Background: As part of the Education and Social Justice Project, in June 2025, undergraduate student Stella Vance (C'26) interviewed José María Valverde, S.J., director of the Identity and Mission Department and professor of the Leadership and Social Change course at Loyola University Andalusia in Seville, Spain. In this interview, José discusses his experience teaching Leadership and Social Change at Loyola University Andalusia. This interview was conducted in Spanish and translated to English by Stella Vance.
I understand that you’re a professor of Leadership and Social Change here. How long have you been a teacher for this course?
Well, look, practically since I arrived the first year. Seven years.
Seven years, that’s a lot.
In other words, the subject is practically created by me, because when I arrived, there was only one paragraph, one descriptor within the program. So, I have been the first person who has taught it and the only one. It's an invention of mine.
You are very important here! Can you tell me a little bit about your journey coming to work here as a teacher?
My background, okay, yes. Let's see, I have a degree in economics before becoming a Jesuit. I was there, and I worked, and I also have a degree in social work. Okay? These two things together have a little bit to do with the subject (Leadership and Social Change). But at the university where I studied, which is the public university in Santiago de Compostela, I was working, and I started doing my doctorate in the sociology of organizations. The sociology of organizations was a department within the Department of Economics, the Department of Sociology, and that has a lot to do with organizational culture, organizational climate. Well, these kinds of complex organizations. And what happens is—making a little leap in my life itinerary—that I was stationed there because I entered the Society of Jesus, then during my time as a Jesuit, I was teaching in several secondary schools, the last one in Badajoz where I was a team leader, a tutor. I led the volunteer teams in Burgos, while I was also teaching and working with migrants at one NGO I practically founded. There was a small group, and I took that NGO that was eight people teaching migrants, creating an organization with 200 volunteers, five levels of Spanish, four summer work camps to work with migrant children in Spain who are undocumented migrants.
So to say, there is a part of leadership and vital social action that I have experienced, and there is another academic part, even if I did not complete the doctorate. I studied at Boston College for two years for a master's degree there, at Boston College. It had to do with pastoral care and spirituality and cultural anthropology. Well, and the result of all that, more or less, ended up in the class (Leadership and Social Change), ended a little bit in the material. So, I have brought together in the material Ignatian spirituality on the one hand, leadership from the Ignatian point of view that has some particularities. On the other hand, some content of social entrepreneurship and things about the sociology of organizations. Basically, that is a bit of context, there’s more in the journey to the subject, but that’s a bit of my journey.
And how did you become a teacher here (at Loyola) specifically?
Well, I was assigned here because during the third approval that I did in Cuba–the third approval is the last period of studies as Jesuits of internal formation of the society–I made a discernment. I thought I would be teaching a class in Badajoz, which I told you before, but it was at a vocational training school. Vocational schools in Spain tend to be schools for those—this is not officially the case, but in sociological practice—those who do not have the capacity to go to university, intellectual capacity or capacity, sometimes also culturally and monetarily. So, they go to vocational training, which is kind of... I was teaching there, but I realized that I was unconsciously teaching at too high of a level, and the students were left behind. Okay, so I wrote a letter saying that I think I would be better placed in a university than in vocational training.
I was assuming that it was a very early moment of the university in the province where I was assigned, where there was growth, where it was needed. There was a Jesuit before me who taught international law, which has nothing to do with me. He left, and there was a free space. So, he assigned me to work in pastoral care, mainly. That is, my academic activity is not my main activity. I am more in pastoral care, or now, in managerial positions, in other types of strategies that have to do with the configuration of the teaching staff by the mission. The Congress (HOPE25 Conference) is part of that logic—to hold a conference is to help researchers align with the mission of the Society of Jesus. But in other years, I do many other things that have to do with seminars, etc., etc. That, then, that logic of organizational culture...I have a team there and another pastoral team. And in parallel, so as not to lose contact and to have regular interaction with the students, I maintain a subject of this type, but it is not my academic activity; it is not me, I am not in the official academic career. For some other teachers who teach some of these subjects today, it is, but not in my case.
Yes, and do you teach another course, or just Leadership?
I just teach this one, I was teaching other things before, but now, I just teach this subject.
Okay, I understand. Did you want to be a professor or work at the university mainly because you couldn’t advance as much as you wanted to when you were in South America, or for other reasons, too?
No, no, no, no, no, no. I have a vocation to be a teacher, but here, they assigned me to something else. What happened was that the subject had possibilities, so, I also unfolded the subject. In other words, I feel comfortable being a teacher; what happened is that I am in charge of other tasks, too.
