12
Epilogue: What Makes an Exceptional Leader?
For scientific discovery give me Scott; for speed and efficiency of travel give me Amundsen; but when disaster strikes and all hope is gone, get down on your knees and pray for Shackleton.1
—Sir Edmund Hillary
Set in the most hostile environment on Earth, the sagas of Antarctic explorers clearly illustrate how leadership style, personality, strategy, and openness to innovation interact to determine success or failure. These stories demonstrate how the best leaders are able to extend their reach by bringing out the best in others. And they illustrate how perceptions of leadership are altered by the changing lenses of culture and popular sentiment.
After writing Leading at The Edge over a decade ago, I continued to study the explorers who had courageously ventured into the frozen south. I traveled to Antarctica to see for myself the places where Shackleton had landed on his famed expedition. And I learned more about the historic race to the South Pole, one of the most exciting and controversial chapters in the history of leadership under adversity.
The Race
There is no question about who “won” the race: The victor was Norwegian explorer Roald Amundsen. With their exceptional skiing and dog-handling ability, the Norwegians moved across the terrain with relative ease. They traveled only six hours a day, reserving the remainder for sleep and rest. Thanks to their carefully planned diet and well-marked depots, food was never an issue.
Amundsen and his men arrived at the South Pole on December 14, 1911. Recognizing that all five had risked their lives on this adventure as a team, Amundsen insisted that they plant the Norwegian flag together.
While Amundsen basked in the warmth of his victory, Scott and his party still struggled southward, unaware that they had already lost the race. Scott had begun his journey almost seventy miles farther from the Pole than Amundsen had, and his decision to use ponies as well as dogs had created a further delay. As a result, they established their last food depot, “One Ton Camp,” approximately twenty-five miles short of their goal. This shortfall, along with poor weather and a number of errors and miscalculations, was to prove fatal for Scott and his polar party.
On January 3, 1912, Scott made a late decision. Although plans for the polar assault had been based on a team of four, Scott inexplicably announced that he would take one extra man on the final leg of the journey. The sleds were equipped with supplies for only four men and the tents were designed to accommodate four, so this change complicated their movement. They had also brought only four sets of skis, so the entire polar party was restricted to a walking pace.
Scott and his men arrived at the South Pole on January 17, 1912—thirty-five days after Amundsen. Finding the Norwegian tent, Scott wrote: “Great God! This is an awful place, and terrible enough for us to have labored to it without the reward of priority. … Now for the run home and a desperate struggle. I wonder if we can do it.”2
They could not. One member died a month later after sinking into a coma. The next month, a second man—Titus Oates—stepped out into a blizzard never to return. Suffering from severe frostbite, Oates apparently sacrificed his life rather than continue to delay his comrades.
On March 19, a blizzard again enveloped the surviving three members of the polar party. Imprisoned just over eleven miles from One Ton Depot, they had enough food for only two days. Scott’s last entry on March 29 reads: “We shall stick it out to the end … and the end cannot be far. … For God’s sake look after our people.”3
Eight months later, expedition survivors came upon the tent of the polar party. When Scott and his two companions were eventually found, their sledge had included thirty pounds of geological specimens. The weight of these specimens, confirming Scott’s dedication to science, was not the principal cause of his tragic death. But the stones, although of scientific importance, symbolize the inherent contradiction of trying to finish a race while carrying rocks.
Leadership Lessons from the Race to the Pole
Fascination with the race continues to the present day. For most of the twentieth century, Scott was considered a heroic figure. Toward the end of the century, historians began to question his leadership. Instead of a hero, Scott was cast as a bungler whose errors in judgment had cost him not only the conquest of the Pole but also the lives of his men. Amundsen, the winner of the race, has been criticized for his single-minded determination and perceived duplicity in “stealing the prize.” And Shackleton, who had turned back on his 1909 attempt at the Pole, was attacked as being unpatriotic: His failure to sacrifice his life, and the lives of his men, enabled a foreigner to win the race. Yet he went on to distinguish himself as an extraordinary leader, bringing every man home alive after 634 days of unbelievable hardship.
