R065 - Humanistic Leadership, with Xavier Marcet

I am sure that my conception of the business world was heavily biased by Hollywood. That vision of the yuppie, the ruthless shark with an ethics strictly based on money and a work addiction. And that was one of the reasons why I never had any interest in being a “businessman”.

Years later, I was very surprised when a reputable business school gave me the opportunity to explain to senior management how Runroom, the company I founded 20 years ago with my 3 partners, works. Astonished, I realized that fortunately, there is a huge need for examples of human cultures, self-governed companies, integrity and respect, decentralized decision-making, balance, and generosity. What ⁠Xavier Marcet⁠ defines as “humanistic management.”

What is the real world for you?

The world of my clients.

I have always thought it is very difficult to help clients. And in the end, the real world is what they drive and what I learn from them, what I try to learn, from a professional perspective. This is my real world, yes. We could be without people, it would be a disaster, but we could be without people. Maybe without technology, it would be a disaster, but we could be. But we couldn't be without clients. So, the real world is what I learn, sometimes with people who quickly inspire admiration, sometimes with people who seem, let's say, a bit mediocre, but the truth is the real world is my clients.

You accompany senior management, very large companies, and your reality must be quite complex.

But notice there is something very interesting, which is the privilege of complexity. And I think that when you approach complexity, I mean professional complexity, it is a privilege. So, you approach it with a vocation to serve. And you do it with the same zeal and the same enthusiasm, at least I do, when working with small companies as when working with large companies, because sometimes complexity is independent of size. And certainly, let's say, it is a great fortune. I feel very fortunate with all this because not only do I try to give the best I have, but I also meet very interesting and inspiring people and learn a lot, this is the truth.

R065 - Humanistic Leadership, with Xavier Marcet

I know you are irritated by the arrogance of certain types of leaders

People who lose the soul of an aspirant, aspirants look up the mountain. They can stop, look at the valley, the landscape changes, okay, but they look up. When you are at the very top, you think you are at the very top and have nothing left to learn, the only thing left to do is descend. So, yes, I can't stand arrogance or ostentation. Ostentation, I think, is devastating. It is unintelligent.

Haughtiness and corporate arrogance are not intelligent. They demonstrate something unresolved.

It doesn't mean people have to be, let's say, poor ascetics, on the contrary. I think life should be enjoyed, but you have to be careful. You can't lose the social sense, let's say, that a company has with your displays of luxury. This is absolutely unintelligent because these people, who seem to delight every time they pass by the executive parking lot, each time with cars that seem more fantastic and unattainable, one day we will have to ask them for efforts. And it's not right, ostentation is not the best path.

Haughtiness and corporate arrogance are not intelligent. They demonstrate something unresolved.

Why do inertias arise?

Jeffrey Pfeffer describes inertia as a company's inability to change as quickly as its environment. Why do inertias arise?

Because we need to create logics of repetition. A company, with all the derivations of business models, is to sell, produce, and collect as soon as possible and with margin. So, our great aspiration is to repeat this millions of times. Then, of course, there comes a time when you realize that creating this inertia that has its positivity, in the end, the speed ends up acquiring a life of its own and trying to modify, trying to change it, is very difficult. Inertias are what allow us, let's say, to transmit, the repetition of processes with ease, etc., etc. But the truth is that in the end, they are part of this logic in which transformation is something enormously complicated. And it doesn't break easily. For example, people who have to try to transform with training are wrong because training is the methadone of transformation. You have to do something more. It's harder, you need something tougher. And it's learning.

If you know that organizations are fragile, you need people who are not so fragile.

Maturing means that organizations have to mature. And that we cannot embark people on a change that we do not exemplify first in ourselves, but secondly, that is not well thought out and not well worked. Okay. But maturing means understanding that when you undertake a transformation or a change, not everything can be foreseen. Not all the billiard carom game will be given to you. And less artificial intelligence, because this will depend on people's reactions.

If you know that organizations are fragile, you need people who are not so fragile. Organizations are really fragile. We need people who can endure. Try to have people who know how to pedal in adversity. Not everything is flat and downhill.

You talk about managerial solidarity. Why is it important?

Because companies should tattoo something: and that is that no one wins the battle on their own. No one. That the whole is always more important than the parts. And then, I see many management committees where I'm not saying there's a fistfight in some, almost, but, let's say, they sometimes seem like meetings of union bosses, each one on their part. Being a manager is something else. Being a manager is thinking about the entirety of a company and from here, directly, each one has their responsibility. For example, in innovation, if there is no managerial solidarity, nothing happens. In innovation, there are two things that if they don't happen, nothing happens. One is managerial solidarity, you have to prepare the whole organization to be able to innovate. And the second is passion. Without passion, nothing happens.