And what is your relationship with the Identity and Mission courses here? I understand that you teach, but is there another relationship?
Yes, when I was incorporated here, there were four optional subjects of Identity and Mission. And these four subjects fall within the competence of the identity team that I have started. The Identity and Mission team has four legs. The team that I lead up front at the management level has four legs, four branches. One leg is the pastoral care that I also direct. Another leg is teaching in matters of Identity and Mission, which are these four electives, in this case. Another leg is the research, hence the Congress. And another leg is internal formation, those seminars that I told you about configuring the young professor, mainly, and the best and the oldest, with topics that are linked to the purpose of a university of the Society of Jesus. The internal seminars for the formation of Identity and Mission and some external, the research, the teaching. I mean, no, not that I have to teach the four subjects, but I do have a say in how they are taught and shaped. And the pastoral care has to do with volunteering, and with faith groups, pilgrimages, retreats, spiritual exercises that also fall under my responsibility.
So, when I arrived, there were two subjects that were already being taught. Two that were Catholic Social Thought and Contextualizing Christianity and the Church, those two were taught. They already had teachers. What I did was, when there was a need to renew the teaching staff, to make proposals for teachers who could teach them; specifically, I hired Nacho Andrió, who teaches Contextualizing Christianity and the Church. Not to teach that subject, I hired him for pastoral care, and incidentally, he could also teach that subject. And then, Interreligious Dialogue and Spirituality was created by another Jesuit, Jaime Flaquer, who you must know, Jaime Flaquer. When he came, I proposed that it was because he was a specialist in interreligious dialogue, especially in dialogue with Islam, that he teach that subject together, but at my proposal, we designed that it would be on Saturdays, that is, that it would be a blended subject. Yes, so that it could be good to give opportunities to people who have internships—so that they also had the possibility of doing a subject on Saturdays. And with those, there were the four, the one that I set up was Leadership and Social Change.
So, you have only taught Leadership and Social Change for seven years, but how many years have all of the courses been taught for?
Well, I suppose, from the beginning of the university. From the first moment there were two subjects, and then, Leadership and Social Change and Interreligious Dialogue and Spirituality were added. I don't remember; I can look later if you want the specific data.
Okay, perfect. And have you taught other courses besides this one in the past?
Yes.
Which courses?
I’ve taught similar courses for master’s degrees. In Leaders for the World, which is a transversal course, a transversal program that is taught here to students taking a master's degree in Ignatian pedagogy. It doesn’t exist anymore, but I made a similar leadership module in that course. Four universities together had created a master's degree in Ignatian pedagogy, and within that master's degree in Ignatian pedagogy, I taught a leadership module. That was it. This course was for school principals, school management teams, secondary schools, so like, leadership teams.
And have you found anything different in your experience teaching your Identity and Mission course here, compared to your other experiences teaching?
Yes, man, in the other experiences, [the students] are adults, they are professionals. So, there is a previous baggage of the person, let's say that they have experienced real situations and cases in their life; they have faced problems, they are adults. Therefore, I don't need to contextualize as much, gamify, etc., because they are very good right away, because there is a shared life experience, which is easier than in the classroom, where they have not yet really led teams (undergraduate students).
And this lack of real experience, how does this impact your way of designing the course?
Well, by trying to gamify. Bringing in people from outside, for example. There are sessions where I invite leaders and do a world cafe. It is a group exercise. Then, I bring leaders of the different subjects from outside (guest lecturers) and what I do is, I make them ask themselves and dialogue with them. And then they generate a challenge, a project, they go to the institutions, and they create a project for that institution, a real project and an institution. So, what I do is try to connect them vitally with people who can ask questions and who are leaders. And two, generating real contextual experiences of taking the student to the company or to social entities, so that they live from their own experience and then bring the experience from in the classroom.
What are your goals for students taking this course?
I think they ask themselves, significantly, “What is a life of meaning, a job, a leadership of meaning for them?” Understanding that meaningful leadership is, that I ask myself questions about where I want to go. I mean, "Who am I?" "What do I want to do with my life as a whole?" and "How do I want to convey that to society?" So that it makes some kind of significant impact, okay, it would be a little bit where I want to go: "Who I am, what I want to do with my life, where I want to go, how I want to lead my life in general, and more specifically, my professional work," but more. I want it to function more as a vital reflection than a professional one, taking advantage of the space that the electives allow.
Many things that you have described have to do with the identity of a person. How do you see the relationship between education and a person’s identity?
How do I see the relation between education and identity? Man, I think it's important for people to know what they love. And what things are you passionate about, and what things give you meaning? Well, that, on the one hand, and then, repeat the question to me?
