Icy Race – with Team Spirit to the South Pole
How Cooperation Won the Toughest Race in History
In 1911, two famous expeditions set out for Antarctica with the same goal: to be the first humans to reach the South Pole—one of the toughest races of all time.
However, the missions of Robert Falcon Scott and Roald Amundsen began under completely different conditions and evolved into a dramatic race where, in the end, the leadership style determined life or death. While Scott’s authoritarian leadership and rigid discipline crumbled under the harsh conditions, Amundsen’s cooperative and pragmatic approach eventually led his team to success.
In the end, Amundsen triumphed, and Scott’s expedition ended in tragedy. What was the secret to Amundsen’s success? The starting conditions for the two teams could hardly have been more different:
Traditional Hierarchy and British Discipline
Robert Scott, a British naval officer, led his team with classic military rigor. He was convinced that discipline and obedience were the keys to a successful expedition. He often made decisions without consulting his team, relying on strict orders and standard procedures.
Scott's goal was not only to reach the South Pole but also to conduct scientific research, which lent his expedition additional moral value and a more noble mission. However, these extra scientific tasks diverted resources and attention, increasing the risk for the team. The idea of defending British honor and excelling through discipline and perseverance led Scott to adopt an approach based on iron determination rather than realistic adaptations to the harsh conditions.
Pragmatism and the Influence of Inuit Culture
In contrast, the Norwegian Roald Amundsen was a pragmatic adventurer who had learned much from his earlier expeditions in the Arctic. He was guided less by national traditions and more by the efficiency and safety required to achieve his goals. His experiences with the Inuit—people who had learned over millennia to survive in frigid regions—influenced his decisions significantly. As a result, he relied on sled dogs and fur clothing, which were far better suited for Antarctic conditions. This cultural openness and willingness to learn from others were key factors in his success.
Amundsen also deliberately focused on a single goal: reaching the South Pole. Unlike Scott, he considered scientific experiments and side tasks to be distractions. His strategy was solely dedicated to reaching the objective efficiently and safely, without taking on additional burdens or risks.
He viewed the expedition’s goal as a shared endeavor, where the knowledge and skills of each individual were valued and incorporated. His approach was agile and cooperative—he communicated transparently and remained open to feedback from his team.
Both leadership approaches were put to the test as the extreme conditions of Antarctica demanded everything from the expedition members.
The Choice of Transportation
When selecting the means of transport, Scott opted for ponies and engines, believing that these technologies would lead his team to victory. He regarded sled dogs as "un-British." However, the ponies quickly proved unsuitable for the icy and slippery conditions, and the engines failed in the harsh climate.
In contrast, Amundsen relied on sled dogs that were adapted to the extreme cold conditions and could transport the team faster and with less energy expenditure. This choice proved decisive for success: while Scott’s team was significantly slowed down by the exhausted ponies, Amundsen and his men advanced more efficiently thanks to the dogs.
Nutrition and Detailed Planning: Small Decisions, Big Impacts
Even in provisioning, Amundsen’s reliance on practical experience and cooperation became evident. He had learned from the Inuit that a protein-rich diet consisting of fresh penguin and seal meat was essential to prevent scurvy. Scott’s team, on the other hand, relied on a traditional diet that proved insufficient under the harsh conditions. Moreover, his team often overcooked the meat, causing important nutrients to be lost.
Amundsen left nothing to chance and planned every detail meticulously. For instance, he ensured that all fuel containers were properly sealed to prevent evaporation. Scott, in contrast, used seals that did not function in the Antarctic environment, which led to fuel loss and consequently to a shortage of water.
“Adventure is just bad planning.”
From footwear to ski equipment, Amundsen's focus was on the details. His willingness to learn from other cultures made the decisive difference in his team’s survivability and ensured that his team was always one step ahead.
Cooperation as the Key to Success
What ultimately made Amundsen so successful was his cooperative leadership style. He understood that everyone on the team played an important role and promoted open communication. His team members were actively involved in the decision-making process. This created a high degree of personal responsibility and trust – an advantage that held the team together and motivated them in critical moments.
Scott, on the other hand, relied on hierarchies and strict rules that left little room for adaptation or flexibility. His authoritarian leadership style resulted in him ignoring important warnings and suggestions from his team members.
The lack of a shared understanding of the goal and the insufficient adaptability contributed to the tragic failure of Scott’s expedition. He reached the South Pole in January 1912, a month after Amundsen. On the return journey, he and his four companions died from malnutrition, illness, and hypothermia, just a few kilometers from their base camp.
Why Did Amundsen Win the Race?
Amundsen's success lay in the synergy among team members, the flexibility of his leadership style, and the ability to adapt to the extreme environmental conditions. His cooperative leadership created an environment in which all team members felt heard and valued, boosting their engagement and motivation.
1. Flexibility and Adaptability
Cooperative leadership enabled Amundsen to adjust his plans flexibly when needed. By involving his team, he was able to respond quickly and efficiently to challenges such as weather changes or supply shortages. Scott, on the other hand, was less flexible due to his hierarchical structures and authoritarian style, and he could not adequately respond to the difficulties.
2. Trust and Personal Responsibility
Amundsen fostered a culture of trust through his cooperative leadership. He promoted open exchange and understanding among team members, which strengthened cohesion. Each member felt part of a shared goal, leading to high commitment and a personal bond with the mission. In contrast, Scott adhered to a hierarchical structure, which weakened team cohesion and hindered the individual contributions of his members.
3. Detailed Planning and Learning from Others
A cooperative leadership style relies on pragmatic solutions and realistic goals. Amundsen carefully considered how to best utilize resources and optimally prepare the team for the journey. In contrast, Scott relied on partly outdated methods and trusted in discipline and endurance instead of pragmatic adaptations to the circumstances.
And 113 Years Later?
What Can We Derive Today from This Historical Case Study?
Promote Participation and Responsibility
Cooperative leadership strengthens the sense of responsibility within the team and encourages the initiative of its members. When leaders give their employees the opportunity to actively contribute, they become more motivated and assume more responsibility.
Recognize Flexibility as a Success Factor
In rapidly changing markets or projects, the ability to react flexibly is crucial. Cooperative leadership makes it possible to incorporate various perspectives and ideas, enabling a quicker response to changes.
Embrace Communication and Transparency
Regular and open communication is the cornerstone of cooperative leadership. Leaders who take inspiration from Amundsen create transparency and a work environment in which concerns and ideas are actively expressed and respected.
Strengthen Team Cohesion
Cooperative leadership fosters a culture of trust and mutual support. Leaders should strive to understand the strengths and weaknesses of their team members and maintain an open, supportive work atmosphere.
Cooperation Beats Hierarchy
The historic race to the South Pole demonstrates that authoritarian strictness and hierarchies reach their limits in complex and uncertain situations. Amundsen’s cooperative leadership style—based on pragmatic decisions, team spirit, and respect for the knowledge of others—led to victory and saved his team from life-threatening errors. Leaders need more than just formal power structures and instructions. Rather, empathy, communication, and cooperative engagement are essential to thrive in challenging times and to extract the best performance from the team, both in 1911 and in 2024.
Impressive images of the expedition can be seen here https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/terra-nova-expedition-south-pole-pictures/
Image: Dennis Rochel via Unsplash