Of the three, is there a single, best leader? And what, then, are the fundamental leadership lessons we can draw from their adventures of the Frozen Edge?
Effective Leadership Requires a Clear Strategic Focus
Amundsen’s original ambition was to stand first at the North Pole. When Cook and Peary claimed that prize, however, Amundsen immediately shifted his attention to winning the race to the South Pole. This new goal became the sole focus of his expedition. With single-minded determination, Amundsen set his plans and priorities. This uncompromising clarity contributed to his success in reaching the Pole and to his ability to bring his men safely home.
Scott, in contrast, lacked such focus. To support his scientific goals, he assembled the most capable scientists and the best-equipped expedition ever to explore Antarctica. Yet, he had also stated that one of the major objects of the expedition was to reach the South Pole, securing the honor of that achievement for the British Empire. Striving for both goals, Scott failed to win the race, and his grueling march to an arbitrary geographic point was inconsistent with the pursuit of scientific research.
Successful Leaders Are Open to New Ideas
A second lesson from the race concerns the leader’s critical role in fostering innovation. The process of innovation depends on an openness to new ideas, coupled with the ability to learn from experience. On this dimension of leadership, there were striking differences between Amundsen and both Scott and Shackleton.
The Norwegians owed much of their success to the use of superior technology for polar travel—skis, dogs, clothing, and diet. Skiing was an integral part of their culture, while the British knew relatively little of the art. But Amundsen continued to refine his skills throughout his life. He learned from his earliest experiences on the Belgica, he imported ideas from the Eskimos, and he systematically developed an integrated set of competencies for polar life and travel. Consequently, his trip to the Pole was remarkably routine, and he was able to avoid the extreme weather that Scott had to endure.
Scott and Shackleton, in contrast, were surprisingly resistant to the use of these proven methods. It is easy to understand their failure to use the best technology on their first journey toward the Pole in 1902—although Scott’s admission that none of their equipment had been tested is still surprising. In later expeditions, however, their persistent reliance on unproven or inferior methods is difficult to understand.
Scott believed that he had learned from earlier mistakes, but the evidence suggests otherwise. On later expeditions, both Shackleton and Scott experimented unsuccessfully with motor sledges and ponies, but neither made effective use of dogs and skis. Ultimately, both relied on the slow, exhausting technique of man hauling.
Though Scott possessed the promise and energy of youth, he often failed to display an openness to new ideas and the ability to learn from mistakes. In his final “Message to the Public,” Scott attributes the cause of the tragedy simply to “misfortune.” Scott’s lengthy journey did subject his party to the misfortune of particularly cold weather—conditions that Amundsen escaped through a rapid assault on the Pole. But Amundsen’s success was no accident. The triumph was made possible through careful planning, preparation, and experience with polar travel. In his words:
I may say that this is the greatest factor—the way in which the expedition is equipped—the way in which every difficulty is foreseen, and precautions taken for meeting or avoiding it. Victory awaits him who has everything in order—luck, people call it. Defeat is certain for him who has neglected to take the necessary precautions in time; this is called bad luck.4
Leaders Need to Draw on the Collective Wisdom of the Team
As a leader, Scott believed it was his unique responsibility to analyze situations and draw conclusions. His decisions were closely held and sometimes revealed at the last minute—witness his decision to take a fifth man to the Pole. One consequence of Scott’s decision-making style was that he often failed to use the opinions of others to find the best possible course of action. In addition, because they were not involved in the process, members of his expedition had only a limited understanding of the rationale behind his decisions.
In sharp contrast to Scott, both Amundsen and Shackleton made a point of soliciting the ideas of their team members. As a result, their actions were better informed, and the process itself—because it gave people a sense of control—resulted in greater ownership and commitment.
