6
Core Team Values

Shackleton privately forced upon me his one breakfast biscuit, and would have given me another tonight had I allowed him. I do not suppose that anyone else in the world can thoroughly realize how much generosity and sympathy was shown by this: I do, and By God I shall never forget it. Thousands of pounds would not have bought that one biscuit.¹

—Frank Wild

All of the ten strategies for dealing with situations at The Edge are tightly interwoven, but the tactics in this chapter are most closely associated with Strategy 5, which emphasizes the importance of reinforcing the team message. In fact, many of the approaches described in this chapter could have been included in the previous one and considered simply as another set of tactics for developing a cohesive team. Strategy 6, however, plays such a vital role in success at The Edge that it deserves a chapter of its own.

Minimize Status Differences and Special Privileges

Robert Falcon Scott is one of the most famous explorers of all time. Scott, who reached the South Pole just over a month after Norwegian Roald Amundsen, died with his companions on their return journey. Yet Scott secured his immortality by capturing the imagination of the British public, which saw the expedition as a failed but heroic effort.

Statues throughout the world depict Scott facing death and are inscribed with his last message:

I do not regret this journey, which has shown that Englishmen can endure hardships, help one another and meet death with as great a fortitude as ever in the past.²

In fact, some have argued that Scott’s misadventure resulted from severe deficiencies in his personal style and leadership ability. Roland Hunt-ford, for example, in his book on the Amundsen-Scott race, The Last Place on Earth, is merciless in describing Scott’s flaws. The book’s index entries³ include the following list of Scott’s “characteristics”:

absentmindedness; agnosticism; command, unsuitability for; depression, bouts of; emotionalism; impatience; improvisation, belief in; inadequacy, sense of; insecurity; insight, lack of; irrationality; isolation; jealousy; judgment, defective; leadership, failure in; literary gifts; panic, readiness to; recklessness; responsibility, instinct to evade; sentimentality; and vacillation.⁴

Others have charged that Huntford was excessively biased and unduly harsh in his assessment of Scott. Sir Vivian Fuchs, who led the British Trans-Antarctic Expedition of 1957–1958, has argued that Huntford used “the full force of his vitriolic pen” to pursue a personal vendetta against Scott.⁵

Huntford may have been hard on Scott, but there is little question that—as a leader—Shackleton was everything that Scott was not. Both men were products of a romantic age of exploration, and both were highly competitive ambitious individuals. But there were fundamental differences in their effectiveness as leaders and, in particular, their ability to create a sense of team unity. Why were these two individuals so different? What created these sharp contrasts?

When you look beneath Huntford’s index of “characteristics” and into Scott’s limitations as a leader, one thing becomes clear. There is little question that many of Scott’s deficiencies resulted from the environment in which he learned to lead: Britain’s Royal Navy in the latter part of the nineteenth century. This environment is worth looking at more closely, because in it there are lessons for leaders and for organizations today.

In the 1880s, when Scott attended Dartmouth—the British Naval Academy—the Royal Navy was living in the past. Still basking in Admiral Horatio Nelson’s victory over the French at Trafalgar in 1805, the navy was complacent, resistant to innovation, and focused on form rather than function. It was, as Huntford put it so well, “more like an exclusive yacht club than a warlike institution.”

Leadership focused on appearances—smart-looking ships with obsolete weapons, for example. Another pitfall was the Royal Navy’s reliance on hierarchy, strict obedience, and centralized decision making. Scott’s limited talent and personal insecurities, then, were mixed with a leadership training regimen that was as ill-suited for Antarctic exploration as it was for naval warfare.

This unfortunate combination played out in Scott’s leadership in many ways. Lacking Shackleton’s understanding of the positive functions of structure (described in Chapter 1), Scott put the crew to work on tasks that were ridiculously inappropriate. As the commander of the National Antarctic expedition, he directed the crew of the Discovery to follow the Royal Navy tradition of scrubbing the decks daily. The crew was ordered to perform this task in subfreezing temperatures. The water turned to ice instantly and had to be shoveled away.⁶

Scott was also fond of holding inspections with all hands on deck, forcing the men to stand in place until their feet were frostbitten.⁷ As if this were not enough, Scott was also a terrible communicator. Instead of using information to strengthen the bonds of team unity (Chapter 5), he withheld the most basic information. Even the officers were kept in the dark about their destinations and how long they would be staying.⁸

All of these behaviors created anger, resentment, and depression among the crew. Scott’s greatest flaw, however, may have been the “classist,” hierarchical view of the world that he learned in the Royal Navy. It is true, of course, that other British naval officers had much the same training and were still able to be effective leaders. The combination of Scott’s personality and his rigid training, though, was toxic.

