Follow
Sir Ernest Shackleton’s board of review for the rank of World Explorer assembled one evening and began reading over his application and supporting documentation.
He earned all of his merit badges on Captain Scott’s Antarctic Discovery Expedition in 1901–04, and clocked his leadership tenure as the leader of British Antarctic Expedition in 1907–09.
For his World Explorer project Shackleton had proposed “The Imperial Trans-Antarctic Expedition”. The project was enthusiastically approved, and it’s progress carefully followed.
The Imperial Trans-Antarctic Expedition began with great promise but, because of Shackleton’s miscalculations, ended in great difficulty after taking a great deal longer than he had planned.
His project report was a more a tale of endurance than success. In the end it was clear Shackleton’s project failed to reach the goal he had proposed.
The Imperial Trans-Antarctic Expedition was to have made the first land crossing of the Antarctic continent from sea to sea. Funding was secured, a crew selected, and the project was launched. Things went badly when the ship Endurance was frozen in the ice of the Weddell Sea, drifted northward, and spent the winter of 1915 stuck in the pack ice where it was first crushed and then sunk.
Shackleton’s 28-man crew spent months in makeshift camps on the ice. Shackleton and five others had to brave an 800-mile open-boat journey that led to the rescue of the others and brought them home without loss of life.
When the discussion that evening turned to his World Explorer Project the Board was tense, how could they possibly justify approving a project for this august award that, by any objective standard, had failed so completely?
If you were a member of Shackleton’s board of review what would you have asked him? How would you have decided?
Shackleton, if you accomplished your goal of a crossing but every man died except you, would you accept the award of a successfully completed project with lessons learned on safety? Did you make the right call once you found the crossing was no longer safe/ possible? What if you only had to lose half the men, or just 5 men, they knew the risks right? Completing your goal and getting past barriers (miscalculations) is the most important, right? OR, did you make the ethical decision once you realized the goal was forfeit altogether or at a minimum forfeited without serious risk of safety? If yes, did you have a contingency to address these safety issues and did you reach that goal?
Great questions!
As a Life Scout, I completed my Eagle Project, which was a nature trail for my high school. Shortly before my board, I learned the bridges, plant/tree identification plaques, were all destroyed by vandals. I had nothing to show for my efforts and that of my volunteers. During the review, not one member of the board focused on the lack of a project to show, but on how I planned, showed leadership and what I learned from the experience. It wasn’t until that board did I fully understand the purpose of an Eagle Project.
Bingo! Although the product is important it’s the process that counts.
It is interesting that at the time he was alive, Shackleton did not receive the praise and adoration that Robert Falcon Scott did. Scott ended up starved and frozen, dead on the ice. Shackleton survived and saved all his men (though the Ross Sea party was not as fortunate). The British erected statues in honor of Scott but not so much for Shackleton. It wasn’t until more recently that we are critical of Scott’s blunders and question whether or not he is a hero, and are amazed at the skills of Shackleton to save his crew.
Agree with Phillip S. If he previewed the plan and received support and encouragement from others beforehand, it would be especially difficult to hold him back because of best-laid, logical plans that didn’t come to fruition. However, part of the consideration would also have to come down to how severe and basic his miscalculations were. All good plans and intentions should not be the sole deciding factor. If basic, incompetent errors were so egregious (and outside feedback was not solicited or accepted), one cannot give him a free pass. If you did this, then this would be merely the “Good Planner” award. Planning the best mountain hiking trip and then tossing a crew member (or two) over the ledge wouldn’t merit recognition (even if the throwees survived).
Tell me, what did you learn from this experience?
That is the real tell – tale question.
I don’t think he should necessarily be disqualified just because his expedition failed to meet it’s set goals. The point of trips like that, from a scouting perspective, should be more focused on developing leaders and learning opportunities. Mistakes and unexpected things happen, but so long as people learn lessons from it, then I don’t think it’s a failure. If I were on this board of review, my questions would focus on how Shackleton handled this unexpected circumstance, and how he would do things differently if he were afforded another opportunity.
28 men all came come alive. Job well done and they learned things they never would have imagined had everything gone according to plan.
A+