An Inspirational Visit:
The business structures and practices pioneered by the cooperatives of the Mondragón Cooperative Corporation (MCC) are near legendary. Business students and scholars from around the world flock to the small town in the Basque region of Spain to study the cooperative for-profit businesses inspired by the Catholic priest Jose Maria Arizmendiarrieta. As one of those students myself, I was fascinated and heartened by the passion and philosophy of the workers, managers, teachers, and entrepreneurs we met during our visit. It was truly eye-opening to see people fully committed to the success of a system created to embody “something beyond personal gain, greed, and narrow selfish benefit” (Arizmendiarrieta, 2013, p.12).
In fact, the one downside to our visit was the stark contrast between the Mondragón mindset and our own culture’s obsession with the gain, greed, and selfish benefit denounced by Arizmendiarrieta. As I reflect on my experiences in Mondragón, it’s only natural that I wonder how their idealistic notions of responsibility for and service to the community could be imported to the United States. In my background, I have over 28 years of service in the U.S. military. And while the perceived autocratic nature of military service may seem at odds with the democratic ideals embodied in Mondragón’s governing principles, I think their two sets of values have more in common than is readily apparent. In this paper, I’ll examine some of the similarities (and differences) between Mondragón and the military in hopes of establishing a beachhead to land Mondragón’s values on our shores. But I’m getting ahead of myself. In order to fully understand where we want to go, it’s important to know where we are.
The Need for Change
Professor Rebecca Henderson and Case Researcher Michael Norris profiled the Mondragón Cooperative Corporation (MCC) for the Harvard Business School in their case study 1worker1vote: Mondragon in the U.S. In the study, they introduce Michael Peck who was the North American delegate for Mondragón (and who cofounded and directs the 1worker1vote initiative). As he reflected on the current state of business in the U.S., Peck observed: “Today, 400 individuals own more wealth than half the country’s bottom 150 million citizens combined and America ranks as the most unequal of any developed country” (Henderson & Norris, 2016, p.13). One reason for this is our slavish adherence to the capitalist business model which pays little attention to the social consequences of pursing profit. In his book From Mondragón to America: Experiments in Community Economic Development, Greg MacLeod quotes economist Milton Friedman as saying, “there is one and only one social responsibility of business – to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits” (MacLeod, 1997, p.68). This single-minded focus on profits leads to “the reality of today’s world order, where communities and cultures are being destroyed in the name of technology-driven economic progress” (MacLeod, 1997, p.65). And in George Cheney’s book, Values at Work: Employee Participation Meets Market Pressure at Mondragon the author cites economist David Gorden’s belief that “capitalism has…ceased to be responsive to broad social concerns in its dealings with employees and other stakeholders” (Cheney, 1999, p.129).
Clearly we live in tumultuous political and economic times. And we are often tempted to think that we are at a crisis point unmatched in modern history. But that isn’t exactly true. In assessing his own culture after arriving in Mondragón, Jose Maria Arizmendiarrieta felt “we have reached a social situation in which, worse than ever before, whim and ambition, pride and arrogance, selfishness and the cruelty of the strong are commonplace” (Arizmendiarrieta, 2013, p.27). And Arizmendiarrieta’s concerns were not limited to the local conditions in Mondragón. In words that could apply equally well to our current political environment, he noted of his own government: “Our beloved democracy may degenerate into a dictatorship through the abuse of power of those at the top as well as through the renouncement of power of those at the bottom” (Arizmendiarrieta, 2013, p.29). Clearly Arizmendiarrieta felt then (as we do now) that things need changing.
Arizmendiarrieta’s Vision
Although we study Mondragón primarily for its business model, economic reform was not first among Arizmendiarrieta’s priorities as he sought to bring about change. In fact, “his general goal [was] the total reform of society” (MacLeod 1997 p.79), and he believed “work could become an opportunity for personal growth and a social contribution to the general society” (MacLeod, 1997, p.58).