In assembling the crew of the Discovery expedition, for example, Scott resisted the involvement of anyone who was not a member of the Royal Navy, because he doubted his ability to deal with “any other class of men.”⁹ The organization of the Discovery maintained the strict separation between officers and enlisted men, between the wardroom and the mess deck. Scott seldom even spoke to ordinary seamen, except during inspections. This caste system was wholly unnecessary on a merchant vessel and a liability in the snow and ice of Antarctica. It created a fragmented, dispirited group that could hardly be considered a team.

Shackleton’s approach to leadership was a night-and-day contrast to Scott’s. Shackleton’s father, unable to afford the high cost of a Dartmouth education and a cadet training ship, sent young Ernest to sea on a full-rigger named the Houghton Tower. Shackleton literally “learned the ropes”—all 200 of them on the ship—from the bottom up.¹⁰

Not only did he learn basic seamanship, he also lived in a world far different from the rigid Royal Navy. To be sure, there were status distinctions between officers and seamen, but they were nowhere near as rigid as those of the navy. In this environment, the gregarious Shackleton made friends among all factions—officers, engineers, and apprentices alike.

When Shackleton joined Scott as a member of the Discovery expedition, he brought with him more than an outgoing, ebullient personality. He also carried a view of people and relationships that was fundamentally different from Scott’s. While Shackleton was a strong leader, he saw no value in unnecessary trappings that differentiated team members. He saw the need for decision-making authority, but it did not take a form that created a superior, elite class.

On the Discovery expedition, the fundamental differences between the two men surfaced again and again. When expedition members were learning to ski, Scott looked on while Shackleton and the rest of the expedition floundered in the snow. When Scott bullied Hartley Ferrar—the expedition geologist and youngest member of the wardroom—Shackleton stood by Ferrar because he felt Scott’s anger was misplaced.¹¹

It was on the Imperial Trans-Antarctic Expedition, however, when Shackleton was given full latitude to lead, that the striking contrast became so clear. In particular, Shackleton’s ability to eliminate the damaging effects of unnecessary hierarchy was clearly illustrated. On Endurance, everyone pitched in, regardless of station. Scientists, physicians, and seamen alike worked side by side to do the work. A photograph from the expedition, for instance, shows Macklin, the surgeon, on his knees vigorously scrubbing the deck.

Not everyone understood and initially embraced this egalitarian view. Thomas Orde-Lees, who was brought up in the Royal Navy system, wrote in his diary:

I am able to put aside pride of caste in most things but I must say that I think scrubbing floors is not fair work for people who have been brought up in refinement.¹²

Over time, however, this caste-free system became part of the culture of the team. Unlike Scott, who observed while others labored, Shackleton was an integral part of the team.

This egalitarian spirit had two critical benefits. First, it ensured that every member of the expedition would do his utmost to accomplish whatever work needed to be done. Second, it served to minimize the resentments that inevitably arise when, under conditions of stress, hardship, and deprivation, there is a perception that some are more equal than others.

One way in which Shackleton maintained this sense of equality was in his scrupulous fairness about distributing resources. Shortly after Endurance broke up, for example, the crew was faced with the dilemma that there were not enough reindeer-skin sleeping bags for every member. These bags, specially made by expert furriers, were perhaps the best insulating protection against the cold available at the time. Their original plan required reindeer-skin bags only for the sledging party, so there were only eighteen. Now everyone was out in the cold, and ten of the twenty-eight would have to make do with Jaeger woolen bags. To ensure equal treatment, the desirable reindeer bags were distributed using a lottery, in which Shackleton did not participate. As an “old hand,” he decided to make do with wool.

