The Union Boss / El Jefe del Sindicato

On very few occasions has someone brought the Andes tragedy back to me. One of them was at the inauguration of the Zárate Brewery plant of Cervecería Quilmes, where I was General Manager.

Picture this: a big cocktail party in the brand new premises of the brewery, with shareholders, clients, distributors, personnel and political authorities present. After the speeches, we were having a nice beer with my wife Noelle and the Human Relations Director, when I was approached by the Union boss.

 “Hello Mr. Algorta” he said, “You know, the boys are uneasy”.

“Oh no”, I thought, “here comes this guy with some unexpected complaint”. “What is it?” I said.

“Well Mr. Algorta, the boys are afraid of you”.

“Of me?” I could not believe my ears. My management style was not the one that could inspire fear. “What is going on? Why do you say that your people are afraid of me?”

“Well Mr. Algorta, they say that you might bite them”.

I didn’t get immediately what he meant, I was taken aback. Then something else happened and I continued talking as if he had spoken in Chinese.

Mr. Union Boss: let me tell you something 15 years later. You have had the privilege of being the only person in my life that dared to make me a joke about what we ate to survive in the Andes.  Congrats! … but the joke was not that good. You know, I myself have much better jokes to tell. In fact my bother-survivors and I used to joke a lot about this issue right after our rescue. We no longer do.

 Anyway, no hard feelings, I now enjoy your ……¿guts?

El Jefe del Sindicato

En muy pocas ocasiones me han hablado espontáneamente del tema de los Andes. Una de esas ocasiones fue durante la inauguración de la Planta de Zárate de la Cervecería Quilmes donde yo era el Gerente General.

Imaginen la situación: un gran cocktail en las nuevas instalaciones de la cervecería, con los accionistas, clientes, distribuidores, el personal y hasta autoridades políticas presentes. Después de los discursos, estaba tomando tranquilamente una cerveza con mi mujer Noelle y el Director de Recursos Humanos cuando se nos acercó el jefe del sindicato.

 “Hola Sr. Algorta”, dijo, “ Usted sabe, los muchachos están inquietos”.

“Oh no”, pensé, “Aquí viene esta persona con un reclamo fuera de lugar”

“Qué pasa?” le pregunté.

“Lo que pasa es que los muchachos le tienen miedo”

“Miedo de mi”? No podía creer lo que escuchaba, mi estilo justamente no era uno de generar miedo. “Qué está pasando? Porqué dice que los muchachos me tienen miedo?”

“Y Sr. Algorta, tienen miedo de que Usted los pueda morder”

Al principio no entendí lo que estaba diciendo, tan fuera de contexto. Me tomó de sorpresa, no supe qué decir, pero por suerte pasó alguna otra cosa y seguí hablando como si me hubiese hablado en chino.   

Mi querido Jefe del Sindicato: Déjeme que le diga algo 15 años después.  Usted tiene el privilegio de ser la única persona que se atrevió a hacerme un chiste sobre lo que tuvimos que hacer para sobrevivir en los Andes. Felicitaciones, pero el chiste no era tan bueno. Yo personalmente tengo mucho mejores chistes para contar. De hecho, apenas salimos de la montaña, mis hermanos-sobrevivientes y yo nos pasábamos riéndonos de ello. Pero no lo hacemos más.

 No importa, está todo bien, hoy me divierte su………..impertinencia?

 

AIRPLANE CRASH SURVIVORS FOUND TO BE IN BETTER MENTAL HEALTH THAN NON-CRASH AIR TRAVELERS IN THE LONG RUN, STUDY FINDS

Surfing the web, I found published this American Psychological Association article. I don’t know if it is very scientific or not, but it says something I always wondered about: why is that after going through such an ordeal, we are in such good mental health? How is that we don’t show any long term psychological effects like anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress? How is that we don’t have nightmares? How is that we were able to put the mountain into our backpack and continue our life journey? I’m sure that this is not what our people expected when we were rescued after 72 days surviving in the mountain. They probably thought that we were going to carry our tragedy painfully through all our lives. But, we didn't.

Actually, the article doesn’t explain why. It simply states what I always said: airplane crash survivors can do OK, and we are doing OK, and living normal lives! I have explained our recuperation and mental health as part of our resilient process, but maybe there are other explanations too. Who knows.........

SUPERVIVIENTES DE ACCIDENTES AEREOS SE ENCUENTRAN CON MEJOR SALUD MENTAL QUE VIAJEROS FRECUENTES QUE NO HAN TENIDO ACCIDENTES, DICE UN ESTUDIO

Navegando en la web, encontré este artículo publicado por la Sociedad Americana de Psicología. No se si el artículo es muy científico o no, pero trata sobre algo que yo siempre me pregunté. Cómo es que después de haber pasado por semejante tragedia gozamos de tan buena salud mental? Cómo es que en general no mostramos ninguna clase de efectos sicológicos de largo plazo como ansiedad, depresión u otros efectos post traumáticos? Cómo es que ni siquiera tenemos pesadillas con la montaña? Cómo es que la hemos podido meter en nuestras mochilas y continuar el viaje de nuestras vidas? Estoy seguro que esto no era lo que esperaba nuestra gente cuando nos rescataron después de 72 días sobreviviendo en la montaña. Estoy seguro de que pensaron que íbamos a cargar una pesada y dolorosa mochila durante toda nuestras vidas. Pero no fué así.

En realidad, el artículo no contesta porqué. Simplemente constata que los sobrevivientes de accidentes aéros pueden andar bien, y nosotros hemos andado muy bien, y viviendo vidas normales. Yo explico nuestra capacidad de recuperación y salud mental como parte de un proceso de resiliencia. Pero puede haber otras explicaciones también. Quién sabe.....

Leadership, Love and Bosses / Liderazgo, Amor y Jefes

I have just read a book called “The Servant, A Simple Story About the True Essence of Leadership” by John Hunter. In this book Hunter says that true leadership is based on authority and not on power. And authority is the result of a behavior and behavior is a matter of will. Therefore, leadership is a matter of will.