The history Ander Etxeberria gave us in his initial Mondragón presentation supports that narrative. Arizmendiarrieta thought the world was in crisis and sought to change the region from the ground up. His primary tools for achieving that change were work and education, and he placed particular importance on the education of youth. By organizing sports, plays, music recitals, and debates, Arizmendiarrieta fostered cohesion and intellectual curiosity in the region’s young people. And when the local technical school would not offer classes to his students, Arizmendiarrieta founded his own school, and eventually encouraged eleven of its graduates to pursue degrees in engineering. Five of those students later returned to Mondragón and founded the cooperative ULGOR in 1956 (Etxeberria, 2019).
Details of this story are important for two reasons: First, Arizmendiarrieta never took no for an answer. When existing schools or businesses would not cooperate with him, he founded his own to support the education and work he envisioned. And second, he took time to grow and educate his supporters. It took 15 years between Arizmendiarrieta’s arrival in Mondragón and the establishment of ULGOR. During that time, he led the future founders of ULGOR through community activities, technical school, and finally a university degree. Arizmendiarrieta’s combination of persistence and patience were key to the success of establishing cooperatives in Mondragón. And as I will explore in more detail later, I believe these qualities will be critical in any attempts to recreate Mondragón-style cooperatives in other locations.
The Unique Basque Culture
Before discussing the values and principles which undergird the Mondragón cooperatives (and their similarity to many of the military’s values), I want to briefly mention the importance of Basque culture. In their book, Making Mondragón: The Growth and Dynamics of the Worker Cooperative Complex, authors William and Kathleen Whyte stress that understanding the Basque people “is important for one’s understanding of Mondragón” (K. Whyte & W. Whyte, 1991 p.9). Due to the uneasy relationship between Spain and the Basque region, Whyte & Whyte claim “the history of the region…must be seen against a background of struggle by local leaders to preserve their autonomy” (K. Whyte & W. Whyte, 1991, p.10). This prolonged struggle against outside authority for an independent autonomy is a key element in the solidarity of the Basque people.
But oppression by Spain isn’t the only contributor to Basque solidarity and Mondragón’s success. Greg MacLeod cites surveys conducted by Bradley and Gelb which indicate that “the fact that they come from the same villages, go to the same bars, [and] belong to the same clubs has a cohesive effect and develops solidarity that carries over into the economic sphere” (MacLeod, 1997, p.94). Whyte & Whyte broaden the discussion by stressing the importance of “Basque values supporting the dignity and worth of all labor” (K. Whyte & W. Whyte, 1991, p.12), and David Herrera traces the influence of Catholic Social Thought on the principles, policies, and practices of Mondragón’s cooperatives (Herrera, 2004).
In fact, Bradley and Gelb think Bosque culture is so unique (and so integral to the success of the cooperatives) that they doubt the Mondragón model can be successfully replicated in other countries. But they admit that they’re making some common economic assumptions. “Underlying our discussion is the same self-centered individualistic human model common to conventional economic theory” (MacLeod, 1997, p.95). Greg MacLeod does not think Bradley and Gelb are right. “I do not accept this presupposition,” he asserts, “and neither did Don José Maria. In many cases human nature is egoistical, but…it doesn’t have to be that way” (MacLeod, 1997, p.95).
I agree with MacLeod. While the Basque culture and the Mondragón cooperatives are indeed unique, I don’t think they have a monopoly on the values of selfless solidarity and cooperation upon which their success depends. There are ways, I believe, to nurture these values outside the Basque country. But first we need to have a clearer idea of just what those values are.
The 10 Basic Principles
So far, we’ve looked at a few of the ills of capitalism, and some of the steps Arizmendiarrieta took to establish (and reinforce) values that were integral to the formation of ULGOR (a decidedly non-capitalistic enterprise). We’ve also looked at some aspects of the Basque culture and the importance they play in the success of Mondragón’s cooperatives.