As important as protection from the cold was, food was even more central to the life of the crew. Feelings ranging from wild exuberance to deep depression would turn on the size of the rations. Even the appearance of favoritism would have created conflict and resentment. Here is how the Boss described the Solomonic process used to ensure impartiality:

All is eaten that comes to each tent, and everything is most carefully and accurately divided into as many equal portions as there are men in the tent. One member then closes his eyes or turns his head away and calls out the names at random, as the cook for the day points to each portion, saying at the same time, “Whose?” Partiality, however unintentional it may be, is thus entirely obviated and every one feels satisfied that all is fair, even though one may look a little enviously at the next man’s helping which differs in some especially appreciated detail from one’s own. We break the Tenth Commandment energetically, but as we are all in the same boat in this respect, no one says a word.¹³

To reinforce this norm of equal treatment, Shackleton made sure that he, as the leader, got no special privileges. He wore the same clothing, ate the same food, and took his turn with the daily chores. He assumed, for example, the role of “Peggy,” carrying the “hoosh pot” from the galley filled with their daily fare—a yellow-brown mixture of lard, oatmeal, beef and vegetable protein, salt, and sugar. When Shackleton learned that the cook had given him special treatment, he quickly put a stop to this violation of the law of equals.

Another of Shackleton’s characteristics that helped him retain authority while maintaining a sense of equality was his ability to apologize, to admit when he was wrong. He had strong ideas, of course, and he could be bullheaded. But when it was clear that he had made a mistake, he was quick to own up to it.

On one such occasion, Worsley and Shackleton disagreed about the amount of ballast needed for the James Caird to make it to South Georgia. Knowing that the crew and stores would weigh 1,000 pounds, Worsley argued for a relatively small amount of extra weight. Shackleton, fearful that the boat would capsize in heavy seas, insisted on nearly a ton of ballast. This caused the Caird to ride low in the water and handle badly, making the ride worse than it needed to be. When Shackleton realized his mistake, he spoke directly to Worsley:

Skipper, you were right. I made a mistake about the ballast. Had I listened to you, I think the journey would have been shorter, the boat wouldn’t have been so stiff or so jumpy in her movements and we should have shipped very few heavy seas.¹⁴

This admission, made after the James Caird had successfully completed the passage, could have been omitted. Others might have glossed over the mistake. But Shackleton did not, and it only served to increase his credibility as a leader.

Lessons for Leaders

All organizations have hierarchy, but some are more explicit about it than others. In his thoughtful book From the Ground Up, Ed Lawler describes a German corporate headquarters with an unusual design.¹⁵ The building is shaped like a pyramid, and each level of the building houses one level of management. Every employee knows his or her position in the hierarchy, and moving up in the organization means exactly that: Those who are promoted relocate to the next higher floor.

This degree of rigid stratification is hardly conducive to teamwork at The Edge. Hierarchy itself, however, is not the problem. People understand the need for legitimate authority and for differences in salaries, roles, and titles. What fragments a group is the perception of an elite upper class—a sense of superiority conferred on a chosen few. Thus, the critical leadership challenge is to create an environment in which each person experiences a basic sense of respect regardless of his or her role in the organization.

To illustrate this point, here’s a story from my own experience: After graduating from the Harvard Business School, I continued my career journey by taking a job in Washington as an assistant to the Commissioner of the Office of Education, John Ottina. I arrived at work my first day eager to attack the problems of education in America. I found, however, that the other new assistants and I were jammed into an office area so small it was difficult to have a conversation or to think deeply enough to do analytic work. It was not a matter of survival, but it was a very poor work environment.

John saw us jammed into the office, sized up the situation, and then acted quickly. He immediately moved out of his big corner office reserved for “the Commissioner” and set up shop with a table and some filing cabinets in a much smaller space. He did not make a production of it; he did not brag about it; he just did it. That simple move said it all: We were all in this effort together and—regardless of our titles—we were going to work as one to do the formidable job faced by the team.

Willingness to admit mistakes is another way of minimizing status differences, and I am always impressed by leaders who can say they were wrong. Scott Sklar was the former co-CEO of TravelSmith, an outfitting catalog business specializing in products designed to withstand the rigors of the road. Sklar once took a career course I taught at Yale, and we met on one occasion to catch up. During our conversation, Sklar took great pleasure in recounting the story of “the little black dress.”¹⁶

Natalie Carlson, at the time the head of women’s apparel, had proposed including a black knit dress in the TravelSmith catalog. Sklar resisted the concept. It was something the company had never done before; he knew little about dresses; and TravelSmith was taking “baby steps” in women’s apparel. But Carlson persisted. Her husband was working for a company in France, and she frequently spent long weekends in Paris. Without the right wardrobe, and surrounded by chic Parisian women, she often felt out of place. So Carlson went on a protracted hunt for the perfect black dress that packed well, didn’t wrinkle, and looked stylish. She had so much difficulty finding the perfect dress that she designed and developed her own. Carlson knew that this was a dress that could be important—not just for her, but for other female travelers as well.

