico de TECNUN

Elizabeth Handy Impresión: Grupo IgaraEdita: TECNUN (Escuela Superior de Ingenieros

de la Universidad de Navarra).Pº Manuel de Lardizabal, 1320018 San Sebastián (Gipuzkoa)Tel. 943 219 877 - Fax. 943 311 [email protected] - www.tecnun.es

Delegado de Graduados: Gustavo [email protected]

D.P.: SS-610/04

Felipe PrósperPresidente de la Fundación Rafael Escolá

Presentación

Rafael Termes Profesor del IESE

Rafael Escolá y la excelencia profesional

Alejo José G. SisonDirector de la Cátedra Rafael Escolá de Ética Profesional

Presentación Charles Handy

Charles Handy

“The Moral Dilemmas of Modern Society”

Índice3

5

9

11



Presentación Felipe Prósper

Presidente de la Fundación Rafael Escolá

Ilustrísimas autoridades académicas,queridos profesores y alumnos:

Buenas días a todos ustedes, atodos vosotros, me corresponde hoya mí hacer una breve referencia a loque es, a lo que ha venido siendo, laFundación Rafael Escolá, dejando aRafael Termes referirse al propioRafael que da nombre a la Fundacióny a Charles Handy dictarnos lasegunda lección conmemorativa.

No me gustaría ocupar mucho devuestro preciado tiempo, especial-mente en un acto cuyo centro esesta 2ª Lección de la Cátedra RafaelEscolá de Ética Profesional. Sin embargo, laoportunidad de ver a tantos amigos, colabora-dores y personas relacionadas con nuestra Fun-dación, me ha parecido especialmente adecua-da para actualizaros, para poneros al día sobrenuestros distintos quehaceres.

Como muchos conocéis, el Patronato de la Fun-dación encargó hace ya tres años a nuestroanterior director, D. Fernando García Rivero, lapuesta en marcha, de una serie de iniciativasencaminadas a promover la excelencia profe-sional, objetivo primordial de nuestra institución.

Las acciones eran un compendio de actividadesde divulgación y formación que iban desde laconvocatoria de premios o la concesión debecas, hasta la organización de ciclos de confe-rencias, seminarios y cátedras universitarias. Entodas ellas se buscaba promover los valoresinherentes a la excelencia y a la vez posibilitar elacercamiento a ella mediante la formación y lainvestigación.

Con más o menos dificultades, éxitos y fracasos,todas estas acciones son hoy una realidad de laque nos sentimos contentos y orgullosos, por-que significa que el mensaje de la excelencia hacalado en muchas personas e instituciones denuestro entorno, que muestran así una facetamás de su compromiso con la sociedad de laque forman parte.

Nos alegramos también porque ello ha permitidola reversión en la sociedad de parte del capitalno sólo económico y profesional que supone laFundación –y con ella todo el entorno de

Idom–comunicando unmensaje con valor aña-dido al estrictamenteprofesional.

Desde hace dos años,la creación de los pre-mios Rafael Escolá hanpermitido, por ejemplo,la firma de más detreinta acuerdos decolaboración con lasEscuelas de IngenieríaIndustrial, Telecomuni-caciones e Informáticade España y la eleva-ción en ellas del con-

cepto de éxito académico más allá de las pun-tuaciones de un currículum.

A día de hoy existen 24 premios Rafael Escoláde todo origen y perfil con trayectorias contras-tadas de interés, formación y compromisosocial. Aún era el martes de esta semana, haceescasos tres días, cuando decidíamos y entre-gábamos los correspondientes a este año, laganadora fue María Flores, ingeniero de teleco-municaciones de Pamplona.

Por su parte, las becas de I+D y doctorado hanpermitido la creación de diez equipos de investi-gación alrededor de jóvenes ingenieros, arqui-tectos físicos y químicos comprometidos todoscon la mejora del entorno construido a través deldesarrollo de conceptos y soluciones innovadoras.

Asesorados por académicos, especialistas yprofesionales de distintas empresas interesadasy de Idom, su trabajo ha permitido proponerenvolventes vegetales, fachadas de vidrio elec-trocrómico, plantear sistemas de cuantificaciónenergética, y proponer mejoras en la iluminacióny la organización del espacio de oficinas.

Es obligatorio agradecer aquí la colaboración delas Universidades Politécnica, Complutense yEuropea de Madrid, el laboratorio Angstrom dela Universidad de Uppsala, el Ciemat, las empre-sas General Electric, Espacio Solar e IntemperEspañola y, en especial, la cesión de fondos porparte de Guardian Glass, AF Steelcase, la Fun-dación EHAS y, sobre todo, Idom, auténticomecenas del programa. La ayuda de todas ellasha permitido el crecimiento del grupo de I+D de

4 a 37 personas en tan sólo tres años, ydemuestra que el modelo de colaboración pro-puesto es una alternativa real a la investigaciónuniversitaria, el trabajo de los centros tecnológi-cos o el I+D de las empresas.

Cómo no, destacar también la cátedra que hoynos reúne, producto del objetivo común de laFundación y la Universidad de Navarra en crearuna plataforma de formación deontológica conproyección en el ámbito profesional y empresarial. Como ya mencionó hace un año, en esta mismasala, el Catedrático de Stanford, Jeffrey Pfeffer,sólo con una correcta motivación ética en losestudiantes –no nos olvidemos, los profesionalesdel mañana– conseguiremos la ampliación delos objetivos empresariales hoy en día demasia-do economicistas.

Estas tres iniciativas –premios, becas y cátedra–han sido además complementadas con confe-rencias en las que “profesionales excelentes”como el biólogo Ginés Morata o nuestro patronoel físico Pedro Miguel Etxenike, disertaron sobrela importancia del rigor y la investigación paraalcanzar las metas más altas en cualquier disci-plina. En conjunto con otros actos como la pre-sentación de la biografía de Rafael Escolá, o elrecién creado ciclo de charlas sobre I+D, sumensaje ha puesto el broche de prestigio a lasactividades de la Fundación.

En el marco de un acto como éste, no quisieraterminar mi intervención sin compartir convosotros que, para los que pusimos en marchala Fundación, divulgar la excelencia profesionalha sido un placer y una oportunidad para acer-carnos más a la figura de Rafael Escolá; de algúnmodo nos gusta pensar que los premios, becasy cátedras a los que he aludido son, en realidad,materializaciones de los muchos objetivos pues-tos por él en marcha durante muchos años enIdom y su propio universo personal.

Es por ello que para los que, como yo, tuvimosla suerte de tenerle como maestro, deciros queha sido un placer trabajar con tan magníficomodelo y que sería un placer que siguierais cola-borando con nosotros en el objetivo de la pro-moción de la excelencia profesional.

Muchas gracias a todos.

FELIPE PRÓSPER





Rafael Escolá y la excelenciaprofesional

Los organizadores de este acto handecidido que mi intervención versa-ra sobre Rafael Escolá y la excelen-cia profesional. Lo he hecho en másde una ocasión, de palabra y porescrito, bajo diferentes títulos que,en el fondo, remitían al mismo prin-cipio. Principio que puede definirsediciendo que, si la dimensión éticadebe formar parte de la culturaempresarial, con no menos razón laeficiencia profesional debe ser unindispensable componente de lapreocupación ética del empresario.El directivo de empresa que no seesfuerza por adquirir la excelenciaprofesional, no es un directivo ético,por muy buenos sentimientos quepueda tener. Y, viceversa, el directi-vo de empresa que pretendedesarrollar al máximo su eficienciatécnica, pero no se preocupa derespetar las normas de la ética rea-lista, que se fundamenta en la libreafirmación del ser del hombre yconduce a vivir siempre de acuerdocon la verdad, no es un directivo efi-ciente. Comportamiento ético yactuación eficiente son los doscomponentes inseparables de laexcelencia profesional.

