[Previous entry: "Culture Clash"] [Next entry: "What Do Employees Want?"]
08/18/2010: "Leadership and Management"
We generally think of leadership and management as being important in business or government activities. But leadership and management are both relevant in other contexts as well. In the 19th century, for example, much time, money, and effort was spent by English, Norwegians, and Americans as they explored the polar regions of the world. The high-profile goal that motivated these explorers was to be the first to reach the North and South Poles of the earth, or to find the fabled Northwest Passage. In commenting on the race to the South Pole between Robert Scott and Roald Amundsen, author Roland Huntford observed in The Last Place on Earth that:
"For the privilege of being the first to tread this useless yet so desirable spot, both men were prepared to . . . face any extremity of suffering and danger. The poles of the earth had become an obsession of Western man. . . Since the obsession was there, it had to be exorcised, and the sooner the better." (p. 18)
To achieve their goals, explorers first had to secure financial support to pay for their expeditions. But that was only the beginning. Ships and personnel had to be acquired, and tonnes of supplies and animals had to be taken across the ocean to the starting point for the expedition. All of this required a great deal of planning and organizing, both of which are key functions of management. But leadership was also crucial because these expeditions were attempting to achieve goals that were at the very edge of human capability. They were also very dangerous, and many men died on these expeditions. Leaders who could generate high motivation and commitment among their followers were therefore critical to the success of their expeditions.
Polar explorers were a colorful group. Following are brief summaries of some of the most notable ones.
John Franklin (1786-1847)
John Franklin was an English explorer who hungered for fame and promotion through the ranks of the English navy. When he led his first expedition in northern Canada in 1819, he had no experience in the Arctic in important tasks such as canoeing, hunting, or back-packing. He almost died of starvation due to poor planning. In 1845, he led a group of 129 men in an attempt to discover the Northwest Passage. He had learned a few things from his first expedition. For example, he took along waterproof clothing, used stronger sailing vessels, and made sure that supplies were in place. But critics of Franklin's approach to exploration noted that he ignored the harsh environment he was entering and simply tried to transport the "civilized" English environment with him rather than adapting to the Arctic environment as the Inuit did. His expedition was last seen by a whaling ship in Baffin Bay in June 1845. His group was never seen again by white men, but his expedition may have encountered Inuit hunters somewhere in their travels. His ships were crushed by the ice and all 129 members of the expedition died as they tried to get back to civilization.
Franklin has been described as recklessly ambitious, humourless, sensitive, unimaginative, dogged, brave, indecisive, calm when danger threatened, courageous, charming, humble, and easygoing. He was a run-of-the-mill naval officer but he was able to get appointed to some very high-profile expeditions because he had lots of friends in important positions.
Ernest Shackleton (1874-1922)
Ernest Shackleton was an Anglo-Irish explorer who became famous for his dramatic expeditions to the Antarctic as he tried to reach the South Pole. He served under Robert Scott on one unsuccessful expedition, then later mounted his own expedition (also unsuccessful). Shackleton later decided to trek across the entire Antarctic continent, but his ship, the Endurance, became locked in the ice and he never even reached the continent. After the ship was crushed and sank, his party camped on the ice for some weeks until the ice broke up. They then took to small boats and made their way to nearby Elephant Island, a desolate, isolated, and windswept speck of land in the South Atlantic Ocean. Knowing that rescue would never come there, Shackleton and a small group of men then sailed a tiny open boat across 800 miles of ocean to South Georgia where they organized a relief party for the men back on Elephant Island. In the end, not a man was lost and Shackleton's leadership reputation became legendary. His men affectionately called him "The Boss."
Shackleton has been described as quick-tempered, impatient, self-confident, ruthless, egotistical, moody, optimistic, persuasive, restless, and ambitious. But he was a strong leader who made things happen. His followers did whatever he ordered because they had complete faith in him. He was not only in command, but was seen to be in command. But Shackleton did not treat his followers as lesser men. Rather, he showed great concern for the men under his command, and he delegated well. His followers saw that he put them ahead of himself, and he willingly took responsibility when things went wrong. He made everyone feel that they were important. His men said that they made it through incredible hardships because of his leadership. His inspirational leadership motivated his men to give that extra ounce of effort in life-and-death situations.
Like many other polar explorers, Shackleton was sometimes uninformed about important facts about the polar regions, and this lack of knowledge got him into trouble on various occasions. He was also inexperienced when he embarked on his early expeditions and learned some hard lessons about traveling in cold climates. He was also ill-prepared at times and this, too, created unnecessary hardships for him and his men.