He makes an incredible comparison between leadership as a service and the definition of love. (As defined by Saint Paul, (Chorintios XIII)). He says that the characteristics of leadership are the same as the characteristics of love. Love defined as Agape, a verb, an action, not love defined as Eros, an emotion, a sentiment. Leadership is service to your people; love is what you do for your people. (It is an action.)

Hunter is right but he is missing that leaders should also have a “Vision”, an ability to set and define objectives. And it also misses the capacity to “Motivate and generate commitment” to work for common objectives.

I believe that love (as agape) is not the same as leadership. But the approach is nevertheless very interesting. Love as agape, love as a verb, love as a behavior, as an action…. the sentiments will come later.

I recall Stephen Covey quoting someone who told him that his marriage was falling apart. He asked what he could do about it, and the answer was, “love your wife, go and start loving her again”, (as an action, not as an emotion or a sentiment).

By the way, I read a couple of days ago in La Nación an interview to Regis Debray. Oh! He speaks about “The Bosses”. He says, “bosses are needed, if not groups fall into dissolution”, well, I don’t agree with this statement. Back then, when we were lost in the Andes, we didn’t have a unique boss, we worked as a team and we managed to survive. He also says “the boss is someone who is loved, but is not allowed to love”. I don’t like this point, bosses should love their folks, if not they can´t be good bosses. He meanders with the idea of “bosses’ solitude” which is anyway an interesting concept. And he also says: “the boss is the encounter between a personality and a situation.” I like that, it is an interesting idea. Anyway I will definitely have to read more about these concepts.


Liderazgo, Amor y Jefes.

Acabo de leer el libro de John Hunter llamado “La Paradoja, una historia sobre la esencia del Liderazgo”. En este libro Hunter dice que el verdadero liderazgo está basado en la autoridad y no en el poder. Y que la autoridad es el resultado de un comportamiento, y el comportamiento depende de la voluntad. Por lo tanto, el liderazgo es un tema de voluntad.

El hace una increíble comparación entre liderazgo como servicio y el amor. (Amor definido según San Pablo en Corintios XIII). El dice que las características del liderazgo son las mismas que las características del amor. Amor definido como Ágape, como un verbo, como una acción, no definido como Eros, como una emoción, como un sentimiento. Liderazgo es servicio a tu gente, amor es lo que haces por tu gente. (Como una acción).

Estoy de acuerdo con Hunter pero creo que olvida que los líderes deben también tener una Visión, la capacidad de definir objetivos. Y también olvida la capacidad de Motivar y generar adhesión para trabajar en pos de objetivos comunes.

Creo que amor (como ágape) no es lo mismo que liderazgo. Pero el enfoque me pareció muy interesante. Amor como ágape, como un verbo, como un comportamiento, como una acción……….los sentimientos vienen después.

Recuerdo en el libro de Stephen Covey alguien que decía que su matrimonio estaba en problemas. Peguntaba qué hacer, y la respuesta fue: “ama a tu mujer, anda y empieza a amarla nuevamente”. (Como una acción, no como una emoción o un sentimiento).

Por otra parte, leí hace unos pocos días en la Nación, una entrevista a Regis Debray. OH! Hablaba sobre “Los Jefes”. Decía que los “jefes son necesarios, si no los grupos se disuelven”. En eso no estoy de acuerdo. Hace tiempo, cuando estábamos perdidos en la montaña, no teníamos un jefe e igualmente funcionamos como grupo y nos pudimos salvar. También dice que “el jefe es alguien que es amado, pero a quien no le está permitido amar”. No me gusta este punto, creo que los jefes deben amar a su gente, si no, no son buenos jefes. También da vueltas con la idea de la “soledad del jefe”. Lo que es un concepto interesante. También dice que el jefe es un encuentro entre “una personalidad y una situación.”

Como ven, es un enfoque diferente. Voy a leer más sobre estos conceptos.

Air Crash in Madrid /Accidente Aéreo en Madrid

I was interviewed by Cadena Ser from Spain a day after the air crash of the Spanair plane in Barajas airport- Madrid, in which 156 people were killed and only 19 survived.

The Spanish media was completely focused on the accident and had been interviewing the relatives of the casualties and some of the survivors the whole day. The ambiance was doom and the whole of Spain was mourning the accident.

With the intention of bringing some comfort and hope to the injured survivors and their relatives the reporters in Cadena Ser contacted survivors of other plane crashes.

They first interviewed a priest, whose name I can’t recall, who is a survivor of an airplane crash, also in the Barajas Airport in 1984. In that accident around 45 out of 85 passengers survived the collision between an Iberia plane while taking off and a smaller airplane that crossed the runway.

The priest said that he experienced severe burns in most of his body and that his recuperation in the hospital was the worst part of his experience. Many times he wondered if life was worth enough to go through those sufferings but that his faith in God allowed him to put up with his pains.

They also interviewed a lady called Mercedes Ramirez from Texas, who some time ago survived an airplane crash in the US. This time the plane was flying and for some unexpected reason the plane went out of control and finally crashed on ground. Miraculously she survived although she lost her parents in that accident.

Then it was our turn to speak. And I say our turn because my survivor-brother Carlitos Paez was on the radio, too. Carlitos explained what had happened to us and told our story in a few words. He also said that our story is the most formidable story of survival and that it transcends our personal stories, which is something I completely agree with. He was also very candid when asked a recommendation for the relatives of the survivors and he said , “just be there, there is no need for words“.

I spoke my words too, I said that I was very touched by the tragedy and that I hoped the survivors of this accident would be able to go back to their normal lives, to their own projects and live the life they were going to live before they had their accident. Which is what I did, for 36 years my ordeal was not an issue for me. I never dreamt with our accident, I never had a nightmare with it either and it never popped into my life. I have been able to live a normal life and I am very proud of it. ( Carlitos joked that ‘his’ life has never been a normal one!!!) I also said that I have the fears of anyone else when flying on a plane, but I enjoy flying. And told them to give the survivors and their relatives, time, the right time to process their tragedy, to heal their wounds and start to live their normal lives once again.