Those cooperatives also are guided by 10 basic principles which have their roots in Catholic Social Thought. As listed in David Herrera’s 2004 paper, Mondragon: A For-Profit Organization That Embodies Catholic Social Thought, those basic principles are:
1. Open Admission
2. Democratic Organization
3. Sovereignty of Employee’s Work over Capital
4. Subordinate Character of Capital
5. Participatory Management
6. Payment Solidarity
7. Intercooperation
8. Social Transformation
9. Universal Nature
10. Education (Herrera, 2004, p.66)
For the remainder of this paper, I plan to look at six of those principles and how the values underlying those principles are also core values taught and reinforced by service in the U.S. military. The six values in particular I’ll be discussing are:
1. Open Admission
2. Subordinate Character of Capital
3. Participatory Management
4. Democratic Organization (purposely considered out of order)
5. Payment Solidarity
6. Education
After looking at those principles, I’ll also discuss a few other values and characteristics common to both cooperatives and military service (such as solidarity). Then I’ll close with a personal reflection on possible ways to grow and reinforce those values (thereby creating fertile soil for less capitalistic businesses) in our own culture. Here we go…
Open Admission
The first of the 10 basic principles is open admission. As described in David Herrera’s paper, open admission means “Mondragón is open to all persons who are capable of carrying out the available jobs. There is no discrimination based on religious or political grounds, nor due to race, gender, age, or socio-economic levels” (Herrera, 2004, p.66). The constraints placed on admission to the military (while not exactly the same), are remarkably similar.
First and foremost, both Mondragón and the military require “persons who are capable of carrying out the available jobs.” For Mondragón, this means you won’t get hired as a research scientist without the necessary training and/or degrees. The U.S. military is the same. Certain positions require certain degrees and/or capabilities. And because there is the very real possibility of being placed in a combat environment as part of military service, certain military specialties have specific physical requirements. In the past these requirements have been used to exclude women from certain jobs, but this is becoming less and less the case (as of 2018, 12 female soldiers have graduated from the Army’s very rigorous [and prestigious] Ranger School).
The military also has certain age restrictions for entry into some fields. These restrictions are based on two things: the physical requirements for the possibility of combat described above, and a fiscally-motivated goal that every person who enters the military has the possibility of completing 20 years of service (although there is no requirement to serve 20 years, that is the most cost-effective scenario in terms of retaining highly-trained individuals).
But like Mondragón, the military has no discrimination based on religious, political grounds, race, gender, or socio-economic levels. It’s worth noting that the military was one of the first social institutions to have mandated full racial integration and equal pay for equal work regardless of race or gender. There is still work to be done in terms of complete equality based on sexual orientation and identity, but it must be remembered that the military is constitutionally bound to follow the directions of the Commander in Chief, and recent guidance on these issues has been far from consistent.
This is not to imply that the military is anywhere near perfect in terms of equal opportunity and social justice. Inadequately-realized ideals and pockets of prejudice exist within the military just as they do in society at large. But the military (like Mondragón) is committed to providing equal opportunity for employment to all who meet the requirements for a specific position.
Subordinate Character of Capital
The primacy of the worker over capital is a key defining characteristic of the Mondragón cooperatives. As stated in the 10 basic principles, “capital is a means to an end, not an end in itself” (Herrera, 2004, p.66). This is in direct contrast to capitalism where capital is king, and workers are only useful to the extent they can contribute to an increase in capital. And it’s important to note that in the capitalist model this capital is privately owned by people or organizations other than the workers.
As an institution in the public sector, the military doesn’t have capital in the strictest sense of the word. But it does have significant assets in the form of bases, ships, planes, and sophisticated offensive and defensive systems. These assets are technically owned by the U.S. taxpayers. However, the military has stewardship over these assets and a fiscal obligation to maintain them responsibility as it accomplishes specific missions tasked by the Commander-in-Chief. This relationship is similar to the ownership cooperative workers have of the capital in their companies. They use, maintain, (and hopefully increase) the capital, but they only take the cash value of their fractional portion of it when they leave. The rest of the capital is left for the cooperative’s continued use.
