I think in this chapter Perkins, although stating
his consideration for Scott’s qualities as a leader displayed him unfairly to
glorify Shackleton. Perkins mainly introduced Scott’s deficiencies as a leader
to emphasize Shackleton’s unique-ness and rather did not mention any of Scott’s
endeavors or characteristics as a leader. However harsh he may be when facing
with people with lower social classes, there should be reason for him to be
praised.
Scott’s flaws as a leader were a result from
his occupancy on Britain’s Royal Navy while Shackleton’s excellence in
leadership was nurtured through his life as a seaman, dealing with people from
various backgrounds. In other words, although there are some qualities as a
leader that may be inherent, leadership can also be cultivated through
experience, or in our world education. I find it interesting that we go through
these experiences without knowing what personality or character it will build
among us.
I agree
with Perkins’ opinion about the importance of insisting courtesy and mutual
respect within a team to create a sense of unity. Treating adherents equally is
also vital to mobilize motivation as each member gets rewarded and evaluated
equally with the amount of work or contribution they had brought to the team.
As Perkins highlighted, “a sense of superiority conferred on a chosen few” acts
as a counter-incentive towards the majority who are neglected from being the “chosen
few” to perform their maximum potential. Scott’s inadequacy of respect
fragmented his team’s unification which later prompted his failure.
The interesting thing about Scott is that it was only within the last couple of decades that he has been portrayed as a poor leader. Before that, he had always been a great hero in Britain for the way he struggled to return from the pole only to die of starvation. His diary was standard reading for British students for many decades prior to that.
返信削除History is interesting as it is always being revised.
The fact this book overly depicts Scott as a poor leader drew my attention, too. I wondered how he could have all of these negative qualities while Shackleton was flawless. Well, the difference in their leadership abilities is vivid, also from the result of the expedition, but I still thought it is too extreme.
返信削除Reading Ken's comment, I learned that Scott was considered a great hero before Shackleton.