And what should these leaders do to encourage this managerial solidarity?

Once again, let's say, lead by example and be forceful. Draker said that you have to be intolerant with intolerance, be forceful. Don't let silos crystallize too much. Encourage cross-cutting initiatives. And do something that is very complicated, you know it, but that makes me think a lot. We have fixed management teams. We are not a football coach who can, depending on the opponent, choose the 11 to put on the field. We always have the same starting 11. So, I think we have to have a second crown, that from time to time a team sees that from time to time plays, plays with the first team. And so on. We have structures that are too rigid. And I think we should get used to a more fluid meritocracy, in which reaching, let's say, a responsibility does not mean staying forever, nor blocking those below. I think we still have a lot to learn here.

Solidarity is based on necessity.

And on generosity. On both things. When a company loses any shred of generosity, it becomes bureaucratized. They no longer have time to talk to others or lend a hand. Then, you have to put a structure between them to guarantee things that used to work. I understand it when companies are very large, but even when they are very large, you end up creating layers of people. Bureaucracy is born when a disproportionate group of people consolidates who never think about clients. They think about something else, they think they owe it to the internal client. Man, no. Clients are always the ones who pay, not the ones who collect. Let's not get confused. You start with a shoe and an espadrille. One day comes when you want everything perfect. The price of this perfection, of this super coordination, is the risk of sclerosis.

People are the strategy

Try it the other way around. It's something I've experienced a lot. I'm sure I've absorbed a lot from Jim Collins. Jim Collins has a book called Good to Great, which is a book I reread every four or five years. The book is the same, but I'm not. So it's very inspiring. I realize how I also change. And he suggests that, given a playing field, first is who and then is what. So I try to practice this.

Now we have to push a project. We have delayed it six months with loss of opportunity, with loss of projects, of billings, for sure, until we find the person we believe is right. Remember this book, it says three things that I always remember.

One is that if you have to hire someone, if you have doubts, don't hire them.

Two, if you have to fire someone, do it quickly, don't waste their time or yours, but with rigor and without any cruelty.

And three, this is the one that makes me think the most, put the best people on the great opportunities and not on the big problems.

In what way does simplicity help deal with complexity?

Because it avoids over-engineering. It avoids unnecessary sophistication.

You start to lead the day your verb to influence weighs more than your verb to command.

There is something interesting. In English, simplicity is simplicity. Yes, it's true. It's simplicity. We distinguish in Spanish, in Catalan too, simplicity and simplicity. The path to simplicity is a path that brings you closer to wisdom. Simplicity is something else. Simplicity, let's say, is cutting, let's say, is looking for the short path. But it's something else, isn't it? Simplicity is trying to reach this situation where you can no longer remove anything. The obsession, at first, is always to add things. Then, the obsession is to remove everything that is superfluous. The people I admire are these, the people who have this ability. You approach someone who exudes wisdom when they are able to combine very well great knowledge and humility, simplicity, empathy.

You start to lead the day your verb to influence weighs more than your verb to command. You simply try to create a dynamic in which we try to do what we have to do, deliver results, adapt, learn, but in a way in which we try, above all with example, to set a vision, to walk a path, to exemplify, let's say, this path, to be able, let's say, above all to convey that leading is serving and not serving oneself. That when you are, the higher you are, people don't work for you, you think you work for them and we all work to bring intelligence, creativity, diligence to the clients. Then, leading is also this ability to put ambition and combine ambition with humility. Aim high, without altitude sickness.

Should everyone aspire to be leaders?

No, there are people who like to be well-commanded. There are people who like to be well-commanded.

And is that compatible with being a good professional?

Yes, everything, each one has their own, their logics and their expectations and their... There are people who feel comfortable this way, it gives them security and they can be great professionals. But in general, let's say, there is, there is, there is a need for another profile. This I do not say no. There is a need for another profile, profiles that handle well what is common in companies. Last year, I think like you, we turned 20 years. So, we had worked for 600 companies, and these 600 companies, what do they have in common? I came up with four things:

• One, that all believe they are the busiest in the world.
• The second is that there are always limits. Always. You always lack money, there are always limits, you lack people, you lack time, there are always limits.
• The third is uncertainty.
• And the fourth are imperfect teams. So, you need to have people who handle all this, who can make it positive, who can create a dynamic in which in the end, let's say, the day you feel you have led a little, is the day you think well, today we go home, I don't know if we have done everything we had to do, but everyone has given their best and there has been a certain generosity.

