Differences Between Afanson And Shackleton
Overview
Leadership is a process where an individual understands the characteristics and motivators of those being led and influences them in accordant ways to achieve the same goal collectively. Ernest Henry Shackleton and Vilhjalmur Stefansson, both publicly acclaimed for their polar expeditions, were remembered by the public for vastly different reasons. While Stefansson was well-known for his geographical and scientific findings along the North Pole, Shackleton was admired for his selfless leadership abilities to save all of his crew members after the sinking of his ship, Endurance, in Antarctica.
In 1913, Stefansson hastily gathered his team and set out for a journey to North Pole. Stefansson’s goal was to reach Arctic and collect both …show more content…
However the difference in the outcomes of both expeditions did not only result from differences in leadership goals, but also from the quality of their crew members, the team cohesiveness, and the compatibility of the employed leadership styles with the attributes of the managed counterparts.
In the case of Stefansson, Stefansson was mainly absent during the recruiting of his crews and disclosed little of his objectives to his team members before the expedition (Henighan, 60-61). The crew members were gathered hastily and the entry into the crew was relatively easy. Some of his crew members were even found to be drug addicts and smugglers (McKinlay, 10-13). Due to the haste recruitment of members, low entry barrier, and lack of emphasis on the desired qualities of crew members, it was likely that the members were much diversified in their attributes, values and beliefs. Thus, the team cohesiveness was perceived to be relatively low. Furthermore, the person in charge was also unclear. Both the scientists on board and Stefansson were in charge and the reporting line was often not evident to the crew. This further aggravated the cohesion within the team, making it even more difficult to lead under …show more content…
Furthermore, when faced with adversity, Shackleton utilized activities and games to lift up the spirits and mood of his team, strengthening the cohesion between the team members. In addition, different from Stefansson’s scenario, Shackleton’s team perceived him as the only leader, removing the confusion that could be raised from the perception of multiple leaders. Not only was Shackleton the perceived leader, he was also a trustworthy leader. To build trust, a leader needs to have integrity, benevolence and ability. Shackleton satisfied all three criteria, allowing him to gain trust from his crew and promoting information sharing behaviors, productivity and effectiveness of the team. Such qualities further reinforced the cohesiveness of the
Leadership is a process where an individual understands the characteristics and motivators of those being led and influences them in accordant ways to achieve the same goal collectively. Ernest Henry Shackleton and Vilhjalmur Stefansson, both publicly acclaimed for their polar expeditions, were remembered by the public for vastly different reasons. While Stefansson was well-known for his geographical and scientific findings along the North Pole, Shackleton was admired for his selfless leadership abilities to save all of his crew members after the sinking of his ship, Endurance, in Antarctica.
In 1913, Stefansson hastily gathered his team and set out for a journey to North Pole. Stefansson’s goal was to reach Arctic and collect both …show more content…
However the difference in the outcomes of both expeditions did not only result from differences in leadership goals, but also from the quality of their crew members, the team cohesiveness, and the compatibility of the employed leadership styles with the attributes of the managed counterparts.
In the case of Stefansson, Stefansson was mainly absent during the recruiting of his crews and disclosed little of his objectives to his team members before the expedition (Henighan, 60-61). The crew members were gathered hastily and the entry into the crew was relatively easy. Some of his crew members were even found to be drug addicts and smugglers (McKinlay, 10-13). Due to the haste recruitment of members, low entry barrier, and lack of emphasis on the desired qualities of crew members, it was likely that the members were much diversified in their attributes, values and beliefs. Thus, the team cohesiveness was perceived to be relatively low. Furthermore, the person in charge was also unclear. Both the scientists on board and Stefansson were in charge and the reporting line was often not evident to the crew. This further aggravated the cohesion within the team, making it even more difficult to lead under …show more content…
Furthermore, when faced with adversity, Shackleton utilized activities and games to lift up the spirits and mood of his team, strengthening the cohesion between the team members. In addition, different from Stefansson’s scenario, Shackleton’s team perceived him as the only leader, removing the confusion that could be raised from the perception of multiple leaders. Not only was Shackleton the perceived leader, he was also a trustworthy leader. To build trust, a leader needs to have integrity, benevolence and ability. Shackleton satisfied all three criteria, allowing him to gain trust from his crew and promoting information sharing behaviors, productivity and effectiveness of the team. Such qualities further reinforced the cohesiveness of the