The Best Leaders Forge Strong Team Bonds
The contest to be first at the Pole shows that teams under the best leaders form cohesive bonds that enable everyone to work together in the face of daunting adversity. On this point, Scott again stands apart from Shackleton and Amundsen. Scott did inspire loyalty among some key members of his team, and his doomed polar party stayed together until the very end. But Scott’s detachment, his emphasis on hierarchy, and his unilateral decision-making style created barriers to team cohesion.
Neither Shackleton nor Amundsen led perfectly harmonious expeditions, but both leaders demonstrated the critical skills needed to maintain a unified team. Although their personalities were different, the leadership practices of the ebullient Shackleton and the understated Amundsen were remarkably similar. They were both acutely sensitive to the emotions of their men and consciously intervened when morale dropped. They were skilled at managing conflict and winning over potential troublemakers. They placed greater emphasis on individual ability than on rank or social status. And they participated in the most menial camp chores, never isolating themselves from other members of the expedition. These behaviors, both practical and symbolic, reinforced the message of unity.
Scott may not have demonstrated the same level of emotional intelligence as Amundsen and Shackleton, but these famous explorers did share some important characteristics. All were able to endure extraordinary hardship through exceptional perseverance, determination, and courage. Those qualities are crucial for any leader—no matter what race must be run.
A Perspective on Success and Failure
For leaders at The Edge confronting today’s challenges, another question arises: Was Shackleton a success or a failure as a leader? True, he led his crew to safety in what was arguably the greatest adventure in the history of polar exploration. The fact remains, however, that the Imperial Trans-Antarctic Expedition did not achieve its goal: It did not cross Antarctica.
Shackleton’s critics have argued that, given the severe ice conditions, he never should have left South Georgia in the first place; that he should have had more or different equipment; and that he failed to plan for every possible contingency, as well as listing other flaws. On the other side of the ledger, there are those who lionize Shackleton as the essence of everything that a leader should be.
I believe that any attempt to categorize Shackleton as a success or a failure misses the point. There is no debate about whether the expedition met its original goal. It did not. The question of whether Shackleton was successful as a leader does not have a simple or definitive answer. Any conclusion depends on the criteria by which Shackleton’s leadership is judged.
There is little doubt that as an individual Shackleton demonstrated an extraordinary level of determination and tenacity. But he did more than that. He also created a team with such strong bonds that, on the verge of starvation, they were willing to share their last rations. It was a team that worked together against enormous odds to overcome staggering obstacles. Although Shackleton failed to cross Antarctica, he delivered on the promise contained in the original advertisement for the expedition: Those who sailed on Endurance did, indeed, receive “honor and recognition.”
Depending on the yardstick used to measure success, Shackleton can be seen as a success or a failure, or a little of both. I believe that the more important question raised by Shackleton’s adventure, and by the other accounts in this book, is a much more personal one: How do you measure your own success as a leader? What are the standards by which you assess your own performance?
One obvious benchmark of success is whether you accomplish what you set out to do—whether you achieve your stated goals. Even this straightforward measure, though, is more complex than it first appears. Whether you reach your objective depends not only on your own effort and ability but also on external forces—the metaphorical equivalents of sea and ice conditions.
There are other variables in the equation that directly affect the probability that you will accomplish what you set out to do. What is the degree of difficulty of your goal? How far are you willing to reach? How high do you want to set the bar? You can greatly improve your odds of succeeding by setting low targets and easy goals. That strategy, while ensuring “success,” is not at the core of leading at The Edge.
The spirit of reaching for The Edge is one of exploration—of breaking new ground and pressing the limits. This process of exploration carries with it the inherent risk that your original mission will fail, or that it might have to be changed as a result of new discoveries.
