Credibility is the Foundation of Leadership

Ernest Shackleton was a credible enough leader to inspire a crew of strangers to join him on an expedition promising “small wages, bitter cold, long months of darkness, constant danger,” and little hope of safe return, but he had room for improvement, experiencing a near mutiny on his journey. This analysis shows how Ernest Shackleton could have improved to be a great leader by being more honest and forward-looking, two of the four core components of credibility and leadership identified by Kouzes and Posner (The Leadership Challenge).

Ben Franklin is credited with saying “honesty is the best policy,” a philosophy Shackleton followed only sporadically. He often shared information that enhanced the honor and mystique of his expeditions, but he avoided honesty that jeopardized his mission by drawing disapproval from donors, scientists, or crew members. As he sought support for his third Antarctic campaign, members of the Royal Geographical Society complained about the “impossibility of getting any clear answers out of Shackleton” regarding his plans. Shackleton should have addressed these questions directly. Full transparency would have helped creditors and crew alike to support him with confidence, settling the rumors and contempt that surrounded him before and after the voyage.

Early on as Shackleton embarked on his expedition, his crew felt the effects of his damaged credit. Their dog trainer quit over contract disputes, and they struggled to obtain all the supplies needed for the journey. Ernest’s decision to head to a remote port to avoid creditors may have seemed inconsequential to him, but it further weakened his credibility. Later when the ship sunk and he promised his crew full payment for their time, he had weak credibility to prove to his men that he could deliver on his promise. This pattern of behavior defines Ernest as a man that does whatever is needed to pursue his goals, even at the expense of those who support him. Shackleton should have sought alternative ways to secure the resources rather than mislead others about his financial credibility.

During this supply stop, Shackleton was warned by local seamen that the ice floes were the farthest north they had seen in living memory, and they advised him to postpone the mission until the following year. After only a month of waiting, with conditions unchanged, the Endurance departed with “the expedition members, largely unaware of the warnings the South Georgia whaling captains had given Shackleton.” This was his greatest sin of omission. He should have shared these warnings. Then his men could understand the risksand accept responsibility for continuing the voyage. Their willingness to follow him would then be rooted in complete trust rather than partial truths.

Shackleton’s lack of transparency was matched by a lack of foresight. His planning was flawed; he prioritized cheerful personalities over diverse skill sets, ignoring the unique risks of the expedition. He should have been more forward-looking and anticipated the hardships ahead and prepared his team accordingly with diverse skill sets for the unexpected. His men would have been inspired by his foresight and felt greater confidence in his leadership when challenges arose.

This short-sightedness continued into the expedition itself. Once trapped in the ice, Shackleton again failed to act as a forward-looking leader. Aware of the ship’s imminent demise, he ignored reality, hoping he could still reach the Antarctic until nature forced him off the ship and onto the ice. He should have acted sooner by ordering supplies removed, assigning his carpenter to build transport systems for the lifeboats, and directing his crew to explore the ice for evacuation routes. Taking these steps early would have demonstrated his foresight and competence as a leader prepared to adapt to changing conditions.

Finally, Shackleton should have developed contingency plans in case they were forced to abandon ship. By the end, he understood the immense difficulty of rescuing his stranded men. A truly forward-looking leader prepares for both success and failure, anticipating alternate outcomes. Shackleton should have established recovery points and clear instructions with potential rescuers in case the mission went awry. His forward-looking nature was limited by tunnel vision, and his singular focus could easily have cost many of his men their lives.

Ernest was an inspiring leader who led with bravery and genuine care for his men. Being more honest and forward-looking, he could have achieved greater success and lasting credibility, ensuring his leadership was never questioned as it was during the Endurance expedition.