Since the military doesn’t own or produce capital, its primary concern is the safe and efficient accomplishment of specific missions. These missions are executed by the soldiers and sailors of the individual services. Accomplishing these missions successfully is analogous to running a profitable business. A business must be profitable to retain viability and the military must succeed to avoid putting our country at risk. But in both the military and cooperatives, people are of primary importance in either attaining profitability or accomplishing a mission.
Mondragón’s president of international business Josu Ugarte has said, “For us, people are the most important asset” (Henderson & Norris, 2016, p.7). Echoes of this sentiment can be heard in the oft-repeated Air Force slogan, “People first, mission always.” As described by Lieutenant Colonel Mark Thompson on the official Air Force website, this means establishing a robust support network to take care of Airmen and their families. “It's meant as a realization that the individual family is part of the bigger Air Force family,” and that, “we need…the feeling of community in caring for each other” (Thompson, 2009, p.1).
As noted by Michael Peck in his discussion of business in the 21st century, “The true sustainability question is whether the human being is valued” (Henderson & Norris, 2016, p.13). I believe the soldiers and sailors of our military have far more in common with the worker-owners of Mondragón than with the employees of traditional capitalist businesses.
Participatory Management
Since cooperatives are owned by their workers, it makes sense that the workers would be the ones running the company. And indeed, “the majority of the managers do come from within the ranks of the work force” (MacLeod, 1997, p.86). But just because you work for the company doesn’t mean you automatically know the best way to run it. As MacLeod also notes, “it takes years and years to prepare a manager to be able to handle the complex decisions of a large company” (MacLeod, 1997, p.70). Fortunately, the cooperatives at Mondragón acknowledge this, and are committed to preparing their workers to take on leadership roles. The principle of participatory management provides for the “development of self-management skills” and “formal education…is provided to improve worker-owners’ ability to participate competently in decision-making” (Herrera, 2004, p.66).
This is completely analogous to the way leaders are trained and chosen in the military. Every leader at every level in the military started at the bottom (as either the lowest ranking enlisted member or the lowest ranking officer). No one from outside the military is ever brought in at any management level. And in every position or job you hold, you are being trained for the next level of responsibility. This means that no one gets to be the commanding officer of a Navy ship without having almost complete knowledge of every job on that ship (either through having had that job or having worked closely alongside that job). In a profession that operates systems as complex (and potentially deadly) as an aircraft carrier or a nuclear submarine, the wisdom of this approach is obvious. And just like in the cooperatives in Mondragón, this level of knowledge about (and connection to) the organization generally results in better decision making.
Democratic Organization
One area where the military and Mondragón’s cooperatives seem to be most out of sync is related to the principle of democratic organization. In its simplest form, this principle states, “Each cooperative is managed by a system of ‘one person-one vote’” (Herrera, 2004, p.66). And the military is rarely thought of as a democratic organization. But while it doesn’t seem likely that military commanders would stop to poll their soldiers before going into battle, I contend that in practice the operation of military units and Mondragón cooperatives is more similar than might be apparent at first.
In describing how votes of the general assembly are conducted in most cooperatives, Ander Etxeberria stressed how much care and consideration goes into crafting the ballots presented to the worker-owners. Every attempt is made to reach consensus prior to voting, because “if you vote [without a consensus] there are winners and losers” (Etxeberria, 2019). This description agrees with David Herrera’s observation that “cooperative work requires…participating, compromising, negotiating, and often accepting decisions contrary to one’s wishes” (Herrera, 2004, p.64). This is the practical nature of democratic organization.