If you want to listen the interview, click here.


Accidente Aéreo en Madrid

Me entrevistaron en la Cadena Ser de España el día después del accidente aéreo del avión de Spanair en el aeropuerto de Barajas - Madrid, en el cual murieron 156 personas y sólo 19 han sobrevivido.

La prensa Española sólo hablaba de eso y estuvieron entrevistando a los familiares de los accidentados durante todo el día. El ambiente estaba muy triste y toda España estaba haciendo el duelo por lo ocurrido.

Con la intención de confortar y dar esperanzas a los familiares de los que habían sobrevivido y levantar un poco el ánimo, los reporteros de Cadena Ser contactaron a sobrevivientes de otros accidentes aéreos.

Primero entrevistaron a un cura, cuyo nombre no recuerdo, quien también había sobrevivido a un accidente aéreo también en Barajas, pero en 1984. En este accidente, cerca de 45 de 85 pasajeros sobrevivieron el choque entre un avión de Iberia que estaba despegando y un avión más pequeño que cruzó la pista de despegue.

El cura dijo que sufrió quemaduras en casi todo su cuerpo y que la recuperación en el hospital fue la peor parte. Muchas veces se preguntó si tenía sentido pasar por tan horribles sufrimientos, pero que su fe en Dios le permitió pasar por ellos.

También entrevistaron a una señora llamada Mercedes Ramirez de Texas, quien algún tiempo atrás sobrevivió un accidente aéreo en los Estados Unidos. Esta vez ella estaba en vuelo y por alguna razón el avión quedó fuera de control y se precipitaron al suelo. Milagrosamente ella sobrevivió aunque perdió a sus padres en ese accidente.

Después fue nuestro turno. Y digo nuestro turno porque mi hermano-sobreviviente Carlitos Paez estaba en el aire también. Carlitos explicó lo que nos había pasado a nosotros y contó nuestra historia . Dijo también que nuestra historia es la más formidable historia de sobreviviencia y que ella trasciende nuestras historias personales, con lo que estoy totalmente de acuerdo. Y estuvo muy correcto cuando le preguntaron qué les podemos recomendar a los parientes de los sobrevivientes: "Nada, estén ahí, no es tiempo de palabras."

También dije lo mío, dije que estaba muy conmovido por la tragedia y que esperaba que los sobrevivientes puedan volver a sus vidas normales, a sus proyectos, a la vida que iban a hacer si no tenían el accidente. Que es lo que yo hice. Por 36 años la tragedia no fue un tema para mi, nunca soñé con el accidente, nunca tuve pesadillas con él ni tampoco estuvo apareciendo en mi vida habitual. Pude reconstruir mi vida y vivir una vida normal, y estoy muy orgulloso de ello. (Carlitos bromeó que él nunca había vivido una vida normal). También dije que tengo los miedos de cualquiera cuando viajo en aviones, pero que me encanta volar. Y les dije que le den a los sobrevientes tiempo, el tiempo y apoyo necesario para sanar sus heridas y para vovler a hacer sus vidas normales.

Si quieres escuchar la entrevista, haz click aquí.

Andes Survivors, do we have a Common Denominator?. (by Pablo Vierci) / Sobrevivientes de los Andes, tenemos un Denominador Común? (por Pablo Vierci)

After writing the book “The Snow Society”, which will be released in the Spanish language countries on November 2008 by Sudamericana Editorial (from the Random House- Mondadori), I’ve been asked if I can notice “common denominators” among the survivors of the 1972 plane crash in the Andes.

To my judgment there are, no doubt about it. I think that that is a subject that will always raise new questionings and collisions, and that it is always questioning us about the human condition itself.

What I’ve noticed along the years, first of all because I know most of them since childhood, is that the tremendous ordeal turned them into real fighters. The 1972 survivors do not weaken, or, more precisely, they do not relinquish. Many of them have faced other kinds of adversities, but they always face them strong standing. That, to my point of view, comes from the Andes.

Another common attitude among them is shared with other people who have lived extraordinary experiences. The clearest case is the one of the astronauts. When they get to watch our Planet from the distance, in the middle of darkness and in the middle of nothing, “lost” in the cosmos, they see it fragile, vulnerable, and miraculous. And when they return to Earth, they perceive it as a wonderful oasis. The lost from the Andes, those who dealt with genuine solitude up in the mountain, feel something alike with life: an eternal gratitude for being alive, to enjoy what they passed unnoticed before, and not to worry about the things that seemed so urgent before. To have watched genuine solitude, changes the way to observe life and its worries.

They stand differently before life. I’ve discussed that with many of the survivors. I tell them they have a different concept of fear. They surpassed the “conventional fear” threshold and they experiment more worry than fear which gives a different sense of security and trust in them.

I sense among the 16 survivors an undertone of nobility. Deep down they are united, honest. And the best proof of that is the families they have created and, basically, it is confirmed when meeting the children they’ve raised.

They have a very proactive attitude to face adversities. On a conscious or unconscious level, they know we all have always a second opportunity, or even a second possibility to redeem ourselves.

They have a particular handling of spirituality and religiousness. In many cases they don’t stop themselves, even when they respect the well known religion formulas, but they go even further, capturing a wider spirituality which covers all religions. In his book "Common Sense", Thomas Paine, who inspired the United States emancipating deed and his Founding Fathers, as well as other actors (after its translation into Spanish in 1811), said in relation to the just arrived English colonies: “Abandoned people, who may see themselves as the first on Earth, start creating a different society”. I feel some similitude when I listen to the Andes survivors. They, out of nothing, created the “snow society”, as I titled the book. And that type of creation in common is indelible. Even when the survival had been, in many circumstances, an individual deed, they created a common society out of nothing. And that distinguishes them forever.

