“Shackleton’s unwillingness to succumb to the demands of everyday life and his insatiable excitement with unrealistic ventures left him open to the accusation of being basically immature and irresponsible. And very possibly he was—by conventional standards. But the great leaders of historical record—the Napoleans, the Nelsons, the Alexanders—have rarely fitted any conventional mold, and it is perhaps an injustice to evaluate them in ordinary terms. There can be little doubt that Shackleton, in his way, was an extraordinary leader of men.” (Lansing 13).
It’s hard to understand the truth in this passage. How is it possible that someone who is immature and irresponsible fit to be a leader? I wouldn’t want to trust anyone immature and irresponsible to even water our garden while away for vacation. Let alone lead a whole group of people to go on some extreme voyage where there’s lives at stake not just plants. It is interesting that Shackleton or anyone described as unrealistic, immature, and irresponsible could be a great leader, but the tone of Lansing continues to imply that Shackleton was a great leader. His own crew tribute, “…when you are in a hopeless situation, when there seems no way out, get down on your knees and pray for Shackleton.”(14) I believe the fact that most great leaders don’t fit “conventional molds” is what puts them in front of the rest. Leaders like Shackleton with unique ways of thinking are the best. (I didn’t even mean to rhyme.)
No comments:
Post a Comment