Como, pienso, es bien sabido en elámbito propio de los aquí reunidos,Rafael Escolá y yo fuimos compa-ñeros en la primera promoción, des-pués de la guerra civil, de la Escue-la Técnica Superior de IngenierosIndustriales de Barcelona. Termina-da la carrera, nuestras vidas, en loque a residencia se refiere, divergie-ron, ya que él se marchó a Madridpara participar en la creación deEdificios y Obras, y yo me quedé enBarcelona. Cuando fui a Madrid, élhacía años que se había desplaza-do a Bilbao, donde fundó IDOM yenseñó en la Escuela Superior de

Ingenieros de aquella localidad. Apesar de esta distinta ubicación,siempre seguimos unidos por laestrecha amistad que, con identifi-cación de ideales, surgió durantelos años de la carrera. Esto, elseguimiento de su ejecutoria y losfrecuentes encuentros en tantoslugares, me permiten afirmar queRafael Escolá practicó todas las vir-tudes humanas: fue alegre, trabaja-dor, leal, sincero, austero y, conven-cido de la importancia que tiene elprestigio para influir, para bien, en elmundo en el que nos ha tocadovivir, encaminó sus esfuerzos alograr la excelencia profesional, quelogró plenamente, conjugando per-fectamente la eficiencia técnica conla integridad moral. Pero lo que yo,reiteradamente, he dicho y hoyquiero afirmar es que la motivaciónque impulsó la actividad de RafaelEscolá fue siempre de naturalezatrascendente.

Las motivaciones delobrar humano

Por esto, las palabras que hoy seme hace el honor de poder pronun-ciar, deseo que vayan encaminadasa desarrollar el, siempre apasionan-te, tema de las motivaciones delobrar humano. Pero no en abstrac-to, sino a la luz de la evolución delestilo de dirección empresarial.

En 1878, cien años después del ini-cio de la revolución industrial,desaparecida la producción domés-tica, consolidada la separaciónentre capital y trabajo, y en trancede superación la vieja figura del pro-pietario-gestor, con la aparición deldirectivo profesional, el ingenieroestadounidense Frederich WinslowTaylor, uno de los profetas del tiem-

po moderno -cuya biblia, según seha dicho era el cronómetro-, da, enla industria del acero, los primerospasos, de lo que se llamaría la"administración científica". Adminis-tración basada en un estilo dedirección autocrático -"un buenobrero hace lo que se le dice, sincontestar"- con total separaciónentre planificación y ejecución, ycuyo valor cultural clave es la com-petición. La obsesión de Taylor porel salario basado en la tarea y laprima, pone de manifiesto que esteparadigma de organización, quecon razón puede llamarse mecani-cista, supone que la motivación delas personas es del género de lasque mi colega, el Profesor AntonioPérez López, prematura y desgra-ciadamente desaparecido, buenconocedor de las críticas de Abra-

hám Maslow de la Universidad deBrandeis a los modelos economi-cistas, llamaba, en forma original,motivaciones extrínsecas.

Por motivación extrínseca, PérezLópez entiende aquel tipo de fuerzaque empuja a la persona a realizaruna acción debido a las recompen-sas, o castigos, unidos a la ejecu-ción de la acción; debido, en defini-tiva, a la respuesta que va a provo-car dicha acción desde el exterior.Ello quiere decir que, desde elpunto de vista de la motivaciónextrínseca, lo verdaderamente que-rido por el agente no es la realiza-ción de la acción de que se trate,sino las recompensas -en sentidoamplio- que la persona esperaalcanzar a cambio de la realizaciónde la acción. La ejecución de laacción viene a ser una condiciónimpuesta desde el exterior para quela persona alcance aquello que en el

RAFAEL TERMES

Rafael Termes Profesor del IESE


fondo le motiva. La motivacióngenerada a través del paso deincentivos, la atribución de prerro-gativas o el status en las organiza-ciones, etc., suelen pertenecer aeste tipo de motivación.

Son evidentes las deficiencias deeste modelo mecanicista deorganización para lograr, no ya laparticipación de todas las personasen el logro del objetivo empresarial,sino ni siquiera lo que Pérez Lópezdenomina atractividad de la organi-zación para que los individuos seadhieran a ella por motivacionesdistintas de las extrínsecas; esdecir, en virtud de lo que una perso-na puede hacer allí y no por lo quepueda recibir. Que es, no sólodeseable, sino también posiblesuperar este modelo de organiza-ción mecanicista no es menos evi-dente, ya que, la experiencia nos

dice que el dinero -paradigma delas motivaciones extrínsecas- no esun motivador universal; y la gentebusca, o puede buscar, otrascosas.

Sin embargo, hubo que esperar alfinal de la Segunda Guerra mundialpara que la escuela de las relacio-nes humanas, iniciada hacia 1930 yuno de cuyos adelantados fue EltonMayo de la Universidad de Harvard,intentara poner fin a los fallos de lalógica de la eficacia tayloriana. Laescuela de relaciones humanasintrodujo el análisis sociológico ypsicológico del que se empieza adenominar factor humano, al obje-to de insertar a los trabajadores enel proyecto empresarial común,mediante las llamadas relacionesindustriales, que en aquel períodose pusieron de moda.

Parece claro que la escuela de lasrelaciones humanas había descu-bierto, por así decir, la motivación

intrínseca del obrar humano,entendiendo por tal aquel tipo defuerza que atrae a una persona paraque realice una acción determinada-o una tarea concreta- a causa de lasatisfacción que espera obtener porel hecho de ser el agente o realiza-dor de esa acción. Lo verdadera-mente querido por el sujeto, en lamedia en que se mueve por moti-vación intrínseca, son las conse-cuencias que se seguirán del purohecho natural de ser el ejecutor dela acción. Dichas consecuenciaspueden abarcar desde la satisfac-ción producida por la realización dealgo que le gusta hacer, hasta lasatisfacción ligada al logro de uncierto aprendizaje, para cuya obten-ción es necesaria la reiteración de laacción.

Con la entrada de la psicología y lasociología en el mundo de la empre-sa, la escuela de las relacioneshumanas había introducido el para-digma psicosociológico de direc-ción, que supone que los sereshumanos están movidos tanto pormotivaciones extrínsecas como pormotivaciones intrínsecas. Por ejem-plo, el deseo de ganar un salario y deascender, por un lado, junto con elafán de deleitarse en el trabajo y deaprender, por otro lado. Hay pocasacciones, si es que hay alguna, cuyamotivación pueda explicarse tan sólopor un solo tipo de motivos.