Even when this questionings about the “common denominator” may have endless answers, I finish this first collision quoting Gloria, Pedro Algorta’s sister: she said that when they came back from the mountain, the sixteen survivors were wrapped in a “subtle veil”. That is why they only understood themselves. That veil’s texture has changed with time. At the beginning, they were the ones who created it to defend themselves from aggressions of a different surrounding. Then, the society itself began to assume it, to crystallize it without even knowing. With time, it is less evident, it is more subtle. I think it lasts and it transforms itself. And even after 36 years, it never ends to dissolve at all.

And that is something that society gets and that is why it wants to listen to them, always.

Note by Pedro Algorta: Pablo, thankyou very much for your collaboration. You have been very (too) generous. Erika, my virtual friend, thank you for translating Pablo´s work into English. You have done a superb job.


Sobrevivientes de los Andes, tenemos un Denominador Común? (por Pablo Vierci)

Se me pregunta si, tras escribir el libro “La sociedad de la nieve”, que comenzará a publicarse en los países de habla hispana a partir de noviembre de 2008, por Editorial Sudamericana (del grupo Random House-Mondadori), puedo advertir “comunes denominadores” entre los sobrevivientes del accidente aéreo de 1972 en los Andes.


A mi juicio los hay, sin duda. Creo que es un punto que siempre levantará nuevas interrogantes y abordajes, y que siempre nos está cuestionando sobre la propia condición humana.

En primer lugar he advertido, a lo largo de los años, porque a muchos los conozco desde la infancia, que la tremenda experiencia los tornó luchadores. Los sobrevivientes del 72 no desfallecen, o, más precisamente, no se resignan. Muchos de ellos han soportado otro tipo de adversidades, pero siempre las enfrentan de pie. Eso, a mi manera de ver, proviene de los Andes.

Otra actitud común entre ellos la comparten con otras personas que han vivido experiencias extraordinarias. El caso más claro es el de los astronautas. Cuando logran visualizar a nuestro planeta a la distancia, en medio de la oscuridad y la nada, “perdido” en el cosmos, lo ven frágil, vulnerable, milagroso. Y cuando regresan a la Tierra la perciben como un oasis maravilloso. Los perdidos en los Andes, que enfrentaron la genuina soledad en la montaña, sienten algo parecido con la vida: una eterna gratitud por estar vivos, por disfrutar lo que antes pasaba inadvertido, y por no preocuparse por lo que antes parecía tan acuciante. Al tener atisbos de la genuina soledad, cambia la forma de dimensionar la vida y sus sinsabores.

Se paran en forma diferente ante la vida. Lo he discutido con muchos de los sobrevivientes. Yo les digo que tienen un concepto diferente del miedo. Superaron el umbral del “miedo convencional” y experimentan más preocupación que temor. Lo que les da una seguridad, una confianza en sí mismos, diferente.

Percibo en los dieciséis sobrevivientes un trasfondo común de nobleza. En el fondo son solidarios, íntegros. Y la mejor prueba de ello son las familias que han creado y, fundamentalmente, se comprueba al conocer a los hijos que han criado.
Tienen una actitud proactiva para enfrentar las adversidades. A nivel de la conciencia o del inconsciente, ellos saben que todos siempre tenemos una segunda oportunidad, incluso una segunda posibilidad de redimirnos.

Tienen un manejo de la espiritualidad y la religiosidad particular. En muchos casos, no se detienen, aunque las respeten, en las fórmulas de las religiones conocidas, sino que van más allá, captando una espiritualidad más amplia, que abarca a todas las religiones.

Thomas Paine, en su libro Common Sense, que inspiró la gesta emancipadora de Estados Unidos, y a sus Padres Fundadores, así como a otros actores en América (después de su traducción al español en 1811), dijo, en relación a las colonias inglesas recién llegadas a América: “Un pueblo abandonado, que puede mirarse a sí mismo como el primero de la Tierrra, empieza creando una sociedad diferente”. Siento algo parecido al escuchar a los sobrevivientes de los Andes. De la nada crearon la “sociedad de la nieve”, como titulé al libro. Y ese tipo de creación en común, es indeleble. Aunque la sobrevivencia haya sido, en muchas circunstancias, una gesta individual, crearon una sociedad en común de la nada. Y eso los distingue para siempre.

Si bien esta interrogante del “común denominador” puede tener infinitas respuestas, termino este primer abordaje citando a Gloria, la hermana de Pedro Algorta: ella decía que cuando volvieron de la montaña, a los dieciséis sobrevivientes los envolvía un “velo sutil”. Por eso ellos solo se entendían cabalmente entre ellos. La textura de ese velo ha cambiado con el tiempo. Al comienzo eran ellos que lo crearon, para defenderse de las agresiones de un entorno diferente. Luego, la propia sociedad lo fue asumiendo, cristalizando, sin darse cuenta. Con el paso del tiempo es menos evidente, es más sutil. Creo que perdura y se transforma. Y aunque hayan pasado 36 años, nunca termina de diluirse del todo.

Y eso es algo que la sociedad capta, y por eso quiere escucharlos, siempre.


Nota de Pedro Algorta: Pablo, gracias por tu colaboración. Has sido muy (pero muy) generoso. Erika, mi amiga virtual, gracias por traducir la colaboración de Pablo al inglés. Has hecho un excelente trabajo.

The Third Generation of Survivors / La Tercera Generación de Sobrevivientes

Let me write a post in a different mode. More a social type of post, away from the usual reflexive tone that has characterized this blog. The fact is that 35 years after our ordeal in the Andes, a third generation of “Little Survivors” is coming. As far as today, we’ve got 58 children,and 17 grand-children. Let me tell you about it:

Roberto has 2 boys and 1 girl, no grand-children yet.
Pancho has 2 boys and 2 girls.
Daniel has 1 girl and 2 boys plus one grand-daughter. Good for Daniel!!!
Bobby has 3 boys and 3 girls.
Roy has 2 girls and 1 boy.
Coche has 1 boy and 2 girls.
Alvaro has 2 boys and 2 girls.
Javier has 3 girls and 1 boy with Liliana, who died in the Andes and 3 boys and 1 girl with Ana. Javier also has 12 grand-daughters. Good for Javier, very good!!!!
Carlitos has 1 boy and 1 girl plus 3 grand-daughters. Good for Carlitos!!!!!
Nando has 2 girls.
Moncho, doesn’t report, he just got married.
Fito, has 2 boys and 2 girls.
Eduardo, 3 girls and 2 boys.
Tintín, 1 girl and 1 boy and 1 grand-boy. Good for Tintín.!!!!!
Gustavo, 4 boys and 2 girls.
Pedro, I have 2 girls and 1 boy.