Adolphus Greeley (1844-1935)
Adolphus Greeley was a U.S. Army officer who led an expedition to reach a new "furthest north" in the race to the North Pole. In 1881, Greeley's expedition was dropped off on the shores of Ellesmere Island. Things went fairly well for the first six months, but when a re-supply ship failed to get through in 1882, morale plummeted. When Greeley concluded that a second re-supply ship was not going to make it either, he started to sail south in August 1883 in some small boats in the hope of being rescued. On his way, he discovered that no supply depots had been set out for him. Suddenly starvation was a real possibility. By October 1883 winter had come and men began to die from starvation and exposure. As things got worse, Greeley became a father-figure to his men and cared for them, even denying himself rations. By May 1884, 19 of his 25 men had died, and the surviving members were near death. They were miraculously rescued by a search party. In spite of the terrible toll of human life, there were significant scientific discoveries as a result of the expedition. He triumphed over scurvy by feeding his men fresh meat and lemon juice, and he amassed scientific and geographical records that were used by future Arctic expeditions.
Greeley has been described as ambitious, irritable, and suspicious of some of his men. Greeley was a commissioned officer, and was very conscious of the status differences between himself and his non-commissioned enlisted men. He therefore maintained a psychological gap between himself and his followers. He was also a strict commander and a stickler for military discipline. Problems were compounded because Greeley did not get along with one of his lieutenants, and two of his subordinates were actively trying to undermine Greeley's leadership. To make matters worse, Greeley was insensitive to conflicts between his men and forced people to work together who did not get along with each other. He had no experience in the Arctic, and knew nothing about sailing, so he didn't have much legitimacy in the eyes of his men. He tried to run things himself and didn't listen to anyone else's ideas.
Robert Scott (1868-1912) and Roald Amundsen (1872-1928)
In 1911-1912, the Englishman Robert Scott and the Norwegian Roald Amundsen became involved in a race to see who would be the first human being to reach the South Pole. The trip to the Pole was made in conditions that are hard to imagine. On foot or on skis, the explorers made their way across 1200 kilometres of ice and snow, through â€"40 C temperatures and over mountains nearly 3000 metres high. Once at the Pole, they had to turn around and fight their way back to the coast through the same conditions.
As a boy, Roald Amundsen was inspired by Franklin's exploits in the Arctic. But unlike Franklin, Amundsen became highly successful because he learned to adapt his behaviour to the environment in which he was working. He avoided almost all of the mistakes that other explorers made. For example, he learned that most expeditions actually had two leaders: the commander (who typically had no navigation experience) and the ship's captain. This could lead to dissension. He also learned that there was typically conflict between the scientific staff and the sailors on the expedition. Amundsen therefore studied science and navigation and became an expert at both, so there was no divided command on his expeditions. He also took only small numbers of men so there were less people to feed. In sharp contrast to most other explorers, he adopted the successful strategies of the Inuit to survive in polar climates.
Amundsen was a meticulous planner because he realized that planning was absolutely essential for a successful expedition to the Pole. In the crucial areas of food and fuel, Amundsen developed a system for laying out supply depots so that they could be found even in a raging blizzard. This ensured that the Norwegians had enough supplies to make it safely back to their base camp after they reached the Pole. By studying polar conditions, he knew that sled dogs were the best animals to haul supplies. He also knew that going to the Pole on skis was far superior to walking. Amundsen carefully selected the four men who would accompany him and who would live in very close quarters during the 3-month trip to the Pole and back. Amundsen's men had complete confidence in his abilities, and he, in turn, allowed them to participate in many of the important decisions that had to be made during the expedition.
Robert Scott was a sharp contrast to Amundsen. Because he left the planning of important details of the expedition to the last minute, major mistakes were made in decisions about animals and equipment. For example, Scott decided to rely on ponies for hauling supplies, but this decision ignored the obvious fact that ponies were inferior to huskies for hauling supplies in bitter cold weather. Scott did take skis along, but few people in his party knew how to use them properly. They therefore wasted precious energy and covered fewer kilometres each day than they might have. Scott's planning of supply depots was also haphazard, and insufficient care was taken in the storage of fuel. In the extreme cold of the Antarctic, much of the fuel that Scott had stored in supply depots evaporated. On his return trip, therefore, he consistently ran short of fuel. (Amundsen had no such problems because he had designed an airtight seal for his fuel containers.) Scott's leadership ability was also questionable. There was dissension in the ranks because of poor communication, conflicting orders, and interpersonal disagreements. Scott did not inspire confidence in his men, and he did not allow them to participate in important decisions.