Desgraciadamente, es cierto que elparadigma psicosociológico dedirección puede utilizarse no preci-samente para promover la autorrea-lización de los individuos y eldesarrollo integral debido a su digni-dad de personas, sino simplementecomo un medio de aumentar la pro-ductividad. Es decir, tratar a las per-sonas humanamente porque hemosdescubierto que, haciéndolo así,producen más. Y ésta es la crítica aque se halla sometida, aún al día dehoy, la escuela de las relacioneshumanas. Pero no es menos ciertoque, supuesta la rectitud moral delos directivos, el paradigma psico-

sociológico supone una mejoranotable, precisamente porque apor-ta la dimensión que antes hemos lla-mado atractividad, que no se hallaen el paradigma mecanicista.

Pero más allá de la motivaciónintrínseca está la motivación tras-cendente que es aquel tipo defuerza que se basa en el afán deservir a los demás. Esta motivaciónes la que determina que las perso-nas en la empresa se adhieran,cooperen, colaboren, o, mejordicho, se identifiquen con el objetofinal de la misma, que, sin mermade generar rentas para todos losque aportando trabajo, capital ydirección, componen la empresa,es precisamente prestar servicio.Queda claro pues que esta motiva-ción trascendente supera, en cali-dad, a la motivación extrínseca y ala motivación intrínseca. Sin embar-go es evidente que el hecho de queuna persona actúe por motivacio-nes trascendentes no excluye que,simultáneamente, existan en lamisma persona otros impulsos,intrínsecos y extrínsecos, que deter-minen su manera de obrar. Poresto, el paradigma de dirección quepuede llamarse antropológico, portener en cuenta las tres clases demotivaciones que empujan el obrarhumano, es el único paradigmacompleto y el único que, sin obstá-culo de atender a los objetivos ins-trumentales o subordinados, puedeconducir al logro del verdaderoobjetivo final de la empresa: servir.Y, lo que todavía es más importan-te, asegurar su pervivencia. Segúnun estudio elaborado en la LondonBusiness School, en Occidente, lasempresas que, frente a una vidamedia de apenas 20 años, llegan acentenarias, son aquellas que con-sideran a los trabajadores comomiembros de la organización eimplicados en la evolución de laempresa.


RAFAEL ESCOLÁ



Valores de los actoshumanos

Definido el modelo organizativodeseable para la empresa, comosea que la función del directivo, enel desarrollo del modelo organizati-vo elegido, se materializa en actosque, por ser racionales y libres, sonhumanos, me parece necesariodecir que todo acto humano, ade-más y antes, ontológicamente, delos efectos sociológicos, políticos,etc., tiene, para el propio agente ypara las personas afectadas, tresvalores: económico, psicológicoy ético. Dichos valores correspon-den, respectivamente, al valor de loque hace el sujeto en cuanto conello otra persona puede satisfacersus necesidades (valor económico);al aprendizaje para hacer cosasque el sujeto consigue por el hechode hacerlo (valor psicológico); y, porúltimo al cambio que se produce enel sujeto en función de la naturalezamoral del acto, de la intención quetenía al realizarlo y de las circuns-tancias concurrentes (valor ético).

El valor económico de los actosdel sujeto tiene su origen y explica-ción en la satisfacción de las nece-sidades humanas y, en función de lautilidad que proporcionan los bieneso servicios producidos por talesactos, se refleja, más o menos per-fectamente, en los precios de mer-cado de dichos bienes y servicios.Digo más o menos perfectamente,porque bien puede suceder que losprecios no den una imagen correc-ta del valor económico real de lasactividades humanas a largo plazo.Esta eventual incapacidad de losindicadores del mercado -es decir,los precios- para orientar sobre elvalor económico real de las activi-dades humanas -medido en térmi-nos de bien común, es decir, deldesarrollo integral de todos loshombres- es la que obliga a pensaren el valor psicológico y ético delos actos humanos, como antídotode los efectos perversos que el actoeconómico puro podría producir.

El valor ético de los humanos ytambién el psicológico son valoressubjetivos, es decir, expresan reali-dades que se producen en el inte-rior de las personas y, en conse-cuencia, no pueden ser objeto delmercado. La confianza, el afecto, lasinceridad, la lealtad, la honradez,etc., no podrán ser nunca materiade compraventa, pero la influenciade estas cualidades personales esdecisiva para la generación de valoreconómico real. Por ello, la correc-ta actuación del dirigente empresa-rial exige que el decisor, despuésde analizar la factibilidad de lasalternativas, a la luz de su valoreconómico, expresado por los indi-cadores del mercado, elija en fun-ción, además, del valor que lasalternativas en juego tengan para eldesarrollo integral de las personas,incluyendo la del propio decisor.

Elegir en función no sólo del valoreconómico sino además del valorpsicológico y ético de los actoshumanos, puede suponer un ciertocoste de oportunidad; es decir, eldecisor renuncia a un cierto benefi-cio a corto plazo que otra alternati-va podía haberle aportado. Sinembargo, al hacerlo, el decisor esconsciente de que ha elegido lamejor alternativa para los demás ypara él mismo, en orden al desarro-llo integral de las personas. Laexperiencia y también la razón nosdicen que, a la larga, los beneficio-sos efectos psicológicos y éticosde la decisión tomada, en todas laspersonas que forman la empresa oestán en contacto con ella, condu-cirán a mejores resultados tambiéneconómicos. Así lo testifican multi-tud de profesionales y empresariosque saben renunciar al enriqueci-miento rápido o al beneficio inme-diato en aras de la rentabilidad sos-tenida a largo plazo, que es lagarantía de la continuidad, eldesarrollo y la expansión de laempresa entendida como comuni-dad de personas.

RAFAEL TERMES

RAFAEL ESCOLÁ



Mi compañero y gran amigoRafael Escolá fue una personapreocupada por adquirir la exce-lencia profesional, conjunción dela eficiencia técnica y el comporta-miento ético, cosa que logró ple-namente. Su preocupación por latécnica le llevó a crear, dentro deIDOM, una "escuela" de post-grado para continuar la formaciónde los recién salidos de las Escue-las de Ingenieros hasta queencontraban un puesto de trabajo.Su preocupación por la ética sepuso de manifiesto en la publica-ción -entre los seis libros queeditó- de una "Deontología paraIngenieros" -"Ética para Ingenie-ros" en su segunda edición- en laque trata de definir lo que es lícitoy lo que es ilícito en el quehacerprofesional, analizando el porquéde las acciones.

Pero además, y sobre todo, RafaelEscolá poseía esa característicaesencial del líder que consiste enservir a los demás, motivándolespara que, de propia iniciativa,hagan lo que tienen que hacer.Dios quiera que, con el esfuerzode todos los que colaboran en lainiciativa, la cátedra Rafael Escoláde Ética Profesional, de esta pres-tigiosa Escuela Superior de Inge-nieros de la Universidad de Nava-rra, sirva para que todos los estu-diantes que pasen por ella adquie-ran la excelencia profesional, talcomo la hemos definido, para elbien del mundo de la economía yla empresa al que, acabados susestudios, se integrarán.