Of course, nobody likes failure, or even unpredictability—especially in today’s business environment. I have tried to imagine the questions that would be directed toward Christopher Columbus if he were a CEO meeting with Wall Street analysts:
Mr. Columbus, you promised to sail to Japan, to establish a trading station with Asia, to build a relationship with the Emperor of China, and to bring back spices and gold. You accomplished none of this. Instead, you landed in the wrong place, and you brought back only corn, cotton, hammocks, and, well … some cigars. You may have discovered a New World, but you failed to deliver on your commitments. How do you explain your lack-luster performance?
Unfortunately, the decision to explore new terrain—whether geographical, intellectual, or economic—carries with it inherent risk and uncertainty. There is simply no assurance that things will work out exactly as planned. Furthermore, there is no formula for determining the right level of difficulty at which goals should be set. What is certain, however, is that individuals who want to do extraordinary things—to reach for The Edge—must be willing to set lofty goals. And they must also be willing to risk the possibility that others will see the outcome of their efforts as a failure.
There are, then, many standards for judging success. Some of them include:
Achieving your stated goals
Achieving new goals, if the original goals must be changed
Accepting bold challenges
Avoiding failure
Finding honor and recognition
Achieving economic success
Demonstrating loyalty to comrades
Each person must decide which of these (or other) standards are important and how each should be weighted. This weighting is, ultimately, a question of values. These values, in turn, determine how a leader will behave.
Vilhjalmur Stefansson, the leader of the Karluk expedition, displayed his values in an early dispatch from the Arctic that declared:
… [T]he attainment of the purposes of the expedition is more important than the bringing back safe of the ship in which it sails. This means that while every reasonable precaution will be taken to safeguard the lives of the party, it is realized by both the backers of the expedition and the members of it, that even the lives of the party are secondary to the accomplishment of the work!5
The values embedded in this message left Stefansson free to abandon the expedition. They also later enabled him to minimize the deaths of eleven men, arguing that “the loss of a dozen lives for scientific progress” was small when compared with the millions who perished in World War I. He neglected to add the roles that arrogance, dereliction of duty, and incompetent leadership had played in the tragedy. From Stefansson’s perspective, however, the expedition was a great success. It furthered our understanding of “the friendly Arctic,” and it enhanced his personal career ambitions.
Shackleton, in stark contrast, was as completely committed to bringing his crew safely home as Stefansson was nonchalant about the fate of Karluk and its crew. The night after the destruction of Endurance, Shackleton lay awake in his tent completely focused on his responsibility:
The task was now to secure the safety of the party, and to that end I must bend my energies and mental power and apply every bit of knowledge that experience of the Antarctic had given me. The task was likely to be long and strenuous, and an ordered mind and a clear programme were essential if we were to come through without loss of life.6
It was this sense of responsibility that led him, time and again, to think of others before he thought of himself; to give his mittens and boots to those in greater need; and to volunteer for the first, and longest, watches.
On the boat journey to South Georgia, it was Shackleton’s concern for the well-being of those left behind that moved him to confide in Frank Worsley, “Skipper, if anything happens to me while those fellows are waiting for me, I shall feel like a murderer.”7 This same sense of responsibility enabled him to work tirelessly to find a ship and rescue his comrades on Elephant Island.
This level of genuine concern was what inspired the unswerving loyalty that Shackleton generated to the end of his life. It was what moved Worsley to later say:
… [W]hen looking at Shackleton’s grave and the cairn which we, his comrades, erected to his memory on the wind-swept hill of South Georgia … it seemed to me that among all his achievements and triumphs … his one failure was the most glorious. By self-sacrifice and throwing his own life into the balance he saved every one of his men….8
However others may view his accomplishments, there is little doubt about how those closest to Shackleton felt about him as a leader—and as a comrade.
I believe that Shackleton and others who have faced the limits of human endurance have left an invaluable legacy. This legacy incorporates the leadership strategies outlined in this book, but it extends beyond that. The lessons drawn from the experiences of others can help individuals to clarify their personal values and to make decisions about the kind of people they want to be as leaders. By defining ourselves, we will be better able to reach The Edge—wherever and whenever we choose to pursue it.