Who won the race? Although both men managed to reach the South Pole, Amundsen beat Scott to the prize by a full month. In the end, Scott's men paid dearly for their leader's shortcomings: they all died of starvation and exposure as they attempted to get back to their base camp on the coast.
Questions for Discussion
- What is the difference between leaders and managers? Were the explorers
described above leaders? Were they managers? - Compare the leadership ability of each of the polar explorers in terms of the traits which are thought to predict effective leadership.
- Use any one of the contingency leadership theories discussed in the text to
analyze the appropriateness of the leadership styles used by Scott and Amundsen.
Were they using the right style? Explain. - What makes a leader charismatic? Which of the polar explorers do you think was the most charismatic? Explain.
Sources: Roland Huntford, The Last Place on Earth. New York: Atheneum, 1985; Pierre Berton, The Arctic Grail. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1988 (esp. pp. 125-196, 435-486, and 531-548); Roland Huntford, Shackleton. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1985.
Answers to Questions for Discussion
- What is the difference between leaders and managers? Were the explorers
described above leaders? Were they managers? - Compare the leadership ability of each of the polar explorers in terms of the traits which are thought to predict effective leadership.
- Use any one of the contingency leadership theories discussed in the text to
analyze the appropriateness of the leadership styles used by Scott and Amundsen.
Were they using the right style? Explain. - What makes a leader charismatic? Which of the polar explorers do you think was the most charismatic? Explain.
In the text, management is defined as the art of getting things accomplished in organizations, while leadership is defined as exerting influence on the goal achievement of others in an organization. Thus, leaders have a particular focus on motivating and guiding "people," while managers may focus more on "things." Put another way, leaders provide the vision and strategy for an organization, while managers implement the vision and strategy. Leadership emphasizes the creation and direction of change which helps the organization to function effectively during times of instability and change, while management emphasizes the coordination and completion of necessary administrative activities during times of stability.
All of the polar explorers described above were leaders because they provided a vision that their followers adopted (being the first to the North or South Pole). In the 21st century, it may seem that such a goal would not be very motivating to many people, but at that time in history, there was great excitement and fame associated with reaching the poles of the earth. While all the leaders provided a vision, the effectiveness of each of the leaders varied quite a bit. Amundsen would likely be judged the most effective because he achieved his goals and his men survived. Shackleton would also be judged as an effective leader because his leadership style was so highly motivating to his men (but Shackleton often did not reach his goals). The other explorers (Franklin, Scott, and Greeley) would likely be judged as ineffective because they not only failed to reach their goals, some or all of their followers died as a result of being part of their expeditions.
The explorers also needed to be good managers (or at least make sure there was a good manager in the group), but most of them got into difficulties because they did not manage their expeditions as well as they should have. Given the unforgiving nature of the terrain they were covering, it was absolutely essential that planning and organizing of all aspects of the trip were done well. Amundsen was the exception because he was a meticulous planner and organizer. Shackleton appears somewhat intermediate in management skills, and the men on his expeditions generally survived. Greeley, Franklin, and Scott exhibited a lack of good management skills, and their followers paid for that with their lives.
Several traits associated with leadership are discussed on pp. 289-290 of the text. They include intelligence, energy, self-confidence, dominance, motivation to lead, emotional stability, honesty and integrity, need for achievement, agreeableness, extraversion, and openness to experience. Students should use the information provided on the leaders to assess the extent to which each leader had the traits in question. Illustrative examples might include the following:
All of the leaders were dominant and had a strong motivation to lead. Some also had a high need for achievement (Franklin, for example, wanted fame and fortune). Oddly enough, Franklin did not seem to have much self-confidence. It is also doubtful that he had an openness to experience because he seemed uninterested in gathering information about the Arctic and what it implied about how an expedition should be run. Instead, he simply tried to take his comfortable English environment along with him on his expeditions.
Shackleton was energetic, self-confident, and ambitious, and was well-liked by his men. By contrast, Greeley was suspicious of some of his followers, and had trouble building trusting relationships with them.
Each of the explorers also had traits that are not listed in the text. For example, Franklin was charming, Shackleton was egotistical, Greeley was irritable, and Amundsen was meticulous.
Students may identify many other examples of traits from the information provided.