Presentación de Charles HandyAlejo José G. Sison

Director de la Cátedra Rafael Escolá de Ética Profesional

Cuando en plena crisis de los 50 años, CharlesHandy voluntariamente dejó la seguridad y lacomodidad de una carrera corporativa exitosapara dedicarse sin más a pensar y escribir y, sise diese el caso, llevar a cabo algún seminario oalguna consultoría como freelancer o indepen-diente, no se imaginó que, de nuevo, estaba lla-mado a ser pionero en lo que hasta entonces eratierra incógnita para las legiones de trabajadoresy profesionales que vendrían después. Lo únicoque sabía era que trocaba una vida laboral, quehabía llegado a ser demasiado agobiante y opre-siva, por otra, que prometiera mayor indepen-dencia y libertad, aunque con sus riesgos eco-nómicos concomitantes. No había nada en suexperiencia anterior que le preparase especial-mente para ello, ya que siempre había llevado laexistencia de un "elefante", término que utilizapara referirse a un habitante de una gran organi-zación: se graduó en la Universidad de Oxford enClásicas, Historia y Filosofía, y estuvo trabajando10 años en la Royal Dutch Shell, destinado pri-mero en Borneo y luego, en Londres. [Cuentacomo en su primer día de trabajo, a los veinti-tantos años, entre los asuntos que trató ya esta-ba el plan de pensiones de la empresa]. Despuésse marchó a la Sloan School of Management delMIT para preparar, a su vuelta al Reino Unido, losfundamentos de la London Business School.

De aquella apuesta fuerte al comienzo de ladécada de los 80 hemos salido todos ganando.Charles Handy mismo se convirtió —siemprecon la inestimable ayuda de su esposa,Elizabeth— en un pensador, escritor y consultorde renombre. Se hizo "pulga", término con el quellama a los profesionales independientes, quesiempre son sus propios jefes y que eligen tra-bajar solos o en alianzas. El cambio le brindó laoportunidad de abrir las compuertas de su pro-pia imaginación y creatividad. En una épocacaracterizada por las reestructuraciones y lasexternalizaciones, nos ofrece una valiosa guía denavegación no sólo en el mundo del trabajo,siempre dinámico, sino también en la sociedaden general. Fiel a su estilo ameno, sazonado conanécdotas autobiográficas, nos explica en suslibros cómo factores tan diversos como la edu-cación, el matrimonio, la religión y el status socialcondicionan la evolución del trabajo.

Es un gran honor y una enorme satisfacción parala Cátedra Rafael Escolá de Ética Profesionalpresentar esta mañana a Charles Handy comoponente de la 2ª Lección Conmemorativa. Suconferencia nos ayudará a entender el verdade-ro significado de esa meta tan ilusa, que todossin embargo buscamos, querámoslo o no, admi-támoslo o no: el éxito. Sólo me queda agradecera Charles Handy y a su esposa Elizabeth la ama-bilidad de aceptar nuestra invitación y su gene-rosidad en incluir la intervención esta mañana enla categoría de lo que es, con mucho, el mejortipo de trabajo que puede desarrollar el serhumano, el trabajo como don o regalo.

ALEJO JOSÉ G. SISON






I feel it a great pleasure andprivilege to be here in this lovelycity with such lovely weather; ashame we are inside!

I have to tell you that my motherwould be very pleased that I amhere if she were alive. When I wentto University to study Greek andLatin and Philosophy she was alittle disappointed, because herfather was an engineer. He hadactually been responsible forbuilding the lighthouses around theWest Coast of Ireland. So if you sailto Europe from America the firstlight you see would be from alighthouse built by my grandfather. Ithink she thought that studyingPhilosophy was not as high adistinction as building a lighthouse.So she would be pleased to seeme if she were alive today, standingin front of engineers and talkingabout moral things. When I started

thinking about this talk, I decidedthat really the more accuratedescription would be the moraldilemmas of a modern society,which actually underlie what wemean by success. And so I haveidentified ten dilemmas, which Iam going to share with you thismorning.

I call myself a social philosopher.Philosophers are people who askthe difficult questions, and neverprovide you with the answer;because the answers have to bemade not by me or anyphilosopher, but by you. And if theyprovide you with the answer, it stillis not the right ultimate answer. Forinstance, if Aristotle —who is in asense, the philosophers’philosopher— were here today;and you asked him; “SeñorAristotle, what is the purpose oflife?” He would probably say to

you: “It is happiness”. But that stillleaves a question, what ishappiness for you? Actually, itwould be a mistranslation of theGreek word that he’d use,eudaimonia, which more accuratelytranslated, means “flourishing”.So the purpose of your life andsuccess in your life is to flourish,but only you can answer what thatmeans for you. I, the philosopher,Aristotle the philosopher, can onlyinsist that you answer the question.I can’t answer it for you. So I have10 questions for you, and noanswers.

What is success today? Only youcan answer it, but let me gothrough what I see as the moraldilemmas of our modern life andwork. I have three sets. I have firstof all the dilemmas ofCapitalism: the big ones. ThenI have the dilemmas for amanager. And then I have thedilemmas for you as anindividual.

1. These are the big dilemmas ofCapitalism:

1.1 First moral dilemma ofCapitalism:

Adam Smith, in a sense thefounding father of capitalisteconomics, legitimised selfishnessin a way. But the people who quoteAdam Smith and the Wealth ofNations, his great book, should firstof all read his other book, the bookhe wrote first, The Theory of MoralSentiments, in which he said that asuccessful society needs to havesympathy and care for one’sneighbours. So he wasn’t actuallyabout selfishness. But one bitnobody would have read, at leastnobody that I have met would ever

“The Moral Dilemmas of Modern Society”

Charles HandyRafael Escolá Memorial Lecture




have read is something that AdamSmith also said, because he was awise man: “a profitable speculationis presented as a public goodbecause growth will stimulatedemand and everywhere diffusecomfort and improvement. Nopatriot or man of feeling couldtherefore oppose it. But the natureof this growth, in opposition, forexample, to liberal ideas such ascultivation, is that it is undirectedand infinitely self-generating in theendless demand for all the uselessthings in the world”.

If you go into the average shoppingmall or airport shopping area today,Adam Smith you would be horrifiedat the clutter of useless things weare asked to buy. There is a greatproblem in economics. If we go ontrying to stimulate consumption bymanufacturing and selling moreuseless things, we shall actually runout of desire. We will not want to

buy these things. This has alreadyhappened in Japan. For the pastten years people have refused tospend more money; they saved itinstead, because there was nothingthey wanted to buy. The Japanesehave invented a word for theseuseless things. They call them“chindogu”, meaning trivial littlethings. But my favourite examplefrom Japan were windscreenwipers for your spectacles, in caseyou go out in the rain; the sort ofthings you give people in theirChristmas stockings; things thatyou don’t need and really don’twant.

Now I appeal to you as engineers:please, make it your job never tomake anything useless. Please,make only useful things. Andplease, believe in cultivation. Pleasemake your cities beautiful. Please,make things that are beautiful inthemselves, that are well designed,that not only work well, but alsolook good. Things that are pleasantto feel, pleasant to use. Pleasemake no more useless things orthe world —the economy— willcollapse as we run out of desire.This is a moral choice that youcould make. So, Adam Smith, wewill try to make sure that yourprophecy does not come true.

1.2 Second moral dilemma ofCapitalism:

Then we still have to deal with mysecond moral dilemma andthat’s the Paradox of Growth.

