Servant-Leadership: James Lovell of Apollo 13

Servant-Leadership:  James Lovell of Apollo 13

By: Jody R. South

This paper shall endeavor to analyze the leadership philosophy of James “Jim” Lovell, Jr. as portrayed by Thomas J. Hanks in the motion picture Apollo 13 (Howard & Grazer, 1995) and to compare his methodology to that of the philosophy of servant-leadership.  Furthermore, it is not the intent of the author to critique the leadership style the actual former NASA astronaut depicted in the aforementioned film.

Additionally, this paper shall consider the organization in which Lovell worked, some of the main characters that he interacted with, and the manifestation of servant-leadership as demonstrated in the plot and subplot.  Lastly, this review shall conclude by briefly examining Lovell’s developmental stage as framed by Torbert & Fisher’s developmental model of work and leadership (Fisher & Torbert, 1995).

Corporate Culture as a Catalyst for Servant-Leadership

In order to investigate the leadership practices of Hanks’ character it is important to consider the corporate culture of the institution in which he operated.  As a government agency, NASA is a very structured and organized organization with a clear division of labor as well as policies, procedures and systems that allow for a unified effort toward a common goal (Bolman and Deal, 2008, p. 15). 

NASA's missions are by no means short term projects and take many man-hours to complete their goals.  Each mission to the moon was planned for years and each member of the crew trained many hours as shown in the film.  Even though this specific mission was not successful, there was a clear goal and strategy placed behind the mission.  To add to this point, later in the film, NASA had to scrap the old mission to the Moon and instead start a new one - how to get the astronauts home.  Not an easy thing to do, as mission planning normally takes years.  However, NASA leadership demonstrated that they could remain relatively calm in the face of danger.  Ground-based mission control had to make a tough decision when they decided to close the reactant valves to the fuel cells, thereby aborting the moon landing phase of the mission.

In the film, NASA was mostly portrayed as an organization of trust.  During several instances (most notably in mission control during the initial failure and later during rescue mission planning) Gene, the Ground-Based Flight Director, had to trust key personnel and adopt their recommendations without further inquiry due to the time constraint. 

During the planning of the rescue mission, it was evident that NASA also had a culture of open communication.  All personnel expressed their concerns without regard of rank and file.  Leadership, however, was at all times in control and all voices silenced when the White team Flight Director, Gene Kranz spoke.

NASA was also portrayed as a team environment.  In an early scene, after a three hour training simulation, Mattingly noted that he would like to run through the simulator an additional time as he was not satisfied with his rate of turn and fuel burn.  Although the other astronauts noted that they needed to be well rested for another event, they operated as a team and agreed to reenter the simulation.  This showed a high degree of professionalism. 

Several events in the movie can be noted for their focus on interpersonal relationships.  NASA often functioned as an extended family for the astronauts and ground-based employees.  Like any typical family, employees of the agency were concerned with the welfare of its fellow members; and like any typical family, its members also shared frustrations and minor in-fighting as portrayed during the scenes where the flight surgeon expressed the need for crew rest in order to maintain crew health and to enable the crew to make sound decisions during critical portions of their return to Earth. 

CAPCOM 2. 13, we just got another request from the Flight Surgeon for you to get some                            sleep.  Don’t like these readings down here.

JAMES LOVELL. [Tearing off his biomeds] Let’s see how he likes this.  I am sick and                                               tired of the entire western world knowing how my kidneys are functioning!

DR. CHUCK. [after Lovell's heart rate flat lines] Flight, we just lost Lovell!

CAPCOM 2. 13, Houston. Jim, we just had a bottoming out on your biomeds.

JAMES LOVELL. I’m not wearing my biomeds.

CAPCOM 2. [after Gene Kranz shrugs it off] Ok, Jim.  Copy that.

                [Jack and Fred now tear away their own biomeds]

DR. CHUCK. [after all three crew members flat line] Flight, now I lost all three of them!

GENE KRANZ. It’s just a little medical mutiny, Doc.  I’m sure the boys are still with us.                                               Let’s cut them a little slack, ok?  (Howard & Grazer, 1995)

Here, we see that some in-fighting inevitably occurred later in the film when there was a minor rebellion when the astronauts removed their bio-sensors so that the flight surgeon would cease his requests for crew rest.  Lovell and Kranz each do their part to reduce the stress of the crew by removing unnecessary, low-priority distractions.