And a couple of us will be first time grandfathers soon!!!!!!! Good for us.!!!!

Isn`t it a miracle after so long to be all alive, reasonably healthy and living ordinary lives, with large families and starting to be surrounded by grandchildren? "

La Tercera Generación de Sobrevivientes.

Este es un comentario con un tono diferente. Un tono más social, distinto del estilo reflexivo que caracteriza este blog. El hecho es que 35 años después de nuestra tragedia está apareciendo la tercera generación de “pequeños sobrevivientes”. Hasta hoy, hemos tenido 58 hijos y 17 nietos, estos con el invalorable aporte de la familia de Javier. Permítanme que les cuente:

Roberto tiene 2 hijos y una hija, pero ningún nieto todavía.
Pancho tiene 2 hijos y 2 hijas.
Daniel tiene 1 hija y 2 hijos más una nieta. Bien por Daniel!!!
Bobby tiene 3 hijos y 3 hijas.Roy tiene 2 hijas y 1 hijo.
Coche tiene 1 hijos y 2 hijas.
Alvaro tiene 2 hijos y 2 hijas.
Javier tiene 3 hijas y un hijo con Liliana, quien murió en los Andes y 3 hijos y 1 hija con Ana. Javier también tiene 12 nietos. Bien Javier, muy bien!!!!!
Carlitos también tiene 1 hijo y una hija más 3 nietas. Bien Carlitos!!!!
Nando tiene 2 hijas.
Moncho, se acaba de casar.
Fito tiene 2 hijos y 2 hijas.
Eduardo, 3 hijas y 2 hijos.
Tintín tiene 1 hijo, 1 hija y 1 nieto. Bien por Tintín!!!!!
Gustavo, 4 hijos y 2 hijas.
Pedro, yo tengo 2 hijas y un hijo.

Y algunos de nosotros vamos a ser abuelos por primera vez pronto. Bien por nosotros!!!!!

Acaso no es un milagro que después de tanto tiempo estemos todos vivos, razonablemente sanos y viviendo vidas normales, rodeados de familias numerosas y ahora empezando a estar rodeados también de nuestros nietos?

The Other Tragedy of the Andes/ La Otra Tragedia de los Andes

I just read an article written by Leonardo Haberkon called “The Other Tragedy of the Andes.” It is an interesting article which deals with how the relatives of our friends who didn´t come back from the Andes had lived their ordeal and what, some of them, think of our lives.

In my case, just a few weeks after we were rescued I went to visit the parents of two of my dearest friends that had died in the Andes. At that time, I was starting a new life, I was exultant, we had defeated death and we were starting to live again. But my friends´ parents were burying their sons; they were going through their own ordeal. I believe those meetings were difficult, although not too many things could have been done instead.

A few days later, I left Uruguay and went back to Argentina, were my parents were living. And three months after we got out of the Andes, I was entering the University without saying who I was, and without telling anyone what had happened to me. I just didn´t talk about it and very seldom people brought up the issue in front of me. I even had to hear some stupid jokes about our food, from people who didn´t know who I was. But at the end, as time went by, everyone was aware, and I realized that they knew through a sight, a gossip, a gesture, but again, no one would ever tell me anything about it.

And this helped me very much with my recovery. I left Uruguay and I left the craziness of living everyday with an open issue. And I lived then a normal and ordinary life. I never met the parents of my dead friends again, my children didn´t go to school with the children of the brothers of my dead friends, and where they went, the story of the Andes, was just another story. That “other part of the Tragedy of the Andes”, I just didn´t live it. Just recently, I met one of them, he lives one block away from my home and we agreed to meet someday soon.



La Otra Tragedia de los Andes.

Acabo de leer un artículo escrito por Leonardo Haberkon llamado “La Otra Tragedia de los Andes”. Es un artículo interesante que trata de cómo los familiares de nuestros amigos, que no volvieron de la montaña, han vivido su tragedia, y lo que algunos de ellos, piensan de nuestras vidas.

En mi caso, justo unas semanas después de haber sido rescatado, fui a visitar a los padres de dos de mis más queridos amigos fallecidos. En ese momento, yo estaba empezando una nueva vida, estaba exultante, habíamos derrotado a la muerte y estábamos empezando a vivir nuevamente. Pero los padres de mis amigos estaban enterrando a sus hijos, estaban atravesando su peor tragedia. Esos encuentros fueron difíciles, aunque no me imagino qué otra cosa podríamos haber hecho en su lugar.

Unos pocos días después, dejé Uruguay y volví a la Argentina, donde vivían mis padres. Y tres meses después de haber salido de los Andes, entré en la Universidad sin decir quien era y sin decir a nadie lo que me había pasado. Simplemente no hablé del tema y pocas veces alguien se animó a sacar el tema frente a mí. De hecho, en algunas oportunidades tuve que escuchar chistes estúpidos sobre la forma en que nos alimentamos, de gente que obviamente no sabía quien era yo. Al final, con el tiempo, todo el mundo lo sabía, y yo me daba cuenta a través de una mirada, un comentario, un gesto, pero de nuevo, nadie me diría una palabra sobre el tema.

Todo esto me ayudó mucho con mi recuperación. Dejé el Uruguay y dejé la locura de vivir todos los días con el tema abierto. Y viví una vida normal y ordinaria. Nunca más me encontré con los parientes de mis amigos muertos, mis hijos no fueron al colegio con los hijos de los hermanos de los que murieron en la montaña, y donde fueron, la historia de los Andes era simplemente otra historia. Esa otra parte de la “Tragedia de los Andes”, simplemente no la viví. Recientemente, me encontré con uno de ellos, vive a unas pocas cuadras de mi casa en Buenos Aires, y quedamos en encontrarnos en cualquier momento.