It seems to me inevitably true —perhaps “inevitably” is not the rightword, but so far, it has provedtrue— that the faster an economygrows, the bigger grows the gapbetween the top and the bottom.It’s not that those at the bottomdon’t get richer when the economygrows. Everybody gets a littlericher. But the richer ones, the top10%, get much richer than thebottom 10%. And the bottom 10%do not feel richer because we don’t

look backwards at what ourparents had. We don’t lookbackwards to five years ago: welook to our neighbours. We see thisgrowing disproportion between thepeople who earn the money at thetop of our organisations, and thoseat the bottom. Now you are a justsociety in Spain. But you will knowthat in America the average salariesof the Chief Executive Officers ofthe Fortune top one hundredcompanies is now 450 times biggerthan the average wage at thebottom. Plato recommended thatthat should be 4 times. But ofcourse that was long ago and theworld was much smaller. But from4 to 450, should that be right? So,I appeal to you engineers, ex-engineers, managers, leaders;please restrain yourselves. It doesnot do you any good. Nobodywould admire you for the amountof money you tuck away in yourwallets.

Capitalism may actually destroyyourselves if it is seen that thepeople that are at the top bit makeso much more than the people atthe bottom. What can you doabout it? First of all, I would say:restrain yourselves. In Britain theargument is: we must pay our topexecutives as much as they paythem in America, becauseotherwise our top executives will goto America. Well, actually, nobodyis asking them to come to America,they are not that good. So this isan excuse. As you know, in ourremuneration committees they arealways the same people, so if I get20% more then I give you 20%more. So restrain yourselves,please, if you are at the top.

Secondly, is it moral to pay yourtaxes? Because governments cando something to make sure thatthose at the bottom get richerfaster than those at the top.Amazingly this has just begun tohappen in the last two years inBritain. The bottom 10% have gota little richer quicker than the top




10% —the gap is still enormous—but there’s still a little bit ofredistribution going on, and that’sonly possible if the people at thetop pay their taxes. So don’t getyour accountants working too hard.It would be immoral to let them payyour taxes.

Thirdly, if you have more thanenough, please use the surplus forthe benefit of others. Bephilanthropists. Elizabeth my wifeand I are conducting research for anew book which is what we callThe New Philanthropists: peoplewho are making money young,which is happening in Britain now,and have more money than theyneed at the age of 40 or 45. Someof them are using that surplusmoney, and some of their surplustime, to make good causes happenon the world around them; to startthings that the government isn’tdoing; to fill the gaps in socialprovision; to actually take upparticular causes that are close totheir hearts. They are using theirentrepreneurial business skills, aswell as their money. They are notwaiting until they are long pastretiring to actually work and shareall as they used to do, or engage inwhat is called post-mortemfinancial planning: waiting until theyare dead to write out cheques.Please, if you have more thanenough, do something useful withit, for the good of others.

1.3 Third moral dilemma ofCapitalism:

The third great dilemma ofcapitalism is Karl Marx’s legacy.Karl Max said that the world wouldbe a better place when the workersowned the means of production. Ofcourse, we all know that he meantthat they should own the factoriesand that they should own theshares that own the factories. Butthat never happened. And probablyshould never happen. But, if youthink about it, the workers now do

own the means of production,because the means of production,the assets of any corporation reallyare here, in the heads and theknowledge and the skills of thepeople in their organization. Youare the means of production in themodern world. Now, this producesan interesting dilemma: who ownsyou? Is it right that financiers;people who own shares actuallyown you, the assets of theorganization? When people ownpeople we call it slavery. Of coursethis is mitigated slavery but,nevertheless, I think we are goingto see a shift in the balance ofpower from the people who financethe business to the people whomake the business happen andcreate the real value for thatbusiness: the workers, particularlythe skilled workers. One otherinteresting thing is going to happenas a consequence of Karl Marx’sprediction is that some of thosepeople with the skills and with theassets in themselves, in their headsand in their bodies and in theirhands would say “why am I selling

all my intellectual property to theorganization in return for a not veryadequate salary?” Aren’t theygetting too good a value? Since Ihave contributed more to theadded value of this organizationthan the financiers andshareholders, shouldn’t I have asmuch right to the profits and addedvalue of the organization as theydo? If they are not going to giveme a share of those profits, wellthen, I think I might walk outsidethe organization, and actually sellmy skills and my talents and myintellectual property back to themfrom the outside.

That’s what I did when I decided towrite a book. It’s not good, as youwill know, writing a book unlessyou have somebody to print it andsomeone to distribute it andsomeone to sell it. So I needed anorganization. I found one, calledRandom House, which is thebiggest publishing house in theworld. It is an elephant. But theydon’t employ me. I own my ownintellectual property and I have an




arrangement with them whereby forevery book that they sell I get 10%,a share of the added value. Andwhen you come to think about it,all the intellectual property ofRandom House, this hugeelephant, is outside theorganization. None of the authorsare employed by the organization.Increasingly I can see architects,lawyers, engineers, doctors, allsorts of people saying “I think I’lltake my skills outside and sendthem back to you in return forshare of the added value”, andthey’ve improved. So organizationshave a moral dilemma. Do theykeep these people inside of them,and try to buy their loyalty for a littlemoney, or do they actually treatthem as the real owners of theassets of the organization and give

them a share the money? Becauseif they don’t then they will leave.These will become the affluentsuccessful fleas that I write aboutin this book, The elephant and theflea. My prediction is that there aregoing to be more and more fleas inthe world. Governments don’t likethat, organizations don’t like that,and not every individual would likethat because you are swappingfreedom and independence forsecurity. At a certain stage in lifeyou would prefer security tofreedom, but you are selling yourassets cheap if you do. This is theinteresting moral dilemma forindividuals and fororganizations.

2. Dilemmas for Managers:

Let me turn to your dilemmas asa manager, because if you’re notyet a manager I think that you willsoon be. Because, as I understandit, the preferred route tomanagement in Spain has alwaystraditionally been throughengineering. In Spain, I understand,engineers are highly valued people.In Britain they are just mechanics.In Britain, the preferred route intomanagement, until businessschools came along recently, wasthrough accountancy. That’s whymy best friends are accountants.They are wonderful people butaccountants traditionally lookbackwards not forward.Accountants traditionally only lookat numbers or money and not atpeople; and accountants don’t likerisk. Three things that make themvery bad people. So, you arefortunate, in that you haveengineers at the top of yourorganizations whereas we in Britainfor a long time only hadaccountants. Nevertheless, we stillhave these dilemmas, when youget there, whatever you are,whether an engineer or not.

2.1 First dilemma for Managers:

Jeffrey Pfeffer, St Augustine andGeorge Bernard Shaw. What,you may say, an unlikely trinity isthat. But, actually, they are allconnected, let me explain.

Jeffrey Pfeffer, as those of you whowere here last year will remember,said quite correctly that the ends ofthe operation do not always justifythe means. It’s not enough topursue the right end: you must alsohave the right values, and do theright things, to get there. He gavelots of nice long words for it, butthat was basically what he wassaying. You must do right as wellas doing it for the right purposes.But actually, it is more importantthan that. He was saying that

making money does not justifyanything; you still have to be goodwhile you make money. I think thatmaking money is not an end for anorganization. It is the means tosomething bigger. In anorganisation, be it a business ornot, we need money. We have tomake money and we have to makemore money next year than lastyear in order to grow and in orderto survive. But that is not thepurpose of the organization, norshould it be the purpose ofbusiness. The purpose of businessshould be bigger. The profit is themeans to growth, to survival, to doit better than you have been doing.It is not the end. St Augustine saidit was a moral sin to confuse theends and the means. And that, Ithink, is what a lot of our businesspeople do, at least in Britain. Theprofit is the means and not theend. The end should be somethingbigger. If I can give you a morehomely example. We need food tolive, but if we reverse it and makethe food the object of life. If we livein order to eat —after two days inSan Sebastián, I think it willhappen— we would get very large,we would become gross. It’s thewrong way round: we eat to live,we don’t live to eat. We makemoney to do better business. Wedo not do better business to makemoney. That is the corruption ofcapitalism.