How you see the relationship between education and identity.
Good. So, I think that the one role that education has is to help people to deepen their meaning, in their narratives of meaning, to discover through other authors, to confront themselves with other ideas, to confront themselves with other testimonies that allow them to dialogue their own life experience in dialogue with others and to generate a new synthesis. A synthesis that, on the one hand, deeper, that helps to think, to delve deeper into one's own values and to discover some new value.
And this perspective obviously impacted your formation of this course.
Yes.
And through your time as a professor and working at a university, has that perspective changed in any way?
Yes. I think I have been gradually moving from more theoretical frameworks to more experiential frameworks. I think at the beginning, I liked them to read more, and now, I want them to experience more. And then, there's something else, I think the profile of the student has also changed. For example, at the beginning, it was very difficult for me to experience mindfulness and meditation, and today, they ask me for those things. In other words, there is a search for greater interiority and people do not feel that they are wasting time if you do a meditation exercise in the classroom. At the beginning, this was more difficult, that's it.
Can you talk a little more about the changes in the class structure?
Well, I've been moving—I'm still experimenting a lot, searching, “Eh, no, it's not there; this isn't resolved.” They have just given me the schedules for the next course. I have been asking for this course, and the previous one, and this one, too. I'm going to repeat the format of four hours in a row. It’s very heavy for the students and forces you to change the class a lot, but it helps me with activities that I couldn’t do otherwise. It helps to do what I was telling you about—that leaders come and have their world cafe and can prototype with design thinking or anything. The challenge helps me to make it possible for me to spend half an hour doing a meditation and change to another activity. Well, it’s somewhat difficult because I think four hours is a lot—and maybe we will change it—but that compensates for it, in being able to do other types of activities that are actually not four hours. They are two hours, that is, an hour and a half, half an hour of rest, and an hour and a half. I want to tell you that although the format is a little harder, it allows other types of activities and, for the moment, I am choosing to keep the format to introduce these other types of activities that are more experiential.
What parts of your experience prior to becoming a teacher here, such as working on NGOs and other things, were the most impactful in the design of the course?
Man, there is a strong part of being a Jesuit, okay? That is, Ignatian spirituality—presented in a very broad way, in such a way that it not only serves believers, in a way that is valid for anyone. It is still a classroom, but this allows anyone to be able to make a personal and spiritual synthesis, everyone in the whole world—Catholic or non-Catholic. That has a lot of influence, that is, that has been very influential. The fact of leading groups, of being very used to leading groups, my previous experience of leading groups of people—I forgot to say, I also have training as a therapist okay, of humanism in Gestalt and in Rogers. Well, and there are also a lot of group dynamics, okay? Well, I think I'm good enough in group dynamics. That is in the classroom, too, I also do a lot of dynamics in the classroom. And then, on a social level, all of us are learning to manage collectives that talk and generate leadership for people. I have done that at different times in my life, and it is now part of this experience. And the doctoral courses and my initial training at the University of Santiago are also in organizations, etc.
And I understand that you designed this course alone, because it didn't exist before, but now do you work with other people from other universities?
Yes, yes.
Like Cristina Giménez?
Yes.
And what are your objectives in your collaboration with these people?
Well, with Cristina, and with the group of counterparts, what we are trying to do is to see what works or does not work in order to move forward with a more unified proposal. A proposal that can be recognizable as a proposal of the Society of Jesus in Spain, as an identity proposal of a university in Spain. We're working for that. It is true that I have also learned, that is, that I worked with [teacher’s name], he works in leadership in Rome, but for a long time I also trained with him. In other words, not only have I been living from experience, but I have also received courses. In the group of counterparts that is, here, Cristina, the one you mention, but Jaime is also there. Jaime de Comillas, who is the vice-rector for identity and mission, who is also the delegate of Identity and Mission of the Society of Jesus, also the one person from the IQS, who is also from Deusto, Pello Azpitarte, and some other people with them. Some of them have taken courses from me, but I think we are trying to find what exactly is a matter of Identity and Mission and to be able to define it. And we are looking for what practices help teachers the most, that are most helpful in achieving what is sought.
And what’s happening, what do you think about these issues?
About teaching practices?
Yes, what are you talking about as a group?
