Amundsen - South Pole

Within the large generic concept of managing the limits, to see how far you can get to achieve goals, whether anything is worth to get a result, highlights a fundamental question to consider: What is the first , the target or the people ?

This question is often raised in the world of adventure, and his answer is always key to maximize the chances of getting the goal or to maximize the chances of survival of the members of the expedition. And like all decisions to be taken in the limits, it is never easy to solve, as if prudence is always a priority we hardly will complete ambitious projects, but if the target is always a priority, we risk to suffer terrible consequences.

I think that all project leaders from different fields, whether institutional, corporate , political, social or others, should always consider this question and evaluate its good management.  And I dare saying that this debate of genuine leadership responsibility is quite rare nowadays.

As passionate of historical adventurers, let me refer to three cases related to the conquest of one of the most cherished goals of world exploration, which fit perfectly with this debate: the South Pole.

– Roald Amundsen (Norway ) was the first to reach the geographic South Pole (14/12/1911) . He was a meticulous and very ambitious leader, but absolutely respectful and committed to the people on his team. He perfectly planned his expedition, being obsessed about his people’s health and moral conditions, and to prepare the return of South Polo if achieved. His men admired him with the same passion, and the result was a great success in all senses:  thegoal was achieved without losing any man.

– Robert Falcon Scott (England ) was a captain of the British Army, equally ambitious, with his strength based on the organization in the hierarchy and strict military discipline. He was always distant relative to his men, a highly respected person, but not always equally admired. He did many mistakes during the expedition, and was crazy on the competition with Amundsen.  Many things went wrong during the trip and had plenty of indicators that suggested him to turn back, but he desired so much the objective that he never acknowledged them. At the end he reach the South Pole, but 37 days later than the Norwegian, and failed on his return to the base at the coast. They all died.

– Ernst Shackleton (Ireland / England) is still today one of the leadership examples most studied and admired by our society. The great object of his life was reaching the South Pole, initially to be the first , and then , once it was conquered, to make a pioneering and very special expedition. But on several occasions, with the possibility to achieve his purpose, he resigned it, prioritizing the survival of his team members . He never hit the South Pole, but he never lost a single man.

These three examples are useful as reflection to understand that even having done a lot of strategy and planning in any project, at the end we always have to resolve and manage this issue.

Very clearly if we never get results, no project can be sustainable. But without the commitment, motivation, effort and enthusiasm of the people, maybe it will not make sense, and it will be sustainable in the medium or long term.

Leaders of the future (that is, everyone who does things in any field): Do you think the people is serving the objective, or the objective is there to serve the people?

By |2014-01-19T00:00:00+02:0019 de January de 2014|Global|0 Comments

No Comments

  1. Ivan 22 January, 2014 at 22:12 - Reply

    És un binomi interessant el que planteges: la equivalència de valors entre el món empresarial i les ‘activitats a l’aire lliure’ (anar al Pol Sud compta com aire lliure). El fet diferencial, crec, és que a l’aire lliure el rol de ‘jefe’ és difícilment present, i ‘es substituit de forma natural pel rol de lider.

    Esta clar que en les activitats a l aire lliure el rol de ‘jefe’ te tendencia a condemnar-te al fracas (Scott al pol sud, o les expedicions alemanyes al Nanga dels anys 30), pero en el mon empresarial no es tan clara la correlacio. I no depen unicament de la persona que ha d’assumir la tasca i triar el rol (o ‘jefe’ o ‘lider’): depen de la cultura de la empresa, dels valors que transmeti, i de la tasca que es realitzi. Amb sucificient motivacio, incentius, responsabilitat, etc. a qualsevol empresa podriem trobar ‘liders’ i no trobar cap ‘jefe’… pero no imagino com una empresa amb una cultura jerarquica, on la figura del ‘jefe’ (o millor, el ‘encargado’) es omnipresent, pot fer el pas cap a ‘lider’ sense canviar tota la empresa…

  2. Maria 22 January, 2014 at 21:55 - Reply

    Crec que la clau és en l’equilibri, ni les persones ni l’objectiu, tant díficil de trobar, solament el bon líder en sap gestionar.

  3. Albert Bosch 20 January, 2014 at 18:01 - Reply

    Quim: Realmente los objetivos compartidos por todo el equipo son los que convierten a los grupos de personas en equipos de alto rendimiento. El rol de “jefe” no funciona aquí, sólo el buen líder, como tu dices, consigue este compromiso de todos.

  4. quim 20 January, 2014 at 09:41 - Reply

    Hola Albert,
    Quizás la clave sea conseguir que el objetivo sea realmente compartido por todo el equipo. Entonces las decisiones difíciles también serán decisiones compartidas. El buen líder, hace que su equipo se sienta parte del liderazgo.

Leave A Comment


Purposes: Post your comment on the blog of the web page. Legitimation: Consent of the interested party. Recipients: Your data will not be transferred. Conservation: While the publication on the blog is published on the web page. Rights: You can withdraw your consent at any time, as well as access, rectify, delete your data and other rights in [email protected] Additional Information: You can expand the information in the Legal Notices link.

Intense experiences to learn a little bit every day