George Bernard Shaw wrote: “thisis the true joy of life, the being usedfor a purpose recognised byyourself as a mighty one; the beingthoroughly worn out before you arethrown on the scrappy, the being aforce of nature instead of afeverish, selfish little clod ofailments and grievances,complaining that the world will notdevote itself to making you happy…The only real tragedy in life isbeing used by personally motivatedmen for purposes that yourecognise to be base”. Now, I haveto say, it’s a very odd thing,




because George Bernard Shawnever went further than the gardenshed where he wrote his greatplays and he never worked in abusiness organization. But,nevertheless, what he says ringstrue in my ears. I have myself seenpeople working in a businessorganisation where they feel theyare being used by personallymotivated people for purposes thatthey consider base. So, thechallenge —the moral challenge—,I think, for any leader in anybusiness is to have a mightypurpose that will motivate and lifteveryone up. It becomes what ourprevious speaker (Rafael Termes)so well said, an intrinsic motivationrather than an extrinsic one. If youlook at all the studies of the greatgroups in the world they didn’twork for money. They worked for acause. They worked for somethingthey believed in, something theywere passionate about. Thechallenge for leaders, and you willall become leaders, is to create amighty purpose, to lift your peopleup and, without that, capitalismbecomes a base activity in myview.

2.2 Second dilemma for Managers:

Now, we’ve got number five ofmy ten dilemmas: Pope Leo Xand the doughnut. Again youmay think this is an unworthycomparison of the greatRenaissance Pope, the Medici. As Iunderstand, Pope Leo X was thefirst one to publicly promulgate thedoctrine of subsidiarity. You arenow all familiar with it, of course,and its political use in the EuropeanUnion. And none of my workingfriends can spell it or understand it.They call it “subsidiary” and theywonder why I cannot spell itproperly. But you will know thatPope Leo X said that it is againstright moral order for a higher bodyto take unto itself responsibilitiesthat properly belong to a lower

body. Or the example that he used:it is wrong for the State to do whatthe family does better. Now I’m nottalking politics, I’m not talkingabout the European Union, orabout Spain or the Federation ofSpain, I am actually talking aboutthe organization and I translatesubsidiarity to be stealing people’schoices is morally wrong.

Let me give you an example. Ourdaughter, aged 23 some yearsago, decided to go into business.She was a masseur at the time.She was very good at making youfeel good with your body. And shedecided to set up a little businessin which she would hire a lot ofother masseurs who would go intoorganizations, particularly banks,and places where people sat attheir desks all day long, and rubtheir shoulders and it would be afringe benefit, a health benefit fromthe organization. At one time, shehad something like 80 peopleworking for her. As a parent I wasvery worried about this because,though she was a good masseur,she knew nothing about businessor about management but, luckily,she had a father, didn’t she? Afather who wrote books aboutbusiness and management. Somaybe she would come and talk toher father. No, nor did she ask formy books. So what does one do?I thought “well, I’m worried,I wonder if she’s got the rightinsurance policies, I wonder if she’scharging the right rates, I wonder ifshe’s paying her people properly,I wonder if she knows anythingabout running a business”. So thenI thought “well, I’d better go toher”. But then I drew back, andI said "what if I go to her and try totell her what to do, she may wellsay two things: ‘Dad, if you want torun it, why don’t you run it, if youknow it so well?’ or she would say:‘I don’t want to speak to youagain, it’s my business’. In otherwords, I don’t think I would havehelped. Then I remembered Pope

Leo X and I thought, “If I go andinterfere with her business I amstealing her responsibilities, I amstealing her choices”. And I made arule to myself: I would never giveher advice unless she asks for it,which is very difficult to do if youare a worried parent of a 23-year-old daughter, I promise you.

I think a lot of organizations are fullof false subsidiarity, of people whoare stealing people’s choices. Andthat is a moral problem, says PopeLeo X. I have to say, a lot oforganizations that I know in Britainare full of sin in that sense: a lot ofpeople are being acquitted of theirresponsibilities. So what do we doabout it? Now this is where thedoughnut comes in. This is myfavourite management theory.

This is an English sort of doughnut;this is the jam in the middle of theouter circle and this is the space inthe centre (the inner circle). This isa very respectable way ofdescribing it but it’s very important.Now, this is your job, this is the jobfor your group. In your job there willbe a core (the inner circle), whichyou have been told to do and, ifyou don’t do that, you would havefailed. In a smart organization youwould have some kind of jobdescription or objectives orsomething: it will be written down;but even if it isn’t you will knowwhat it is, what you’ve got to do oryou would have failed. The snag isthat even if you do all, you will nothave succeeded, because you willhave been expected to fill up the



rest of your doughnut. The troubleis: no one knows what’s there (theouter area). If they knew what theywanted you to do there, they’dhave told you. You have to useyour imagination and your initiative:this is your responsibility. And fromyour outer limits to it, you areexpected to fill it, not just to do thejob. This is what people like.

I once had a job —I think I recountit in this book (The Elephant andthe Flea)— when I was working forShell, back in London, and it was avery grand title: I was regionalcoordinator, oil, Mediterraneanregion, excluding France. Iimpressed my friends at dinnerparties when I was 27 years old. Ihad three pages of a jobdescription. Those three pages told

me everything I had to do. Thiswas the core of my doughnut.Then at the bottom there was aparagraph. “Authorities”, it said,“Authority to initiate expenditure upto a maximum of 10 pounds”. Thiswas the outer area in my doughnut.I did not think they understood meproperly. I did not think they werepractising subsidiarity. I was bored,I felt cheated, I left. Oh but before Ileft I had a chance to make surethey noticed me. One of my dutieswas to take all the requests forcapital expenditure from thedifferent countries and forward it tothe right committee. One day I gota request from the Italian companyto build a new refinery in the Bay ofNaples. Now I knew the Bay ofNaples, my classical education hadimprinted its history on me. For theoil company to build a refinery therewould be terrible! But I had noauthority to take the decision: tenpounds; and this was going to costmore than ten pounds. But I coulddo something else. This was longago, before e-mail. I took therequisition paper, tore it up and putit in the waste bin. After six weeksthey thought something had gonewrong with the Italian mail and theysent it again with more copies toeverybody and eventually they gotthe refinery, but for six weeks Idelayed. I had negative power, notpositive power. If you do notpractise subsidiarity in yourorganization you are not only in sinbut you are laying yourself open toother people using their negativepower. It’s a moral dilemma.

If you wish to be a successfulmanager today, practise largedoughnuts. And in order for that tohappen you have to trust people.You have to rely on their loyalty andthat they share your values andthat they understand what successmeans for their organization. If youare a manager or a leader youmust communicate all these thingsand you must be well enoughknown to them so that they can

trust you. You can’t trust themunless they trust you. It’s difficultthis subsidiarity thing. Veryimportant, I think.