The 16 Survivors/ Los 16 Sobrevivientes

Many times people ask me about my group. Are we still friends? Do we get together very often? Do we like each other?

And the truth is that although I cannot say I am a friend of all of them, I recognize belonging to a same group and I have a very special warm feeling for them. We have a common story, we share our ordeal, and we know what was like living up there in the mountains. The mountain and the follow up of our ordeal keep us together.

But what is significant is that we are all alive, reasonable healthy and living quite normal lives. Nevertheless, I have been basically marginal to the group for a while, I moved to another country just after the crash and I have not been at the core of the group for many years.

Does that mean that I dislike my survivor-brothers? No, I like them very much; it is only that I have lived a different life in another country. Although now, as I started to talk, I am feeling closer to the group.

But our group was not friendly at all times. We are a group that confronted a tremendous adversity and we gathered strengths from adversity to fight for life. And we fought hard for our individual and group survival. But we are just human beings. We had our problems up there, and no wonder we have them now in our real life. But we all recognize to be part of the group, we all know that we did it all together and that no one would have made it by himself.

Now we don’t have a common enemy to fight. There is no common mountain to climb, we all have grown up into different life projects and the group is more dispersed. Isn’t that normal?


Los 16 Sobrevivientes

Mucha gente me pregunta por nuestro grupo. Seguimos siendo amigos? Cuán seguido nos vemos? Nos queremos entre nosotros?

Y la verdad es que no puedo decir que soy amigo de todos ellos aunque reconozco pertenecer al mismo grupo. Tenemos una historia en común, compartimos nuestra tragedia, sabemos lo que fue vivir allí arriba en la montaña. La montaña y lo que siguió a ella nos ha unido y nos junta.

Pero lo importantes es que todos estamos vivos, razonablemente sanos para nuestra edad y viviendo vidas ordinarias. De todas maneras, yo he estado básicamente afuera del grupo, me he ido a vivir a otro país después del accidente y por muchos años no he estado en el corazón del grupo.

Eso quiere decir que no quiera a mis hermanos sobrevivientes? No, en absoluto, los quiero un montón. Sólo que he vivido una vida diferente en otro país. Pero ahora estoy volviendo.

Pero nuestro grupo no siempre fue amigable. Somos gente que enfrentó una terrible adversidad y tomamos fuerzas de esa adversidad para luchar por nuestras vidas. Y luchamos fuerte por sobrevivir cada uno y colectivamente. Pero somos seres humanos, tuvimos nuestras diferencias allí arriba y por supuesto las tenemos ahora en nuestra vida actual. Pero reconocemos ser parte del mismo grupo, sabemos lo que juntos hicimos allí arriba y que ninguno se hubiera salvado por si solo.

Ahora no tenemos un enemigo común para pelear. No hay una montaña común para enfrentar, todos hemos seguido distintos proyectos de vida y estamos más dispersos. No es eso lógico?

Katrina (2): Our case as Collective Leadership

Our survival on the Andes is a case of “Collective Leadership”. There was no one person that accomplished all the leadership tasks and we didn´t have “a Leader”. On the contrary, we were a group of peers figuring out how to get out from the mountains, and everyone contributed according to his capabilities at that time. In some cases, one of us would “step into the void” and make significant contributions; sometimes it was participating in a discussion and offering a new point of view, or giving an inspiring insight, or doing some generous or heroic act, or making an insuperable funny remark or improving the way we did things in order to save energies or provide relief to the injured and ill. The leadership tasks were performed in a collective way.

Some of our friends stood up with a more clear vision of what it was needed to be done, others were important to keep up the morale of the group, or put a lot of energies trying to improve the way we lived up there, or spent a great deal of their time making small excursions to find where we were and to pick up the remains of the plane, and other did the heroic and incredible task of walking for 10 days across the Andes in search of help.

As the Katrina analyst said, in crisis situations, systems collapse and there is no one individual person or organization that can cope with the enormous amount of work that performing the leadership task entails. In crisis situations, collective leadership does emerge, and we are clearly an example of it.


Katrina (2)

Nuestra sobrevivencia en los Andes es un caso de “Liderazgo Colectivo”. No hubo una sola persona que pudiera desarrollar todas las tareas del liderazgo y no tuvimos “El Líder”. Todo lo contrario, éramos un grupo de pares ingeniándonos para ver cómo salíamos de las montañas, y todos contribuyeron de acuerdo a sus posibilidades del momento. En algunos casos, uno de nosotros daba “un paso al vacío” y hacía grandes contribuciones, a veces era participando en alguna discusión y ofreciendo un nuevo punto de vista, o haciendo un acto generoso o heroico, o haciendo un comentario jocoso insuperable, o mejorando la forma en la que hacíamos las cosas para ahorrar energías y dar alivio a los que estaban heridos o enfermos. La función del liderazgo fue desarrollada en forma colectiva.

Algunos de nuestros amigos se pararon con una visión más clara de lo que había que hacer, otros eran importantes para mantener la motivación del grupo, o pusieron muchas energías tratando de mejorar la forma en que hacíamos las cosas, o estuvieron mucho tiempo haciendo pequeñas excursiones para determinar donde estábamos y recoger los que encontraban del avión y otros hicieron la heroica e increíble tarea de caminar 10 días por los Andes en busca de ayuda.

Como dicen los analistas del Katrina, en situaciones de crisis, los sistemas colapsan y no existe un solo individuo o una sola organización que puede hacerse cargo del enorme trabajo que implica desarrollar la tarea del liderazgo. En situaciones de crisis, emerge el liderazgo colectivo, y nosotros somos un claro ejemplo de ello.

Katrina (1): Crisis Leadership.

I just read a “White Paper” from the Center for Creative Leadership addressing the type of leadership that emerges in a crisis situation like the one produced by the hurricane Katrina. And it is amazing how close their findings are to the leadership situations we experienced during the days we spent in the Andes.