Let's see, we're just getting started, we are still getting started. There is a part of service learning that is known to work very well—that is always on the table. There is another part that I believe is working on challenges, that are real and in contact with real leaders, I believe that testimony helps them a lot, as well. I think they receive the experiences of interiority, meditation, etc., etc., better every time. Group work is very complicated to manage because it's very conflictive, but it's inevitable, I want to tell you. No one can work alone, and therefore, although I know that's problematic, well, it's inevitable. It's just that no, no, you can't not work in a group on a leadership subject. Students get angry with each other; there are those who pretend to take advantage of the work of others. There is a totum revolutum, but well, trying to learn how to handle that and how to be more and more fair in the evaluation of this, I think it's important to keep, and I tell you that it's part of the experience.
And what is the participation of the students in your course like?
Yes, it is full. The course is full. It is true that we do not have much supply, in other words, there are four courses for many students. So, I had previously limited the courses to 50 people, but the secretariat has broken my limit. So I have 70, which is a lot of people. So, I have an enormous complexity in managing to do this with a very broad, very large group. So, well, I use a room that is up here, a lot to be able to handle them, but, well, it is still a group. And well, the transitions from one activity to others slow down. It's a very large group. A smaller group is desirable, but I don't have it.
How do you facilitate the participation of 70 students at the same time?
Well, that's by facilitating it by doing a lot of group work. Trying, for example, when I have to use forums on the internet a lot through Moodle with previous readings so that they can dialogue and prepare anticipating part of the class. For example, the theory—I try to distribute it and have them explain it to themselves. That is, if it is an article that they have to read, and it has six parts, I make groups of six. Everyone reads one part and explains it to the rest.
What else do I try? There is an attempt to give them as much of a leading role as possible. They, for example, have an activity that they like a lot, that they usually have to present a communication exercise. A passion, something that they are passionate about on a personal level, and they like that. They listen to each other, they do, they are doing group work. I have to spend a lot of time doing groups because in addition to the 70, there is an added complexity, and that is that they are of different grades. So, there are fourth-year students who already have one foot out of the university; they are thinking about their TFGS, their internships. That's one problem. And on the other hand, they are of different majors, so that has a precious richness in the classroom, but I have to spend a lot of time in forming a group in the necessities that make up a group. Well, and there are always years that I get more than others.
Do you offer ways for students to connect personally in a more intimate way with the subject?
Yes, but there are times when they do, sometimes they don't. I mean, that's the ideal. I dream that the lectures, the group activities, make you, stir you inside enough to make you ask yourself important questions in your life. That would be it. That's my goal. If I get that, even if they don't know many authors, I've won. For me it is won. I mean, it's like, “I dare to ask myself questions that were there, and that I never had allowed it to emerge,” you know to say, "Well, what do I do with this?" "This makes sense to me,” and so on. That is what I try. Of course, I try with the readings, everything I do.
Leadership courses, in general, that's not news to me, but within the Harvard competency scheme, there are three levels—there is theoretical knowledge, knowing, knowing, knowing, and knowing; there are practical skills, techniques to be handled; and then, there is knowing how to be. Generally, in university courses, there is a lot of knowledge, a little practical skills, and little of being. I try to reverse that. This isn’t always understood. I try to make a lot go into being. Another one to skills and theoretical knowledge, as I understand that each person is already acquiring knowledge in their majors, is less important here. But that is a practical exercise because I face a classroom of 70, and I have to give a 10-minute speech about something that I am passionate about, with a structure, but very free, and I see and receive feedback, and I dare to give feedback to my classmates. And I write something, and I do a workshop in Moodle so that other colleagues can evaluate and give feedback; and therefore, I am already obligating you to do a leadership exercise: to evaluate the team. Well, you're learning to evaluate, to give feedback, to communicate. You acquire that, but you do it with your own significant material. I repeat, with 70 people, not everyone does it, it is not always achieved, but that’s what the idea is.
And is it hard to convince students or teach in this more personal way because it isn’t the norm?
Yes, here, it is not normal, and in the United States, it is easier. Because I have also taught a course there. Here, it's extremely strange. So, here, yes. It is very difficult for me. This has gone well; I have been winning it year after year. I see that I have an easier time with students understanding this. But it's hard for me, that is, that I don't know how to explain to you that, that I make a synthesis. For example, on a theoretical level, I set up a diary notebook. An activity that I have is a diary that is: "What has happened to me in this class?" In Ignatian pedagogy, and in other pedagogies, but Ignatian, there is also an evaluation of the day: What people, places, have left a significant mark? I get it, but it's very difficult for them to understand that it's not about using an artificial intelligence that summarizes the class. To understand, “What it’s about is what I say because everything I say is good because it is mine.” “What has happened to me in this class?" "How did I process it?" "What has it been, what have I felt that I have lived?" and "What do I take away from the classroom?" "But me—not an artificial intelligence, me—how am I living that?”