Jim Lovell:  A Servant-Leader in Space

Throughout the film, Lovell, commander of the 1970 Apollo lunar mission, faced several leadership challenges, the majority of which were well orchestrated.  One such leadership challenge occurred early in the scenes of the movie when the flight surgeon grounded Ken Mattingly, the originally slated mission pilot, as it was believed that Mattingly had contracted the measles.  Jim Lovell, as the mission commander, had to make a difficult decision, continue to prepare for the mission with the back-up pilot, Jack Swiggart, or scrap the mission in hopes of a future mission.  Ultimately, the mission commander had to make the call to remove the pilot from the crew and continue to train for the launch. 

Jack’s initial failures in the simulator did not go a long way to restoring team confidence in his ability to pilot the mission.  However, Lovell defended Jack, saying “If I had a dollar for every time they killed me in this thing, I wouldn’t have to work for you” (Howard & Grazer, 1995).  Again, the Mission Commander had to make a choice.  Would they be a fully trained team in only two days’ time, or should they scrub the mission in hopes of a future mission?  In the end, it is difficult to tell if the reorganization of the crew affected mission performance in this situation as Mattingly never showed signs of contracting the virus, and the fact that the issues encountered on the mission were chiefly due to mechanical failures.  The initial mission of landing on the Moon was a failure.  It should be noted, however, that the restructured mission of returning safely to Earth was a huge success.

Lovell’s leadership style might best be described with the action logic of “The Achiever” in Torbert and Fisher’s developmental model of work and leadership (Fisher & Torbert, 1995) as evidenced by his ability to create a positive work environment while meeting both personal goals and the strategic goals of his organization.  Achievers, while an intermediate action logic along Torbert & Fisher’s continuum (1995), are highly goal oriented. 

They value effectiveness in the pursuit of goals and results much more than mere   technical efficiency and are able to recognize and allow for exceptions and contingencies.  They have a deep sense of responsibility, which can sometimes make them appear excessively duty bound, but they are keenly aware of the consequences of their actions and may go to significant lengths to avoid hurting others.  They are conscientious [and] show initiative (Thompson, 2000, P.128).

As an “Achiever”, Lovell’s ability to unite his crew under intense pressure allowed his team to operate with élan.

Conclusion

          The movie Apollo 13 has many characters that embody the philosophy of servant-leadership.

[T]he film is […] about the role communication plays in leadership, a subject both Kranz and Lovell appear to have thought through carefully.  By squelching intra-office and   intra-capsule arguments, never sharing incomplete or alarmist data, and maintaining a constant verbal -- and emotional -- lifeline between those on the ground and those off it, they maintain maximum control in a chaotic situation.  That, in turn, inspires confidence among both crews.  It's a crucial point: leaders certainly desire loyalty and passion, but if they fail to win their followers' confidence first, well, failure is not an option (Hofman, n.d).

Communication under pressure is paramount.  Lovell and his crew did an excellent job of communicating with ground-based mission control throughout the film.

           

           The ability to prioritize is another leadership quality that both Lovell and NASA were quite proficient.  When the time came to make the decision to abort the mission, it was made quickly and decisively in order to save the crew of Apollo 13.   

Lovell’s Servant-Leadership abilities were reinforced by NASA’s corporate culture of trust, open communication, and team work.  Throughout the film and throughout the mission, Lovell displayed characteristics of a servant-leader.  His leadership was exemplified in both his decision-making process, his genuine empathy, and the measures he took to not only protect his own live but those of his crew. 

 References

Bolman, L. G. & Deal, T.E. (2008). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice and leadership. (4th edition). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Fisher, D., and Torbert, W. R. (1995). Personal and organizational transformations. London: McGraw-Hill.

Hofman, M. (n.d.). Everything I Know about Leadership, I Learned From the Movies. Inc.com. Retrieved February 13, 2014, from http://www.inc.com/magazine/20000301/17290.html

Howard, R. (Director), Grazer, B. (Producer). (1995). Apollo 13 [Motion picture]. United States of America: Universal Pictures.