And we also know that workers “do not have a great deal of say in the day to day financial and economic operation of the enterprise” (MacLeod, 1997, p.85). According to MacLeod, “the general manager…is clearly in control with an organizational structure which is quite hierarchical.” (MacLeod, 1997, p.85). This kind of hierarchical structure (while seeming potentially undemocratic) is a necessity for managing a complex organization. Arizmendiarrieta himself recognized the need for such structure when he said that many of the cooperatives in Europe would not succeed “because they emphasized democratic decision-making to the detriment of an efficient decision-making system” (MacLeod, 1997, p.71).
So we know that in practice, the principle of democratic organization makes concessions to the requirements of running a complex organization in a dynamic environment. The military also makes concessions. But their concessions are away from the top-down autocracy traditionally associated with military organization. In a documentary I recently made about how the Air Force currently trains its junior officers, I highlighted the emphasis their program places on servant leadership and dynamic followership (Shaner, 2019). The military is increasingly recognizing the value of participatory decision making and the importance of soliciting input from as many members of a unit as possible. And while there will still occasionally be a time and place for the unquestioned exercise of autocratic authority, both the military and the Mondragón cooperatives seem to agree that “participation…confers on the worker the dignity of being part of something bigger” (MacLeod, 1997, p.63).
Payment Solidarity
There are many reasons to join the military. But an unbridled passion to maximize one’s own earnings isn’t one of them. Nobody joins the military to get rich. And the exact pay structure for every rank and specialty in the military is approved by Congress and publicly known. This is in complete accord with the cooperative principle of payment solidarity which states that “an agreed differential between the highest and lowest paid jobs is applied” (Herrera, 2004, p.66). Additionally, in the Mondragón cooperatives payment solidarity also attempts to ensure that “a remuneration level is maintained in relationship with similar local industries” (Herrera, 2004, p.66). The military also makes a valiant attempt to make its pay scale competitive with the private sector (although in reality, the pay offered by the military is generally lower than could be earned elsewhere).
Another area where Mondragón and the military are in alignment is in the pay ratios of their salaries. According to Ander Etxeberria, the maximum pay differential between the highest manager and the lowest worker in a cooperative is 6 to 1 (as contrasted with 79 to 1 for Spain overall and 340 to 1 for the U.S.). But this was not the standard range. Ander gave the typical range for most coops as 4.5 to 1 (Etxeberria, 2019). In the military, the most extreme range possible is between a new recruit on their first day of bootcamp and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (the highest-ranking military officer). The pay differential in this case is 13 to 1. But this is obviously an outlier. The average pay differential in the vast majority of military units tops out at 5 to 1, a figure remarkably similar to the typical range at Mondragón.
One last similarity between the cooperatives at Mondragón and the military services (in the area of remuneration) is the care afforded to retirees. The Mondragón cooperatives have gone so far as to establish their own private social-security-style system in the form of Lagun Aro. This specialized cooperative manages (and disburses) a benefit all retired workers receive which is above and beyond any personal capital they may have earned over their career. (Etxeberria, 2019). Military retirement works in much the same way. Upon completing at least 20 years of service, each military retiree is guaranteed a monthly retirement check (calculated as a percentage of their final base pay) for the remainder of their lives. In addition, military retirees are granted lifetime access to all military bases where they can shop for goods at reduced prices and use any available recreational facilities. It’s apparent from these examples that both the military and Mondragón place a great deal of value in their members and that their members value doing work for more than just a paycheck.
Education
Education is the last of the 10 basic principles I’ll be exploring, but it is far from the least. Indeed, it was one of Arizmendiarrieta’s initial priorities. The first of his major transformational initiatives upon arriving in Mondragón was to found the Escuela Profesional in 1943. And education has remained a priority with the cooperatives. As noted by George Cheney, “From the very beginning, the Mondragon cooperatives were exceptional in their emphasis on formación (education and development of the person)” (Cheney, 1999, p.135). The basic principles task each MCC cooperative to provide their members with “basic professional and cooperative education in order to [be] capable of applying all the basic principles” (Herrera, 2004, p.66).