2.3 Third dilemma for Managers:

The sixth dilemma, the third forthe manager. The Sigmoid curveand Rachel Whiteread. Now, thisis your responsibility as a manager.This is your organization’s chart.Ok, the times may vary but,basically, in any organization thatstarts, there would be a dip whereyou spend more than you get in, byway of returns. In my case, this isthe education bit, as it were. Andthen there is success. I don’t knowhow long it takes, but one day youand your organization will go down,unless you do something about it.Just doing the same will not workfor very long. You have to bedifferent. Otherwise, you die toosoon. In your organization and inyourselves, you have to start asecond curve. But, the trick is, youhave to start it before the first onepeaks, because otherwise youwon’t have enough resources tostart the second curve. If you waitlonger, because you are frightened,then you are too late. You won’thave enough money; people wouldhave left. It’s difficult to start later.But how do you know when youare there? Everything is going well;you haven’t seen the curve ahead.

As far as you are concerned this isgoing to go on forever, in your lifeor in your organization. So youhave to be alert to the fact that atthe moment of the greatest




success you should be thinkinghow to be different.

This brings up the challenge thatyou have as a manager, that ofRachel Whiteread. Rachel is aBritish sculptor. She does veryunusual works of art. This is one ofthem. Look at it carefully. Can youimagine what it is? What Racheldoes is that she fills the spacesthat we don’t see with a cement orplastic. What she’s done here,she’s found a staircase and she’sfilled the space underneath withcement. Then she’s taken thestaircase away. She’s made visiblethe empty space underneath thestaircase. Very odd. Not really athing of beauty but something thatmakes you think. I think that this isone of the functions of great art, itmakes you think. It might havebeen beautiful as well but it isimportant that it makes you think.Why am I showing you this?Because Rachel has found a wayof seeing something, of making ussee something that wasn’t there.This was empty. She’s madespace, emptiness, become visible.Now I am arguing that one of theresponsibilities of managers is tokeep the organization goingforward. One of the responsibilitiesof an entrepreneur, of a great deanis to glimpse something that isn’tthere and fill it.

Recently, I had the great privilege ofinterviewing Jeff Skoll. He was oneof the two people who startedeBay. Only 8 years ago, by theway, isn’t that amazing? Jeff wasjust finishing business school atStanford University when he metPierre Omidyar. Pierre Omidyar wasa genius with little gadgets,electronic stuff. Pierre said to Jeff:“wouldn’t it be nice if people couldbuy and sell things on theinternet?” And Jeff had just finishedbusiness school and said: “that’s astupid idea” —he was a goodbusiness school student. But thenhe went to work for a newspapercompany that wanted him to put

some of their paper on the internet.This was back in 1995, ten yearsago. And Jeff thought the mostobvious thing that you would puton the internet would be theclassified advertisements. Butwhen he went to the people incharge of the classifiedadvertisements in the newspaperroom, they said: “don’t beridiculous”. And Jeff thought “ifthey think it is ridiculous maybe itisn’t”. And he went back to Pierreand he said: “I know it’s not there,and nobody is doing it but I think itis there: Let’s do it!”

As you know it became the fastestgrowing business in the history ofthe world: First to reach one billiondollars in sales in under four years.They created a kind of socialrevolution, only because Jeff —notreally Pierre, Pierre was good withthe gadgets— saw the businesspotential. Jeff thought that,basically, people are good and that,provided there is total transparency,they will trust other people to begood and that the best way ofestablishing meaningfulrelationships between two adults isto trade. If everybody gets a gooddeal out of it, you have built arelationship, and the world is abetter place. Ah but eBay makesmoney, but that was not really whatthey started to do. Jeff had no ideahe was going to create the fastestgrowing business in history. In fact,after five years, he left. He recruitedMeg Whitman to run it and said “Iam leaving”. Meg said, “How canyou leave the most successfulbusiness in history just when it istaking off?” “Well, I’ve made moremoney than I ever needed, I’mbored. I’ve got other things I wantto do”. He wasn’t about makingmoney. What I am saying is that heand Pierre, but basically Jeff, sawsomething that wasn’t there andmade it happen.

Now, in a much smaller way, I thinkit is the job of leaders to glimpsethat second curve, to find

something that isn’t there andmake it happen. That is a moralresponsibility because otherwisethe organization will die.Organizations are the only things, ifyou think about it, that could haveimmortality, that could live for ever,but only if they create endlesssecond curves. And very few do.When Shell had to round up all thepublicly owned companies thatwere more than one hundred yearsold in the world, a few years back,they found 28. I suppose theCatholic Church is the bestexample of a lasting organization.My Oxford College is 750 yearsold, not bad, but mostorganizations die. They could beimmortal. And part of ourresponsibility, I think, is try andmake them so.

3. Dilemmas for the Individuals:

3.1 First dilemma:

Now, finally, we have thedilemmas for the individuals.First one: Delhi, John Mc Larenand Elisabeth my wife. Again, anodd trinity, but let me tell you whythey are connected. Elisabeth and Iwere in Delhi not too long ago, andwe went into this little call centre.As we walked into this call centrein Delhi, you see over it, it saysAOL and Dell. These are thecompanies that they worked for. Alltheir customers, basically, are inAmerica. The people in the callcentre come to work at 8 o’clockat night because that’s whenAmerica is waking up. And they areIndians, they are qualified graduateIndians: a lot of women, and youngmen. And they come in dressed intheir saris, with their nice Indiannames and nice Indian voices andwithin half an hour they havepractically become Americans.They wear jeans and T-shirts andthey change their names toAmerican names and they starttalking with a slight Americanaccent; because if you are an

American in Kansas and you arecalling a number that you think is inKansas but actually is in Delhi, youreally want to think you arespeaking to an American. They aretrained to watch American soaps,learn American geography,American words and becomeAmericans. I think this is horriblebecause here are Indians becomingAmericans while they are workingin this call centre, and they have tochange back to being Indians intheir homes. Then I thought: “Aha,aha, when I see people wearingfunny clothes when they walk intotheir office; they actually talk with adifferent voice and they behaveslightly differently. Are you the sameperson at home and the sameperson in the office? Do you havethe same values when you are afather or a mother or a brother or asister? Or when you are the bossor the supervisor? Or are you twodifferent people? Who are you? Areyou changeable? Do your valueschange? How many people areyou?”

This is John McLaren. You will seethree people here. Three differentpeople, but no, they are all JohnMcLaren. John McLaren is apartner in a small tiny boutiqueinvestment bank. That’s him in thedark suit at the back of this (Handyis pointing at a picture). But JohnMcLaren is also an enthusiasticamateur musician who actuallylaunched a wonderful world widecompetition to pick out the topseven new classical composersaround the world once every threeyears, for a master a prize. But thelargest bit of John McLaren is aprize-winning novelist. So they areall John McLaren but they weren’tthree years before this picture wastaken by Elisabeth. John wasworking all his time for DeutscheMorgan Grenfell as an investmentbanker; doing very well, I may say,but his whole life was taken overby Deutsche Morgan Grenfell. Thenhe decided “there’s more to me



than the man in the dark suit. I amalso a musician who wants tomake a difference in the musicalworld; I’m also a novelist whowants to write books”. So he leftDeutsche Morgan Grenfell andbecame three different people butstill one person. Now the greatdanger with organizations is thatwe capture you and we don’t allowyou to be fully yourselves. This iswhy someone like John becomes aflea. He doesn’t have to be a flea.Do you allow people in yourorganizations to be fullythemselves? And who are youreally anyway? Which is the bit ofyou that matters?