The article says that in Leadership Crisis, what matters is that the “leadership function” gets accomplished, no matter by whom or by how many, but that setting direction, creating alignment and building commitment has to be done, anyway. It is a matter of “what” not of “who”.

It also says that in these situations leadership can be happening in a group of people who are discussing what to do and, although unsure, they are figuring out. When disasters do occur, people are thrown into a peer context, and everyone is forced to take decision regardless wherever they are on the leadership structure. In crisis situations, systems collapse, plans are insufficient, the picture is distorted, time is compressed, authority is limited and limiting and new leadership emerges. The formal leadership authorities are many times overwhelmed by reality.

I am impressed how much this describes our situation in the Andes. We were peers, we didn´t know what to do, we were not prepared for such an ordeal, we were let by ourselves and we had just to figure out how to survive and to get out of the mountains. And I don’t want to imply that some of us didn´t play a more significant role than others in the Andes, but everyone contributed according to its possibilities, and we all mattered. Even those who were ill or injured played a significant role; just taking care of themselves was important for the group.

Obviously, this has an impact on the type of contingency plans everyone should have for disasters. On top of protocols and contingency plans, that you must have, it is crucial to build more communication skills, team working capabilities and networking. And when you plan for the worse, there will always be another worse scenario.


Katrina (1)

Acabo de leer un borrador de trabajo del Centro para el Liderazgo Creativo ocupándose del tipo de liderazgo que emergió en una situación de crisis como el huracán Katrina. Es increíble cuan cerca están sus conclusiones sobre el tipo de situaciones de liderazgo que nosotros experimentamos durante los días que pasamos en los Andes.

El artículo dice que en situaciones de crisis de liderazgo, lo que importa es que la función de liderazgo sea realizada, no importa por quien ni por cuantos, pero que establecer los objetivos, crear el alineamiento y construir el compromiso tiene que ser hecho de alguna manera. No es un tema de quien, sino de qué.

También dice que estas situaciones el liderazgo puede estar ocurriendo en un grupo de personas que discuten qué hacer y, aún inseguras, le encuentran la vuelta. Cuando ocurren desastres, la gente se encuentra en una situación de pares, y todos son obligados a tomar decisiones sin importar que lugar ocupaban en la estructura formal de liderazgo. Porque en situaciones de crisis, los sistemas colapsan, los planes son insuficientes, la visión general está distorsionada, el tiempo está comprimido, la autoridad está limitada y limita y obviamente emergen nuevos líderes. Los líderes formales muchas veces son sobrepasados por los acontecimientos.

Me impresiona, cuanto esto describe nuestra situación en los Andes. Éramos pares, no sabíamos qué hacer, no estábamos preparados para la tragedia, nos habían dejado solos y tuvimos que ingeniarnos para salir de las montañas. Con esto no quiero implicar que no hubo algunos que jugaron un rol más importante que otros en los Andes, pero aún aquellos que estaban enfermos o heridos tenían un rol significativo que jugar. Simplemente ocuparse de ellos mismos era importante para el grupo.

Obviamente, esto impacta en el tipo de planes de continencia que todos deberíamos tener para emergencias. Además de tener protocolos planes de contingencia, que hay que tener, no hay que olvidarse de desarrollar más habilidades de comunicación, capacidad de trabajo en equipo y relaciones. Y cuando planificas para el peor escenario, siempre puede haber otro peor.

London Thoughts

The Stanford University people invited me to London to participate in an Alumni meeting. It was a great meeting, extraordinary well organized by Laura Moore and her team. I spent a great week in London.

In the meeting, Prof. Charles O’Reilly presented Stanford’s new curricula and talked about leadership, presenting several vignettes of leaders taking tough decisions. Beforehand, I had made my presentation, which went very well.

As it always is, the best part came with the Q&A and later in the cocktail.


The lessons of the ordeal.

Someone asked me what my accident had meant to me. What I took from it in my day to day life. My easy answer was that I didn’t really know, that I couldn’t tell to what extent our ordeal had affected my life. But that is not really an honest or profound answer. Although it is true that I cannot trace the traits of my personality to what happened in the mountain, it is true that I have learned something from it. And it is about hope, it is about trust, it is about not having all the answers, it is about not having the last word. And up there, we knew that. We knew that even after doing all what we did, after doing all what was humanly possible, we didn’t have the last word. And that is something that I learned. Later in life I fought hard to attain my objectives but once I have fought hard, the result will eventually come if they have to come. We are not the owners of the end results; we only know how hard we can work, because in this life we don’t have everything under control.

Up there in the mountains, we were not sure that we were going to survive; we only knew that we had a chance to survive, and we fought hard for it. God was with us but we didn´t have all the answers. When now I face a crucible, I fight hard, I do what I can, but I know in advance that I can’t control everything. That is hope, it is trust and it gives me an enormous peace of mind.


Motivations

In the cocktail after the presentation, one alumnus asked me if after going through such an ordeal, which required all that adrenaline, I didn´t feel bored with ordinary life. I was shocked with the question; I never tried to imply that an ordinary and balanced life is a boring life. I have been misunderstood. What I mean is that we need to find motivation and meanings in our day to day life, not necessarily in far reaching objectives.

The truth is that after those mountains in the 70´s, I had others to climb, and they all came with their additional doses of adrenaline and challenge. And mountains do come, even as if we don’t look for them. Mountains do appear in life, climbing mountains is what life is all about.

I wonder what type of mountain this guy was aiming to climb. Maybe he was told at school that he should climb the highest of all the mountains. But not all of them are going to get that high, and even those who get to the top, I ´m sure that they see ahead higher steps which we don’t see. But they see them. And the truth is that everyone has to know that the ladder does not always go up, sometimes it is just flat, and it can come down.

Sometimes, people just don’t get me when I say that I am proud to have lived an ordinary life out of an extraordinary episode. We all need to have a meaningful life, contributing from the actual situation of our life, from there we are demanded to live a fruitful and meaningful life. In some cases, just taking care of yourself is what you have to do, it is what some of us did in the mountain.


