What Makes an Exceptional Leader?
On December 14, 1911, Norwegian explorer Roald Amundsen and his team made history as the first expedition to reach the South Pole. Thirty-five days later, on January 17, 1912, British explorer Robert Falcon Scott reached the South Pole, with five exhausted men. None survived the brutal journey home. Another noted British explorer. Sir Ernest Shackleton, never reached the South Pole. While failing to achieve the first overland crossing of Antarctica, Shackleton succeeded in bringing all 27 members of his expedition party safely home, after 634 days of unbelievable hardship. The polar adventures of Shackleton. Scott, and Amundsen provide fundamental leadership lessons for any leader—no matter what race must be run.
Effective leadership requires a clear strategic focus. With single-minded determination. Amundsen set his plans and priorities on winning the race to the South Pole, for the glory of standing there first. Scott lacked such focus. He assembled the best scientific minds and equipment available for an unprecedented expedition. But he also aimed to claim the “reward of priority” for the British Empire. Striving for both goals, Scott failed doubly.
Successful leaders are open to new ideas. As a Norwegian, Amundsen began with an advantage over his British rivals: comfort with skiing. Yet, he continued (o refine his skills, importing ideas from the Eskimos and developing an integrated set of competencies—skiing, dog-handling, clothing, and carefully-planned diet, pace, and rest一for polar travel. Scott and Shackleton, however, were surprisingly resistant to the use of novel methods. Ultimately, both relied on the slow, exhausting technique of man hauling.
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. In sharp contrast to Scott, both Amundsen and Shackleton sought ideas and opinions from their men. Through this process, Amundsen and Shackleton gave team members a sense of control and value, resulting in greater ownership and commitment.
The best leaders forge strong bonds. Despite their differences in personality, the enthusiastic Shackleton and the understated Amundsen had strikingly similar approaches to leadership. Both were acutely sensitive to the emotions of their men and skilled at managing conflict Both emphasized individual ability above rank or social status. And both participated in everyday expedition life, including simple chores. These behaviors, both practical and symbolic, reinforced the message of unity. Although Scott’s doomed polar party stayed together until the very end, his detachment, emphasis on hierarchy, and one-sided decision-making style created barriers to team unity and damaged morale.
Flaws aside, Shackleton, Amundsen, and Scott shared qualities—exceptional perseverance, determination, and courage—that are crucial for any leader. Leadership success is often relative and always personal Amundsen led his team and landed on the South Pole successfully; Scott and his men reached the South Pole, but none of them survived the journey home; Shackleton failed in achieving his goal of crossing Antarctica, but be led his team to safety through extreme hardship. Was Shackleton a success or a failure ts a leader? The answer depends on how you measure success.