Not trying to eliminate complexity, but to navigate uncertainty and explore and observe it and live with it. With complexity, there is only one thing you have to avoid, which is increasing it. When managing complexity, try not to increase complexity. This is the expertise of politicians.

Can you be a good professional without being a good person?

You can try, but no. I don't think so. I think we always have more than one facet and there is a facet that is professional, in which you try to deliver results. There is a facet in which you try to transform or help someone adapt, transform yourself. But there is a facet that if you are not a good person, it doesn't work. That is this facet of helping others bring out their best version of trying to grow everyone, of trying to grow by making others grow. So, with all sincerity, being a good professional without being a good person has a short journey. I think so.

What skills should we develop as professionals in a context like the current one, where technology occupies everything?

Whatever you want, but always add three. Have the ability to sell, to negotiate, to synthesize, to make decisions, whatever you want. But add three at the end. Empathy. Quickly put yourself in the place of others, three weeks later is no good. Put yourself to see yourself in the place of others. Humility. No matter how many years you have, never stop listening and especially try to listen to what they don't tell you. And simplicity. Because we are in times of complexity. Add to this the skills you want, but add simplicity, humility, empathy.

What would a world without managers be like?

A world without managers is a world with a lot of self-management. There are very few experiences of holacracy. Those who try to govern organizations. The truth is that no one has achieved wonders. But there is a very interesting aspiration and it is these flat organizations in which we invite many people to learn to think and learn to make decisions and act, obviously. A world without managers would be a world in which everyone would have to be CEO of themselves.

It is creating a very powerful ecosystem and avoiding the emergence, let's say, of an egosystem.

You talked about holacracy, I like sociocracy 3.0 a little more. I have explored it with great interest. And as you say, there is no successful case as such.

We have been trying for many years to create organizations that respond to two things: the importance of delivering results and the second, the importance of bringing out the best in people. And the truth is that I think the more technology we have, the more need we will have for this type of experience. Without a doubt.

Are we moving towards a different type of leadership?

I firmly believe there are reasons to have hope. I think there is everything, but more and more companies understand what a company is, that it is not a business, that it is creating corporate value and creating social value at the same time and creating communities where we only have to watch one thing, which is respect and from respect emanates dignity. That's it, let's not complicate it. And I think we will increasingly achieve that there are more people who understand management and exercise. I am positive in this sense.

I think resilience is sometimes dangerous. In many cases, the best thing is to stop being resilient.

Yes, it's true. But it is also true that sometimes there are companies that have been able to endure because they have had people who endured.

We have been announcing for I don't know how many years to I don't know how many companies that disruption will come to them, the disruption, the re-disruption, as if the wolf were coming. And disruption has not come for them. We have to think. And in part, it hasn't come because surely we have been a bit naive, but in part, it hasn't come because they have had this great ability to face complex change processes. When you see Lehman Brothers, Credit Suisse, Kodak, 1000 strong companies that have fallen, you think this is fragile. But you have to look for people who know how to overcome this fragility. I am convinced of this.

Quality versus perfectionism

Kaizen cultures of continuous improvement, with a focus on total quality, on excellence. All that, which I am a firm defender of, against the obsession with perfection. Then, I also liked it, maybe I bring it a little closer to that concept of simplicity you mentioned earlier a little.

The plusquamperfects are terrible. They are a great pathology. These people who are perfect and have to repeat three times a day that they are perfect are terrible, they are devastating. A part of perfection is in simplicity. What a great contribution the Japanese have made with all this. It is the only country that I believe has made management a competitive capacity as a country. And it is very rare because we have adopted many things from them and look how different the cultures are. There is no contact between the Spanish and the Japanese. The only thing there is is that Japanese and Spanish women are the ones who live the longest, they are the longest-lived, but the cultures are completely different. So, for me, it has always been a point of admiration, how many companies here have been able to adopt something that comes from a culture that is often at the antipodes of where we are.

This hasn't always happened. And really, well, it's their way of competing. And then they have Toyota. Toyota is the cathedral. And then, but yes, it has always been something that has aroused a lot of curiosity in me that we have been able to adapt all that.

It's fantastic because they have an extraordinary sense of balance and synchrony. Balance and synchrony.

Kaizen is balance. And synchrony is this ability to connect something that is extraordinary, and it is to think that at the moment we are going to think that we only have to connect the machines, you realize that it is the other way around, that what you have is to connect people with machines behind. So, these synchronies have really seemed extraordinary to me. Management, our capacity for focus, is an attractive world.