The cooperatives are a unique business form which require informed participation from the members in order to function. And those members must be willing and able to take on additional responsibilities (up to and including management functions). Being able to effectively execute those responsibilities requires education and training, and the cooperatives ensure each worker-owner receives that instruction. This is no different conceptually from the basic training each member of the military receives in order to understand how the military is organized and how to function effectively within it.
But both the military and Mondragón provide the opportunity for education far beyond the basics of how each system functions. There are 8 educational cooperatives under MCC (to include arizmendi ikastola and Mondragón University). Likewise, the military has 5 service academies, hundreds of ROTC units, technical schools for each specialty, and advanced command and staff colleges to train more senior officers. Although the U.S. military is larger in scope, its intent is the same as that of the cooperatives: to provide both initial and follow-on education to its members to enable them to reach their fullest potential.
And it’s interesting to note that the military doesn’t rely exclusively on military schools to educate its soldiers and sailors. I’ve personally known several service members who have attended prestigious civilian institutions while still on active duty (to include one member of our cohort who is an active duty Lieutenant Colonel in the Air Force pursuing his PhD). Add to this the opportunity for education following military service funded through the GI Bill (used by several other members of our cohort [including myself]) and the full commitment of the military to advanced education becomes apparent.
Solidarity
So far I’ve looked at 6 of the 10 basic principles which Mondragón uses to “balance individual, organizational and community needs” (Herrera, 2004, p.66). And in most instances, these principles are in close alignment with key values emphasized by the U.S. military. But there is one defining feature of both the cooperatives and the military not mentioned in the principles. And I would argue it’s the most important value they share. That value is solidarity, and according to David Herrera, “Solidarity is not described as one of the 10 Mondragon principles…because it underlies them all” (Herrera, 2004, p.63).
Solidarity is the foundational element of both successful cooperatives and effective military units. In Mondragón, this solidarity takes many forms: worker-owners willingly take on additional duties to serve on governing and social councils (for no additional pay); if approved by the general assembly, worker-owners will take pay cuts for the good of their cooperative (and even redirect money from their cooperative to other cooperatives having financial difficulty); and money from each cooperative (which would be distributed as profits in a capitalist corporation) is set aside for the good of the community. And these are only a few of the ways Mondragón’s solidarity manifests itself.
In the military, solidarity is just as important. There too, it manifests in numerous ways. One of the foundational core values in the Air Force is “service before self.” While this can mean different things to different people, for me it’s always meant that working for the good of my squadron (or detachment, or company) was more important than working for my own benefit. And though the two often coincided, when there was a conflict, for me the choice was clear. Other services express the same sentiment in different ways. The Marine Corps motto is Semper Fidelis (always faithful), and for marines, identification with their service is so strong that when someone leaves the Corps for any reason they are called former Marines (because there is no such thing as an ex-marine).
But regardless of how it’s expressed, solidarity in the military means teamwork. Everyone is part of the same team working toward the same goal. No one is doing it to get rich. No one (at least ideally) is doing it for ego-gratification. And everyone works together because the goal is unattainable working alone. These are the keys to solidarity in both the military and Mondragón.
And solidarity is the one thing mostly missing from attempts to implement Mondragón cooperatives in other countries. As noted in the earlier discussion of Basque culture, many scholars think that the solidarity of the Basque people is what allows these cooperatives to be successful. I would tend to agree. But I don’t agree that this solidarity is unique to the Basque culture, or that such solidarity cannot be replicated elsewhere. As I’ll discuss in the personal reflections coming up next, I think solidarity is attainable. However, growing that solidarity will take some work…
Personal Reflections
I’ve spent this paper up until now drawing parallels between the Mondragón cooperatives and the U.S. military. And I think I’ve demonstrated that the values undergirding each set of institutions are largely similar. But if this paper is to be more than just an academic exercise, I need to have a point. My point is this: Many of the values and principles required for the success of cooperatives exist (and can be developed) outside of the Basque country and the Mondragón cooperatives. However, much like Arizmendiarrieta, my goal is not merely economic (although replacing some of our capitalist corporations with cooperatives would be a worthy achievement). Like Arizmendiarrieta, my goal is the “reform of the person and reform of the total social system” (MacLeod, 1997, p.77). As a society, we need to learn and truly believe that, “It is worthwhile to live and work for something besides earning money and accumulating things for oneself” (Arizmendiarrieta, 2013, p.17). Creating this change won’t be easy, nor will it occur quickly, but Arizmendiarrieta has shown us one way to start. We need to start at the bottom, and we need to start with young people. We need to create a generation who know and appreciate the value of service.