Giving up.

We were having dinner at a nice Italian Restaurant in London. One of the guys who was with us told me that he heard me saying that people don’t give up, but he himself, having served in the military forces for many years and actually been in the Vietnam war, he saw people giving up.

Yes, it is true, and I know that people commit suicide, and that is really giving up. But what I saw in the mountains, is that as long we thought we had a chance to survive we fought hard to survive and we didn´t give up.

I asked him why people that come from war don’t talk about it as we do about our ordeal. We love talking about it, sometimes we have a compelling need to talk. And the answer was that people coming back from WWII did talk, but people from Vietnam are stigmatized and their experience is not socially welcomed. He said that they talked among themselves.

Thinking twice, I believe war has other ingredients. It is a limit experience and maybe heroic as well, but people are driven into such extreme and unique situations which are difficult to understand by those who were not there.

Piers

I have met my friend Piers Paul Read (Jay) each time I have been to London. He is the author of the book “Alive”. I have been always welcomed to his beautiful house where he and his wife Emily live. I´m very fond of them.

As we always do, we talked about “Alive”. I asked him how he got to write the book, how difficult it was, what the process of writting such a book had been.

He told me that he was approached by Ed Burlingame from Lippincot, at that time a large publishing house, who had read in the media the news of our ordeal. Some of our parents and friends had organized a competitive bid to choose a writer that would guarantee the truth of the story, that would guarantee that the friendship and faith that inspired us in the mountain would emerge from the book, that would respect the memories of the dead, would also avoid scandal and at the same time offer a reasonable check to the survivors. When they came to Uruguay their offer was clearly the best, although not financially. But Piers Paul Reed, a British catholic writer was the winning card.

His first trip to Uruguay was made on February 1973; he met the survivors and friends at a nice welcome party at Carlos Paez´s Casa Pueblo in Punta del Este. He was impressed by the nice welcome in a beautiful mild evening watching the sunset from Casa Pueblo. Then he started to work. I remember we told everything to Piers in very long individual and group interviews. He says that we were very fragile and had a compulsive need to talk. When asked why we were so open to him he wonders if it was because he was not our father, not a priest, not a therapist, just someone that wanted to listen to us. And he indeed was a good listener. I had just heard the tapes of his interviews to me made 35 years ago. I said then nothing different from what I say now about the odyssey. In those tapes, he continuously asked me about my political views and about my understanding of the dynamics of our group.

He went back to London with 80 hours of tapes. And he worked on a big matrix, on one entry he listed all the survivors, and on the other entry he listed the events, and then he started knitting a tremendous patchwork. By the end of that year, he finished his draft and came back to Montevideo to show his manuscript. He says that it was a terrible week; most of us were disappointed with his presentation of our story. According to him, some of us thought that their role in the mountain was not accurately depicted; others said that the spiritual dimension of the ordeal was not there, others said that people in Uruguay were going to be scandalized by all the details that were given on what we fed on. Some even said that the Uruguayan society would stigmatize us and we would have to leave the country. Others even feared the reaction of the relatives of our friends who did not come back. Well, it was very difficult for all of us to be happy with the book at the onset; it is really very difficult to write in just a few pages what the 16 of us went through during our ordeal. But on the overall, I feel he did a great job, I feel that the book conveys a good idea of what happened to us up there.

He told me that the book was published without any changes from the manuscript we read. Just a small caveat was added in the acknowledges of the book:

“………some (of us) felt that the faith and friendship which inspired (us) in the cordillera do not emerge from the book………perhaps, it was beyond the skill of any writer to express our own appreciation of what (we) lived through……………”

And as we all know, his book (and ours too) has been a tremendous world wide success. It has been translated to more than 50 languages, although Piers himself does not recall how many copies of it have been sold.

Piers is very proud of his book, but curiously, one of the few negative critics came from William Golding, the author of the Lord of the Flies, who reviewed Alive for a London magazine some time ago. In the Lord of the Flies, William Golding writes about an hypothetic case in which a group of English schoolboys get stranded in a desert island. The survivors fail to organize themselves and finally turn into savagery. But we did not turn into savagery, we organized ourselves to survive and we made it, and we were always human beings. Maybe Golding didn´t like Piers book because it went against his main hypothesis. Ok, we didn´t degenerate into savagery, is it because we were not pushed that far? Piers says we didn´t and we wouldn’t have turn into savagery, and he is the one person who understands best what happened up there. I have to admit I have not read Golding’s book. I have just added it to my reading list.

Shackleton

I have just read a book about Shackleton. He and 27 more men tried to walk across the South Pole from one sea to the other. When they were getting to the South Pole in 1915 on their ship "Endurance", the freezing sea caught the "Endurance" in the ice until it was broken up by the enourmous pressure of the ice on the ship. Shackleton and his men lived for almost two years adrift hopping from one iceberg to another, feeding on seals and penguins. Finally, Shackleton and two more men sailed a small boat for more than 3000 miles until they got to an island from where all his men were rescued.

It is an amazing story, they all came back!. Shackleton died a few years later, but most of his men lived long lives, and many spent a lot of their time speaking about their ordeal.

Shackelton people chose to go on that trip, and they knew it was going to be dangerous and demanding, they even knew they would be talking about it since most of their adventure was well depicted by a photographer who was part of the expedition. Shackleton always led the group with handfist, he was a strong and dedicated leader.

We were not prepared for our ordeal, we didn´t have a strong formal leadership structure, we didn´t know where we were, we didn´t have any mountain experience, but as Shackleton´s people, we are very happy to have survived our ordeal, and we enjoy talking about it.

But I am sure that for every Shackleton and for every "Alive" experiences, there are plenty of other human ordeals of which their survivors don´t want to talk about it. Just think about war, on concentration camps, famine situations in Africa, or the most recent Colombian kidnaps, how many extreme episodes still do occur!! And those who survive them, do not talk about them, they just can´t open their heart and memories to others and simply look ahead.

Why is that? What makes our story so unique?