A Lesson in Leadership from the South Pole.
I recently read Great by Choice by Jim Collins, the follow-up to his mega-successful Good to Great (2001). This newest book examines a number of companies in an attempt to understand why they achieve and maintain extraordinary levels of success despite an environment of change and uncertainty – even chaos. This is in fact, the world we currently inhabit. In the public sector world, we are facing partisanship, polarization, lack of public confidence, and distrust of everything government. What are we, as public sector leaders, to do if we wish to turn the tide of negativity?
This blog has examined but a few examples
of great public leaders and the turnarounds they accomplished in their own
organizations or communities. Each had a mix of talents, traits, skills, and
behaviors they employed to inspire followers to reach for and achieve their vision
of a better community. This week’s blog will depart slightly from profiles of
great modern leaders to discuss and compare two individuals from a prior age
and the leadership principles they each employed in a race to a common goal. Jim
Collins, in Great by Choice, tells
the story of these two men and uses their example as a metaphor for describing
how great companies and great leaders survive and thrive in times of chaos and
uncertainty.
The story takes place 104 years ago in
October 1911, when a Norwegian adventurer, Roald Amundsen, and an English Royal
Navy Officer, Robert Scott, set out on a 1,600 mile race to see which man could
be the first to reach the South Pole. Both men were accomplished explorers and
adventurers, each having successfully completed many treks. They were
approximately the same age and in comparable physical condition. Their teams
were equally matched and included the same number of men. They left from the
base station only days apart and traveled 1600 miles.
One man and his team reached the pole and
returned safely.
The other along with his entire team perished
in the frozen wilderness.
Because both men were so closely matched,
the primary difference between them was their approach to leadership,
specifically the 3 principals of discipline,
preparation and humility.
 |
| Roald Amundsen and his team of explores admire the Norwegian flag flying at the South Pole |
Discipline
Roald Amundsen and Robert Scott set out
from different points in Antarctica toward the pole, but they each had
approximately 1600 miles of uncharted territory to cover. Heading out into the
unknown, Amundsen committed to a 20-mile march each day regardless of weather
or terrain. Even when weather conditions were perfect and his men were fully
rested, he refused to go over this self-imposed limit. At one point Amundsen
was only 45 miles from the South Pole and as he wrote in his journal “our best
day yet with burning sunshine” yet he still stopped his team for rest after
approx. 20 miles. Scott on the other hand would push his men to their limits
when possible, traveling 30 or 40 miles per day and then stop when they were
physically exhausted or the weather conditions deteriorated – sometimes for
days at time.
Amundsen illustrates the principle of
discipline. Discipline is doing what you know is required even when it is hard;
and holding back from doing too much when it is easy.
Preparation
Once he had set his 20 mile per day goal,
Amundsen set about to prepare his team for the long journey ahead. Amundsen was
meticulous about preparation. Since they would be skiing, he recruited some of
the best Nordic skiers to accompany him on the journey along with the best sled
dogs he could find. He even took along extra dogs knowing that the meat would
be used during the return leg of the journey. Because he knew how far they
would march each day, Amundsen planned out exactly how much food and fuel would
be needed to make the entire trip. As they trekked through the frozen
wilderness, each team left supply depots with this food and fuel for the return
trip back. Amundsen, being abundantly prepared, placed flags marking his supply
depots extending 5 miles in each direction should he find himself off course on
the way back.
Scott on the other hand placed only one
flag, arrogantly assuming that he would be perfectly on track for the return
trip.
 |
| Scott used his own men to haul their supply sleds rather than dogs as Amundsen used - a measure borrowed from the natives who had lived in the antarctic for generations. |
Humility
It was this hubris that brought about the
demise of Scott and his team. Scott’s lack of humility ultimately doomed him. By
this point in his life, Scott had achieved moderate success as a British Naval
Commander and had been formally trained in traditional military tactics. He saw
the race to the South Pole as a trek to be followed using traditional military skills.
He refused to ask or accept advice from those who were more knowledgeable in
traveling in extreme cold weather conditions.
By contrast, Amundsen was a more
accomplished adventurer but he was humble and knew his limits. He sought out help
and advice from natives and his own team members. Amundsen and his team wore
fur outerwear as protection from the cold as they had learned from the Inuit
Indians.
Scott, on the other hand felt that fur was
for savages and no civilized man should wear fur. He and his team wore woolen
and cloth outerwear which caused the men to sweat which ultimately led to ice
and frostbite. Fur is worn loose so sweat can evaporate.
Amundsen was a Norwegian and therefore an
accomplished skier. He knew that the way to travel over the snow and ice was on
skis and to use dogs and sleds. Scott however relied on mechanical technology –
diesel powered sleds unproven in the Antarctic conditions and which quickly
failed in the extremely low temperatures. Scott also didn’t use dogs thinking
that using men to haul the sleds was a better idea. Scott also thought the idea
of eating dog meat for survival was savagery.
The
Result
Scott and his team did eventually reach
the South Pole…32 days later than Amundsen. On their return trip back, he and
his team, worn down by exhaustion, frostbite and low morale, stopped to rest
for a day.
The weather turned on them and that day turned
into 4 days. And then a lifetime.
They had run out of food, fuel and water.
They were merely 11 miles from their own
supply depot, but of course, could not find it without the extra trail markers.
 |
| The last page of Scott's journal found with his body by a search party 11 months later: "we shall stick it out to the end but we are getting weaker of course and the end cannot be far. It seems a pity but I do not think I can write more - R.Scott Last Entry - For God's sake look after our people." |
Leadership
Takeaway
In his book, Collins asserts the best
leaders don’t “swing for the fences.” They are disciplined and strategic
thinkers, using data and preparation to make informed decisions. They know what
they don’t know and are not afraid to ask for help. These are indeed good
lessons but they do not mean leaders cannot take risks or be adventurous. In fact, leaders come in all shapes, sizes, and flavors. According to Collins (2011), "leaders can be bland or colorful, uncharismatic or magnetic, understated or flamboyant, normal to the point of dull, or just flat-out weird - none of this really matters, as long as they're passionately driven for a cause beyond themselves" (p. 33).
This is an apt description for Amundsen. He was driven towards his goal and able to lead his followers to successful accomplishment and survival. Scott, on the other hand, was more interested in his own fame and glory. His decision-making and preparation was focused on the wrong things. Consequently, he and his followers never reached their goal and perished in the pursuit of it.
As public sector leaders, we must not only focus on doing things right. We must focus on the right things. Our agencies have widely varying missions, but not a single one states the goal of the organization is to enhance the career of the leader or bring him or her fame. Because they are public sector agencies, they do (or should) all state the mission is to serve the public. As leaders, we serve the public and we lead our followers towards that goal as well. Period.
Fame may come if the leader does an exceptional job at meeting the organization's mission. But fame is simply a by-product, not an end unto itself.
This is an apt description for Amundsen. He was driven towards his goal and able to lead his followers to successful accomplishment and survival. Scott, on the other hand, was more interested in his own fame and glory. His decision-making and preparation was focused on the wrong things. Consequently, he and his followers never reached their goal and perished in the pursuit of it.
As public sector leaders, we must not only focus on doing things right. We must focus on the right things. Our agencies have widely varying missions, but not a single one states the goal of the organization is to enhance the career of the leader or bring him or her fame. Because they are public sector agencies, they do (or should) all state the mission is to serve the public. As leaders, we serve the public and we lead our followers towards that goal as well. Period.
Fame may come if the leader does an exceptional job at meeting the organization's mission. But fame is simply a by-product, not an end unto itself.
Comments
Post a Comment