As I’ve shown, the military is one place where the values of solidarity and commitment to a cause other than financial gain can be learned. But it’s not the only place and I don’t think it’s necessarily the best place. For one thing, service in the military is completely voluntary. People with a predisposition for an appreciation of the value of service are going to self-select to participate. However, that wasn’t always the case. There used to be a military draft, and although it wasn’t always popular, it gave a random cross-section of the population a set of common core experiences they carried with them through the rest of their lives. And I think that common core (rooted in selfless service) made the fabric of our nation stronger.
I think there should be a draft again. But it shouldn’t be limited to military service. It should be a basic requirement for everyone from the ages of 18 to 20 to spend two years doing some kind of government service. And there could be a range of choices to match individual interests. Some could choose to work in local government. Others with the homeless. Or in support of environmental issues. The point is to spend two years supporting (and learning about) the solidarity and service required to make a democratic system of government truly work. I feel this common shared experience of working for a greater social cause would strengthen our culture and make us less selfish as a nation. And besides, it only seems fair. As Arizmendiarrieta once said, “One cannot sit at someone else’s table indefinitely, without ever contributing anything. Each person has a benefit from society and one must offer to serve and give to society in kind” (Arizmendiarrieta, 2013, p.34).
But let’s get real. The odds of getting enough political support to institute a mandatory two-year draft for required government service are almost non-existent. That’s a task as gargantuan as starting Mondragón cooperatives on Wall Street. Or forming your own schools, businesses, and credit unions because the existing institutions are ignoring you. This is where I think it’s important to remember Arizmendiarrieta’s persistence and patience. It took 15 years of constant effort on several fronts to get ULGOR founded (and that was only the beginning). Anything worth doing is worth the time and consistent effort to get it started. So maybe a social draft is a bit ambitious at this point. It’s still a worthy goal. And remember, the ultimate goal isn’t mandatory government service. It’s cultural change.
And there’s another of Arizmendiarrieta’s key qualities to keep in mind: practicality. As Jose Luis del Arco said of Arizmendiarrieta in 1982, “His originality was founded on pragmatism. He…applied whatever solution was most appropriate to the circumstances” (MacLeod, 1997, p.79). Greg MacLeod crystalized this perspective even further by noting, “If things are going to change…we have to act in the world we have, not the one we dream of” (MacLeod, 1997, p.57). Incidentally, this clear-eyed pragmatism is another value developed by military service. Military strategists make countless plans to deal with every possible contingency even though it’s a well-known fact that no plan survives first contact with the enemy. It’s for this reason that one of the Marine Corps’ mottos is improvise, adapt, and overcome. And marine Major General Oliver Smith is rightly famous for making the following observation when asked why the marines appeared to be retreating during a key battle in Korea: “Retreat, hell! We're not retreating, we're just advancing in a different direction” (Shisler, 2009).
I started this reflection by saying we needed to create a generation who understands the value of service. One way to start doing this is through example. If we want those behind us (and around us) to behave differently, then we must behave differently ourselves. “It is not noble to ask others to give or do that which we are not capable of giving or doing ourselves” (Arizmendiarrieta, 2013, p.33). Arizmendiarrieta also said, “In a cooperative, all of us are responsible for everything” (Arizmendiarrieta, 2013, p.35). This is equally true for society at large. Those who know the value of solidarity and service to a cause beyond oneself should be the first ones to step up. Live and model the values of Mondragón, the military, and countless nonprofit organizations around the globe. Show those around us that a life not cluttered with shiny, expensive distractions is not empty. Demonstrate through example the fulfillment of service to a cause greater than personal material gain.