Sklar had reservations, but he listened. Persuaded by Carlson’s arguments, he finally agreed. The results surprised him. As Sklar reflected:

It was probably one of the most successful products we could have conceived of running. It’s become our trademark. What it illustrated for me was that you don’t have to be an expert in everything to be an effective leader. But you have to be an expert in understanding people’s talents and how to motivate and manage them.

Carlson was promoted to vice president of merchandising, and the “indispensable black dress” became part of the TravelSmith culture. Through his retelling of the story, Sklar made it clear that he did not pretend to be omniscient as a leader. And he encouraged Carlson and others to stand up for what they believed in.

Insist on Mutual Respect and Courtesy

It is not possible to force one human being to have genuine feelings of concern about another. But it is possible to create an environment in which taking care of others becomes a normative behavior and—over time—these caring behaviors help forge emotional bonds.

From the beginning of the Trans-Antarctic expedition to its end, Shackleton consistently encouraged behavior that emphasized respect and caring. His extraordinary attitude of self-sacrifice, plus his ability to act in the service of others, created a foundation for teamwork. These obvious manifestations of caring for his comrades help explain why the crew felt such a strong pull of personal loyalty to Shackleton. It explains why First Officer Greenstreet would be moved to say:

[Shackleton’s] first thought was for the men under him. He didn’t care if he went without a shirt on his back as long as the men he was leading had sufficient clothing … you felt that the party mattered more to him than anything else.¹⁷

This sense of connection meant more than fidelity to the Boss. It became, over time, a force that created enormously powerful bonds of loyalty among every member of the expedition.

Shackleton’s nurturing behaviors—including his demonstrations of Strategy 2, setting a personal example—were often simple things. On one occasion, after the destruction of Endurance, Shackleton and Wild heated hot milk for the crew and went from tent to tent with the “life-giving” drink. After the sail to South Georgia, when the exhausted crew had landed, Shackleton took the first watch, which he kept for three hours instead of the usual one.

Just as Shackleton avoided scapegoating, the way in which he cared for the crew reflected his absolute commitment to team unity. Again, on the sail to South Georgia, he took great pains to avoid singling out those in special need. During the bitter night, Shackleton made sure that every four hours a drink of hot milk was served to stave off the cold. The men drank the liquid scalding hot, willing to endure the pain to get extra warmth inside their bodies.

As a result of this nurturing drink, no one died on the journey. But it was close. Worsley remembers:

Two of the party at least were very close to death. Indeed, it might be said that [Shackleton] kept a finger on each man’s pulse. Whenever he noticed that a man seemed extra cold and shivered, he would immediately order another hot drink of milk to be prepared and served to all. He never let the man know that it was on his account, lest he become nervous about himself and, while we all participated, it was the coldest, naturally, who got the greatest advantage.¹⁸

What is important to realize is that Shackleton’s behavior as a leader had ripple effects beyond his individual concerns. Crewmembers often performed acts of caring and self-sacrifice for each other, showing a concern that rarely occurred in accounts of other expeditions I have studied.

One of the most dramatic moments in the Endurance story occurred at Patience Camp, just before the launching of the boats. The food supply had dwindled to dangerously low levels. Less than a week’s supply of blubber remained, and the small ration of seal steak normally served at breakfast was eliminated. The waste meat generally used to feed the dogs was examined for any edible scraps, and several of the crew had tried eating frozen, raw penguin meat.

Under these desperate conditions, and after a wet sleepless night, an argument broke out among Worsley, Macklin, Orde-Lees, and Robert Clark, the biologist. Caught in the middle, Greenstreet spilled his tiny ration of powdered milk and shouted at Clark. It was a tragic moment. In his book on the Endurance expedition, author Alfred Lansing described the scene:

… Greenstreet paused to get his breath, and in that instant his anger was spent and he suddenly fell silent. Everyone else in the tent became quiet, too, and looked at Greenstreet, shaggy-haired, bearded, and filthy with blubber soot, holding his empty mug in his hand and looking helplessly down into the snow that had thirstily soaked up his precious milk. The loss was so tragic he seemed almost on the point of weeping. Without speaking, Clark reached out and poured some of his milk into Greenstreet’s mug. Then Worsley, then Macklin, and Rick-enson and Kerr, Orde-Lees, and finally Blackborow. They finished in silence.¹⁹

Thus, others emulated the caring behaviors that Shackleton modeled. In the face of death and starvation, the bonds of teamwork held.

