Years ago, I found myself listening to an important historical analysis from Great By Choice by Jim Collins and Morten T. Hansen. Given some of the important lessons imprinted in my memory I thought I would put this on the blog. For those reading the book, pages 13 to 18 and 60 to 62 are where to focus.
In the fall of 1911 two explorers and their teams engaged in a race to be the first to reach the South Pole. Both groups were of the same age range, started the journey within days of each other, and had similar experience.
However, the outcomes were drastically different. One group, led by Norway’s Roald Amundsen, not only got to the South Pole first; but also arrived back to base camp with everyone intact. The other group, led by Britain’s Robert Falcon Scott, arrived to the South Pole over a month behind Amundsen’s team. Sadly, Robert Falcon Scott and his team perished on the way back to base camp.
What are some of the reasons that Collins and Hansen provide to distinguish how one explorer succeeded so spectacularly and the other failed so tragically?
For me there are two reasons that resonate with me from the book.
- Preparation and Attention to Detail: Amundsen not only trained his body, but also learned as much as he could from practical experience as to what would work on such an expedition. Collins and Hansen go into a key set of detail as to what Amundsen learned when he spent time with the Eskimo community. Important findings included using dogs to pull sleds, not rushing body movement thereby “avoiding excessive sweat that could turn to ice in sub-zero temperatures” (page 15) , and wearing the right type of clothing that could protect the body while also assisting in allowing sweat to evaporate.
In regards to transportation, Scott chose to use ponies and “motor sledges” that were not fully tested in extreme South Pole conditions (page 16). The result? As Collins and Hansen write, “the motor-sledge engines cracked within the first few days, the ponies failed early, and his team slogged through most of the journey by “man-hauling,” harnessing themselves to sleds, trudging across the snow, and pulling the sleds behind them.”
In the matter of supplies, Amundsen prepared for catastrophe with three tons of supplies for five men (page 16). Scott allotted one ton of supplies for 17 men (page 16).
What is the difference in the supply numbers? “In his final push for the South Pole from 82 degrees, Amundsen carried enough extra supplies to miss every single depot and still have enough left over to go another hundred miles (page 16).”
Additionally, marking the journey with signs was important so that the explorers could know where to locate supplies and how to get back to base.
The difference between Amundsen and Scott is telling. “When setting supply depots, Amundsen not only flagged a primary depot, he placed 20 black pennants (easy to see against the white snow) in precise increments for miles on either side, giving himself a target more than ten kilometers wide in case he got slightly off course coming back in a storm. To accelerate segments of his return journey, he marked his path every quarter of a mile with packing-case remnants and every eight miles with black flags hoisted upon bamboo poles. Scott, in contrast, put a single flag on his primary depot and left no markings on his path, leaving him exposed to catastrophe if he even went a bit off course (page 16).”
Collins and Hansen also write that Amundsen had four altitude measuring thermometers, in the event of accidents, whereas Scott only brought one; which broke (page 16).
- Consistent Effective Advancement Towards the Goal: Amundsen and his crew developed a way to travel a precise set of miles each day on their journey whatever the weather brought. Collins and Hansen list the daily mileage as 15.5 miles a day (page 62). The authors also write that even when a member of Amundsen team would urge the group to cover more ground quickly by going 25 miles a day, Amundsen refused. Why? “They needed to rest and sleep so as to continually replenish their energy (page 61).”
Scott’s group had a haphazard approach that largely depended on what the weather brought. “Scott would sometimes drive his team to exhaustion on good days and then sit in his tent and complain about the weather on bad days (page 61).”