And where do these observations leave me? I’ve done government service and know the value of solidarity. I don’t have the political clout to institute required government service (nor is the current political climate likely to support bringing back the draft). So what can I do? First and foremost, I can act as an example. I can show those with whom I interact the transformative power of selfless teamwork. Second, as a fledgling scholar, I can do research. I can write. And as a filmmaker, I can use my craft to shine light on programs that teach the value of service over greed.
One of the most inspiring things I discovered during my time in Mondragón was the existence of the Leinn entrepreneurial program run by Mondragón University. In this four-year program, students are taught all the business and leadership skills necessary to create sustainable, cooperative businesses. I find this model fascinating. Not only does it effectively teach leadership, but it’s also an incubator for the skills of teamwork and solidarity we so sorely need in this country.
Earlier in this paper, I mentioned a documentary I made about how the Air Force trains its junior officers. Their approach is actually more like a fine arts program than a social sciences program. In my experience, such a fine arts approach is a better way to create leaders who are actually ready to step into a position as a functioning leader when they graduate. The Leinn program sounds like it follows a similar hands-on, just-in-time learning approach to teaching entrepreneurial business (and leadership) skills.
I want to learn more about Leinn and the pedagogy they use. And I want to explore the possibility of doing my dissertation about their program. Part of that dissertation would most likely include a documentary about Leinn (which could potentially be a springboard to catapult their philosophy and techniques beyond the Basque country).
But once again, I’m getting ahead of myself. Even with documentaries and dissertations, none of this will be easy, and none of it will happen quickly. And although there is an urgent sense of time running out, that sense of urgency will not speed up the process. We must all approach this task with the patience, persistence, and practicality of Arizmendiarrieta. And we must work together, in solidarity, as a team. Mondragón proves that sustained, successful cooperative effort is possible, and the military proves that the values required for such cooperative effort can be taught. We need to set a goal of expanding those values to society at large—through individual example at first, then through education using institutions like Leinn (and information about Leinn’s techniques and success), and finally (possibly) through larger mechanisms like brief, required government service. All of this is possible. And some of it is happening already. We just need to keep our eye on the goal and remember (in the words of George Cheney), “we are more than a market” (Cheney, p. 142).
References
Arizmendiarrieta, J. M. (2013). Reflections. Mondragón, Spain: Otalora.
Cheney, G. (1999). Values at Work: Employee Participation Meets Market Pressure at Mondragón. Ithaca NY: Cornell University Press.
Etxeberria, A. (2012). Presentations on MCC given to University of San Diego students in Mondragón on 2-5 July 2019. Unpublished.
Henderson, R., & Norris, M. (2016). 1worker1vote: Mondragón in the U.S. HBS No. 315-103. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing.
Herrera, D. (2004). Mondragón: A For-Profit Organization That Embodies Catholic Social Thought. Review of Business, 25(1), 56-68.
MacLeod, G. (1997). From Mondragón to America: Experiments in Community Economic Development. Sydney, Nova Scotia: University College of Cape Breton Press.
Shaner, P. (Producer & Director). (2019). Air Force ROTC Leadership Laboratory: Turning College Students into Leaders [Documentary]. United States: Unpublished.
Shisler, G. (2009). For Country and Corps: The Life of General Oliver P. Smith. Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press.
Thompson, M. (2009, Dec 11). What Does ‘People First, Mission Always’ Really Mean? Retrieved from https://www.af.mil/News/Commentaries/Display/Article/141695/what-does-people-first-mission-always-really-mean/
Whyte, K. K. & Whyte, W. F. (1991). Making Mondragón. The Growth and Dynamics of the Worker Cooperative Complex (2nd. ed.). Ithaca, New York: ILR Press.