And how would you explain the normal dynamic in Spain of how a student interacts with the material of a class? Because you said it's not normal to interact so vulnerably, so what's the norm here?
Here, the normal thing is that the teacher gives you theoretical material, and you do assignments, and then, you’re tested on it. That’s what I don’t do (laughs). What I do is very different, I understand. So, that sounds very strange, and it costs me a lot.
They need time to understand?
Yes.
Are there topics that students want to interact with a lot, or like a lot in your course?
Are there themes, are there topics that they like more than others, you say? I think I have a better connection with psychologists because there is a part that engages very well with psychology with the dynamic part of groups and because I like psychology. With those of other majors, I get worse engagement. Well, with the business students, I also engage moderately well.
Another added difficulty of this subject is the following, there are many difficulties here: I have fourth-year students with different theoretical skills. Psychologists, business, international relations, law. So, of course, when I explain something about psychology, I am not at the level of the fourth-year psychologist, I have to match the rest. First, I have to go down a step, first, and say, "Look, you have to wait a little bit," and I have to go up, and it happens to me the same with everyone. When I explain something that has to do with entrepreneurship, I have to first get others to understand the logic and what innovation is, etcetera, etcetera. And that's an added complexity. I mean, I have to. Trying to give something meaningful, I don't want to fall short of each year, but at the same time, I can't talk only for psychologists because I have a lot. Sixty percent of the class are not psychologists. I can't speak only for business because the rest are not business.
That makes a lot of sense. I hadn't thought about this dynamic.
I mean, I can't—since I have a background in psychology, I am very transversal. I could get into the subject, but then, I abandon half of the students. I don't know if I'm explaining well? I have to be constantly navigating having to spend, maybe half a class—that is why it is four hours long—explaining concepts that are very basic for psychologists, to get the others to kindergarten.
And what are the most difficult parts of your class for the students?
I think the only difficult thing is that to have a meaningful process here, you have to get into it on a personal level. You have to risk entering areas that you often do not want to enter in class because they touch on more in-depth topics. Only the student who bites on a personal level—bites, that is, he gets involved—takes advantage. If you stay at the theoretical level, you stay on the surface, you don't delve into the subject thoroughly.
Can you take a moment to think about a moment that was very meaningful while teaching your class, or a student's story that is important to you?
For example, there is a student who is very important to me who writes to me and tells me, “What you're talking to me about is stirring me up. Can you give me support to continue there?” So, I talk with her more personally. That is, in a normal reading, someone has suddenly gone through a very significant personal process that leads them to take steps in life. That, that is the subject. That is the subject. That is, with a reading, with a forum, with ordinary activities, but they are permeating in you in an aspect of meaning of life, of leadership, of project. A world of vocation. A level much further. That is the objective of the subject. When that happens, I'm delighted.
Yes, I understand. Thank you very much. I understand your process a lot better now. If you would like to add more, or expand on anything we’ve talked about, you obviously can.
Yes, yes, yes. I mean, for the goals, I still don't quite get it. In Boston College, there was a thing called capstone course, which I don't know if you have, which is kind of a review of the process. Well, “This has some of that or pretends to have some of that,” as if to say, “I'm here, this is the moment of my life, and with some people, some authors, a spirituality, a series of approaches, I try to dream authentically: What is the next step or where am I going?” The next concrete step. “I don't know if a master's degree or not, but I do want to get my life on track. Giving myself to this cause or founding a family, I don't care. But that I discover an internal dynamic that gives me meaning and gives me fullness of life.” That would be success for me. And you know, one author or another, for me they are a resource for that.
Thank you very much. Thank you again for your time and help with the entire research project. It has been so important, and I appreciate it so much. It was a pleasure to learn more about your journey and your course. The students that I’ve talked to love the course.
I think they notice that I love being able to convey this. In other words, I believe in the course, I believe it. So, of course, I don't always get it right. I look on one side, on the other, up and down, and I try. Another thing that has also happened in some cases is that someone, suddenly, she empowers herself and says things that sometimes make me a little embarrassed because it is still a classroom context, and there are times there is a very strong intimacy in public, and you don't know to what extent the classmates—this is sacred to this person. Nobody here says anything, I try to explain to them to make a contract at the beginning: what happens in this class, remains here, this says outside. But of course, you never have the full guarantee, and sometimes, there are students who risk a lot. On the one hand, I like it a lot, and on the other hand, I am afraid. Within 70, I say I have to keep this a little bit under control.
Yes, it is a small school, and it seems like everything is shared. Yes, but I think the professor is the most important part of the course.
Thank you very much, thank you very much.