Another important method for creating mutual respect comes from insisting on common courtesy, even under stressful conditions in which it may seem unnecessary. Of course, conflict under extreme conditions is inevitable and—as will be discussed in the next chapter—it can even contribute to the health of the team. But living at The Edge does not mean ignoring civility. Frank Wild was known to remind the crew that, as Shackleton later put it, “a little thanks will go a long way.” And so will “please,” “excuse me,” and the other familiar phrases that lubricate social interaction.

This point was brought home to me in a personal way early in my service in Vietnam. During one of our first operations, my battalion encountered heavy resistance from the NorthVietnamese. One unit—India Company—walked into an ambush and was hit by devastating mortar and automatic-weapons fire from an entrenched enemy force. After the attack, a third of the company lay killed or wounded. It took only a few minutes to cripple the unit.

The company made it back to battalion headquarters, a hastily constructed command post on a just-captured, blackened ridge. The hill, still smoking from the air strikes that had preceded the American assault, looked like something out of hell. The battalion intelligence officer, or S-2, was questioning the India Company commander, who was still in a state of shock. The two officers knelt facing each other in the dirt, several feet apart, as the S-2 fired questions about the strength of the enemy, their weapons, and possible countermeasures.

Above, helicopters flew forward firing machine guns, while others flew back carrying casualties. Jet aircraft dropped napalm yards away. I had no idea whether we were about to be overrun or whether the North Vietnamese had disengaged. In the middle of this chaos, and without thinking, I ran directly between the two Marines, bent on my mission of carrying a message to the battalion commander. As I ran by, I heard the S-2 snarl, “Excuse you.”

Excuse me? I thought. Where the hell do you think we are? Then it struck me. In this surreal situation, I had been rude. I had insulted the company commander, who was struggling to recover from shock. I had angered two members of my team. Under these conditions, common courtesy was one of the few vestigial elements of civilization left. It was an important lesson, one that I never forgot.

Lessons for Leaders

Leaders who want team members to care about each other need to model that behavior themselves. It is not something that can be delegated, and it cannot be feigned. If it is modeled and reinforced, though, over time it will become part of the culture of the team.

Michael, the CEO of a large media company, took over an organization that one close observer described as “political, competitive, and nasty.” People were regularly ripped apart in public. Insulting, abusive, and de-meaning behaviors were commonplace.

Michael soon came to realize that, under these conditions, the collective intelligence of the team could not be brought to bear on the pressing competitive issues the company faced. In collaboration with other members of his senior team, he developed a code of conduct that laid out the behaviors that would be expected of leaders in the organization. Fundamental to that code were respect for others and courteous behavior.

In the beginning, skeptics suspected that this was a paper exercise, designed for appearances but without “teeth.” It was not. This became clear when, after repeated, visible, and well-verified violations of the code, two senior executives were asked to leave the organization. The message soon reverberated throughout the organization, and a company once described as a “magnet for obnoxious behavior” transformed its culture. In doing so, it replaced an antiquated, individualistic society with a team prepared to move into the digital age.

Expedition Log

1. When you look at the structure of your team and organization, what are the special distinctions that create differences in class or status? Are there policies or procedures that create fragmentation? If so, are they really necessary? How can these differences and special privileges be minimized or eliminated?

2. How, specifically, are resources divided among members of your team? Are there ways the team can share resources or deploy some to others with greater need? Does the process for distributing resources support perceptions of equity and fairness? Consider making this a topic of an agenda item for a team meeting.

3. If you asked members of your team to assess your leadership, would they see you more as a Shackleton or more like a Scott? Would they describe you as “above the action,” “looking on,” or “in the trenches” with them? Are there physical or psychological barriers that separate you from your team?

4. Have you ever spent some time doing a team member’s task? Make a plan to spend time this month actually doing some task assigned to the team. This hands-on experience can have multiple benefits. First, it will show that you are willing and able to perform the same duties as others. Second, you will have a better understanding of the challenges and kind of work that your team must perform, so you’ll be empathetic to the needs of the team. Finally, it can provide insights that will contribute to process improvement.

5. When was the last time you made a personal sacrifice for the benefit of the team? Have you ever done the equivalent of “serving tea and milk”?

6. Does the culture of the team reinforce courtesy and mutual respect? Are there explicit or implicit “rules of the road” that create expectations about the way team members will deal with one another?