This is a self-portrait by Elisabethmy wife of herself. You can see thebit of her that she regards as themost important. This is Elisabeththe photographer. This is Elisabeththe homemaker and this isElisabeth my manager, agent andoffice worker, the bit that is anecessity but is not at all importantin her self-image of herself.

I would like to challenge you all tocompose a photograph ofyourselves and parade it aroundthe place so that we really knewwho you are, because you areprobably three people. And a bit ofyou is a bit of you that you wouldrather not be doing, but you haveto do because your material needshave to be met. You have to earnsome money. But you are lucky if,while you are earning money, youare actually doing what you believein. This is very important, to dowhat you really believe in.

3.2 Second dilemma forIndividuals:

Next dilemma is Whistler’smother, Joanna and Jeff Skollagain. You may have seen thisportrait, Whistler’s mother. It is afamous painting by Whistler of hismother. She is a precious ladyaged, as far as I can calculate,

about 61 (in the last century, ofcourse) And that’s indeed how mymother looked when she was 61. Anice lady but slightly, shall we say,old. This is what 61 looks like thesedays. This is one of a group of 28women, that Elisabeth and Iresearched, and she photographedfor a book that we calledReinventing Lives: women at 60.What we discovered for a wholegeneration of women in Britain afew years back, who had marriedin their twenties, had children andnow are 60. In a sense they wererelieved: they had no jobs, wereretiring, the children had left home,the husbands had been parkedand their dog died. They were free,and what did they do? They didn’tsit like Whistler’s mother, and wait

to death sitting in an armchair. Theystarted a new life. Somebodyfounded a restaurant, somebodyfounded a law firm, somebody hadmarried another man, somebodydivorced her husband. Theyreinvented their lives. They startednew lives. Now, these were womenat sixty. We now encourage everyman we meet aged 58 to read thisbook, because we discovered thatwhereas women live forthemselves, men on the whole donot. They just slow down. This isvery interesting because we nowhave an extra ten years of life,somehow, this generation. If youare now thinking of retiring at 65 ormaybe 62 or maybe you are beingvery adventurous and wish to retireat 60. You have 20 to 25 years left.

Do you want to play golf everyday?This is your chance to have asecond chance. In a sense this isyour chance for redemption. If youhaven’t got your life right the firsttime, now you can do it.

This is where Jeff Skoll comes inagain. Jeff Skoll, he said to me:“you know, when I was 14 myfather came home from work (hewas a businessman) and he told usthat he had just been diagnosedwith terminal cancer” (in his forties)And “my father”, he said “was notupset about dying. He was upsetbecause he hadn’t done all thethings, in his life, that he hadwanted to do”. This is thechallenge. So many men I meetand some women, by the time theyreach seventy or something, theystill haven’t done many of thethings they wanted to do in life.And now they are too tired. But wehave the trust to make sure that wedo not die without having done allthe things that we ever dreamt of. Iam going to make the pilgrims’way to Santiago de Compostela.So this is your chance and, if youdo not take it, I believe you areimmoral, because you are notmaking the most of your life. It isyour chance for redemption.

3.3 Third dilemma for Individuals:

The ninth dilemma is DavidCharter’s still-life. In this littlebook that Elisabeth and I arewriting about philanthropists,people who have more thanenough in middle life and are doingsomething with it. We asked themto give us, to give Elisabeth, fiveobjects and a flower to describetheir values in life: the things thatmatter to them. She thencomposes them into a picture of astill-life, after the Dutch paintings ofthe XVII century. Now this is DavidCharter’s. I have to explain. This isa photograph of his parents. Theywere very important in his life andthe still are: they gave him his basic




values. These are little bronze castsof his little sons, because hischildren, the next generation, arevery important to him. The lilyrepresents his love for his wife. Thepen there represents how he madehis money, because he was aninvestment banker and every timethey made a deal in Japan worthmany millions, of which he got ashare, they gave him a pen, so hehas a lot of pens. But the thingsthat intrigued me were this andthis. I said to David “what arethose?” and he said, “well, theseare my mother-in-law’s poker chipsand that’s a bottle of the bestchampagne”, and I said, “agambler and a drunkard? Not myimage of you, David”. He said “no,no: the poker chips, they representrisk”. In everything you do in life,even in financial things, if there isnot a risk of failure you haven’tpushed it far enough. You’ve beentoo comfortable, too safe; youhaven’t mixed with all thepossibilities. There must be risk ineverything you do. Not too muchrisk, but risk. The fear of failuremust be there. Secondly,everything you do must be worthyof public celebration. You must beproud of it when it happens. Sorisk and public celebration shouldbe a measure of everything you doin life, otherwise you are not livinglife to the full. It’s a moral problem, I

suspect, and success is all aboutall these things.

3.4 Fourth dilemma for Individuals:

And, finally, another trinity, MarsilioFicino, Aristotle and RabbiSusa:

Marsilio Ficino was the tutor toCossimo de Medici and LorenzoMedici. They had a little group inFlorence in the Renaissance daysof the XV century. He was themoral guardian, the guide. Theyasked him one day: “Marsilio, whatis our duty in life?” and he said “it isyour duty to bring your soul to light,so that all may see it”. Like allphilosophers’ questions, this onlybegs another question. So “what,they said, is the soul?” “Ah!” hesaid, and they were expecting, Ithink, a great religious answer. Andhe said: “the soul is that which ispotentially the greatest thing withinyou: your unique talent and gift;you must bring that to the light ofday”. He would conclude: “that isyour duty in life”. In those days:they were rediscovering theGreeks; he may have been readingAristotle who had said, that thepurpose of life is eudaimonia,properly translated as “flourishing”:using your talents to the full. AndI’m trying to say to you: you maynot be able to change the world;

you may not be able to make theworld or even San Sebastian a verymuch better place; but my God,you could have a try, and you don’thave to be wonderful.

You can just remember rabbi Susa.He said in a moment of self-revelation: “God will not ask mewhen I go to heaven why I was notMoses; he will ask me why I wasnot Susa”. Our challenge, ourmoral imperative in life, is to be fullyourselves, not someone else. Ispent so much of my lifepretending to be someone I wasn’t.In the end the truth is being true toyourself, your full self, your possibleselves; and as Keats said: “Truth isbeauty” even though you may notlook like it, as in my case, “andbeauty is truth”. Be yourselves asfull as possible: that, in my view, isthe new meaning of success in life,and always has been.

Thank you for being so patient withme.




JOURNAL / Nº2 / JUNIO 2005

U n i v e r s i d a d d e N a v a r r aN a f a r r o a k o U n i b e r t s i t a t e aE s c u e l a S u p e r i o r d e I n g e n i e r o sI n g e n i a r i e n G o i M a i l a k o E s k o l a

Paseo de Manuel Lardizábal, 13. 20018 Donostia-San Sebastián.Tel. 943 219 877 Fax 943 311 442www.tecnun.es [email protected]



Documents

Cátedra Rafael Escolá de Ética Profesional - tecnun.es · Rafael Escolá y la excelencia profesional ... formación y compromiso social. Aún era el martes de esta semana,