[Note: Two important points should be kept in mind when considering student answers to this question. First, students are typically going to have to make some assumptions before they can answer the question. For example, if they use Fiedler's Contingency Theory they will have to make an assumption about the favourableness of the situation for the leader by assessing leader-member relations, task structure, and leader position power. The reasonableness of student assumptions will have to be taken into consideration when assessing their answer. Second, their analysis may show that a given leadership theory does not seem to predict very well. This is an opportunity to re-examine any assumptions that have been made, and to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the various leadership theories.]
As an illustration, consider Fiedler's contingency model. Students will have to make an assessment of Scott and Amundsen's leadership styles and then determine whether the situational favorableness created by the combination of task structure, leader position power, and leader-member relations fits that leadership style. As far as leadership style is concerned, Scott seems to lean more toward the autocratic style and Amundsen more toward the democratic style. As far as the three factors are concerned, leader position power was high for both men because they were the leaders of their respective expeditions. Task structure was also high because it was very clear what they were trying to do. Leader-member relations differed somewhat between the two expeditions, with positive leader-member relations existing between Amundsen and his men, and somewhat less positive relations existing between Scott and his men. Fiedler argues that when task structure is high, leader-member relations are good, and leader position power is strong, a more task-oriented leadership style works best. Amundsen exhibited a more relationship oriented style, yet he was still successful. Fiedler also argues that when task structure is high, leader position power is strong, and leader-member relations are poor, a relationship oriented style works best. This generally describes Scott's situation, so Fiedler's model suggests that Scott should have used a relationship oriented style, but he did not. So, Fiedler's model suggests that both Amundsen and Scott were using the wrong styles. If we accept Fiedler's arguments, students will not be surprised at Scott failure, but they might be surprised at Amundsen's success. Perhaps Amundsen's management (not leadership) activities were so strong that they overrode any leadership effect.
One theory which is not discussed in the text is Hersey and Blanchard's Situational Leadership model. If information about this theory is presented to students, they can assess which leadership style is most appropriate, given the willingness and ability of the leader's followers. The followers of both Scott and Amundsen were very willing. They knew the dangers that were involved, but they were excited about the prospects for adventure, fame, and fortune. In terms of ability, Amundsen's men seemed to have better ability than Scott's men did. For example, they were proficient at skiing, whereas Scott's men were not. This made a huge difference in the energy that had to be expended by Scott's men and increased the amount of food they needed. Thus, if Amundsen's men were both able and willing, Hersey and Blanchard's model says that Amundsen should have used the "delegating" style, that is, he should have provided little direction or support to his followers precisely because they were willing and able. As noted, Amundsen expressed great confidence in his followers and he allowed them to participate in decisions that would affect them. This is consistent with the delegating styled, but also with the participating style. Given that Scott's men were willing, but perhaps not as able as Amundsen's, Hersey and Blanchard's model suggests that the leader should exhibit both directive and supportive behaviour. Scott did the former, but not the latter.
Student analyses of the other situational theories presented in the text (House's path-goal model, Vroom and Jago's situational model, and leader-member exchange theory) should proceed as above, that is they should relate specific information about the explorers to the key concepts that comprise the theory.
Charismatic leaders have characteristics that allow them to have extraordinary influence over others. They command strong loyalty and devotion from their followers, who are highly motivated because the followers have internalized the values and goals of the leader. Charismatic leaders have high expectations for their followers and great confidence in them.
Some of the explorers had a great deal of charisma (for example, Shackleton), while others had much less (for example, Scott). But with the exception of Amundsen, all of them failed in one way or another to take into account the environmental constraints they were facing. Time and again they encountered difficulties that literally threatened their lives because they didn't know enough about the environment they were entering, or because they tried to overcome their environment rather than adapt to it as the Inuit did.
The conclusion about which explorer was most charismatic is a subjective one, but many students pick Shackleton, and they will point to things like his affectionate title of "The Boss" as evidence that his men held him in high regard. They may also conclude that there is an inverse relationship between charisma and success. For example, Amundsen does not seem to be very charismatic, yet he was the most successful. By contrast, Shackleton was highly charismatic, yet often failed to reach his goals. In this limited sample, the level of charisma of the leader does not seem to be systematically related to the survival of the men under the leader's command: men led by both Shackleton and Amundsen fared well, even though the level of charisma of the two leaders seems quite different. But men under the command of other, less charismatic leaders (Franklin, Greeley, or Scott) generally did not fare well. Franklin, for example, was described as humourless, unimaginative, and indecisive (certainly not traits that would be seen as charismatic), and the men under his command often died. As another example, Greeley was not seen as legitimate by his men, and there was much distrust among the individuals on his expedition. Neither of these characteristics seems very consistent with high charisma, and many of Greeley's men did not survive.
