This past week I took part in a study of great explorers in the context of leadership, including British South Pole explorer Captain Robert Falcon Scott.  The key theme involving Scott was blaming various supposed shortcomings in his leadership style for his being beaten to the pole by Roald Amundsen, and for his team’s perishing on their return journey.

This prompted me to further study Scott.  Having done so, I now call BS on this theme.

I find it most compelling that Scott was regarded as a hero in his time (the early 1900s), and had the respect of his fellow explorers, including Amundsen.  It was only in the latter half of the 20th century that he came under fire, often by people with little understanding of the particulars of his endeavor.  Interestingly, while his reputation has been somewhat restored since the turn of our new century, he remains the subject of the kind of criticism I encountered this week.

The tenor of this criticism is that Scott’s leadership wasn’t “inclusive” and that its hierarchical approach, grounded as it was in the Royal Navy’s rank orders, was the cause of his team’s demise.  Umm… really?  The same Royal Navy that ruled the waves for centuries?  That bested the mighty Spanish?  That rendered the Dutch and Portuguese imperial footnotes?  That conquered the New World?  Asinine.

The reality is this:  Scott and his team made the pole, mere weeks behind Amundsen.  They made mistakes along the way, as did every team that ever accomplished anything of any difficulty at all.  But to act as though their effort was anything short of one of the most stupendous achievements of mankind, and that their failure was something eminently avoidable, is to completely misunderstand the scope of the expedition, the hardships the men willingly faced and the risks they willingly took, and the unimaginable successes that got those men to the southernmost point of our globe.

Scott and his team had colossally bad luck and died.  (The weather they encountered was almost impossibly, consistently horrible.)  Other teams had better luck and succeeded.  Such are the vicissitudes inherent in the field of human striving.

Scott should be studied as the success he is and always shall be, ignorant second-guessing notwithstanding, and his leadership style and methods should be incorporated into any of today’s collections of the world’s best.  Was his singular style the best?  No — but neither is any other great man’s, since “the best” is different for every single situation.  Did it achieve the seemingly impossible, even in failure?  Indubitably.

“Had we lived, I should have a tale to tell of the hardihood, endurance and courage of my companions which would have stirred the heart of every Englishman. These rough notes and our dead bodies must tell the tale.”   – Robert Falcon Scott, 1912

Leadership study should avoid merely finding those successful men whose methods were the same as the ones in vogue in our own time and our own organizations.  Self-congratulation is not a means of self-improvement.