Amundsen-Scott Race to the Antarctic

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.