Thompson, C. M. (2000). The congruent life: following the inward path to fulfilling work and inspired leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Entrepreneur.com: Leading as a Servant

Somewhere in my research for an ORGL paper this month, I ran across a great article on Entrepreneur.com. Check it out if you get a chance: http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/231242#

Servant-Leadership: An Interview with Jason O’Donnell

By: Jody R. South

Servant-Leadership:  An Interview with Jason O’Donnell

Caveat: The name of the interviewee and the corporation for which he works have been changed at his request.  Any resemblance to actual persons, living or dead, business establishments, events, or locales is entirely coincidental.  

It is the intent of this paper to chronicle the interpretation, thoughts, and experiences of Servant-Leadership as articulated by Jason O’Donnell of Alliance Technology Corporation.  This paper shall also compare O’Donnell’s views Servant-Leadership with those of noted authors and subject matter experts.

Jason O’Donnell is a project manager for the Military Utility Assessment of emergent technologies.  O’Donnell leads a project team of eight individuals of diverse educational and professional backgrounds in the evaluation of emerging technologies for the United States Government.

Servant-Leadership

Prior to being interviewed, O’Donnell, having not been acquainted with Servant-Leadership, received a brief overview of the philosophy.  The following summation was the subject matter of the presentation.

Servant-Leadership, as defined by the Robert K. Greenleaf Center for Servant-Leadership is: 

A philosophy and set of practices that enriches the lives of individuals, builds better organizations, and ultimately creates a more just and caring world […] A servant-leader focuses primarily on the growth and well-being of people and the communities to which they belong.  While traditional leadership generally involves the accumulation and exercise of power by one at the “top of the pyramid”, Servant-Leadership is different. The servant-leader shares power, puts the needs of others first, and helps people develop and perform as highly as possible (“What is Servant-Leadership”, 2014).

While this quote succinctly sums up Servant-Leadership, it is merely conceptual in nature and not meant to encompass the whole of the philosophy.

O’Donnell, having been briefed on the tenants of Servant-Leadership, offered his own interpretation of the philosophy.  He believes that, as a general rule, most people have an innate desire to teach and to be taught (J. O’Donnell, personal communication, January 15, 2014).  However, metaphorically, O’Donnell noted that “there are those individuals that you can lead to water but you can’t make drink.  These people would rather be given a fish than learn to fish” (2014).  In circumstances such as these, he opined that leadership is not required (2014). 

There is a difference between leadership and management.  A Leader sees the big picture and is strategic in nature.  Actions taken on the part of a leader are calculated.  As I    understand Servant-Leadership, a cost-benefit analysis should occur.  If a servant leader      does not see that an employee is benefiting from our interaction, then the cost of my time     is much too high to continue (J. O’Donnell, personal communication, January 15, 2014).  O’Donnell believes that while all leaders can be managers, not all managers are leaders (2014).     

Jason further noted that “when an employee no longer responds to leadership, management is required.  A manager deals with the day to day monitoring and controlling of an employee.  Managers assign tasks and assure quality” (J. O’Donnell, personal communication, January 15, 2014).

In practice, O’Donnell believes that, “Servant-Leadership might prove to be a daily challenge” (J. O’Donnell, personal communication, January 15, 2014).  However, he also considers the philosophy to be the ideal to strive for.

One of the tenants of O’Donnell’s current personal leadership philosophy is that “an open-door policy is not enough” (J. O’Donnell, personal communication, January 15, 2014).  When asked to elaborate, he noted that many managers pride themselves on their open-door policy.  These managers believe that if an employee can speak with them at any time, without an appointment, that it is enough.  However, many employees are apprehensive or even fearful of approaching their leadership in this manner.  O’Donnell suggested that leadership should mitigate the risk of an employee not articulating an issue by managing while walking around.  O’Donnell stated that he learned this philosophy from his predecessor and that it is a popular tactic that many leaders employ (2014). 

“Management by walking around involves getting out of your office and visiting your employees.  This should be done daily or at least as often as possible, but not too often” (J. O’Donnell, personal communication, January 15, 2014).  O’Donnell cautioned that this should not be confused with micro-managing. 

Management by walking around is not about criticizing or micro-managing.  It is about recognizing employees for their good work and asking questions related to their job satisfaction.  Are they getting the support they need?  Do they have the right tools for the job?  Are they feeling overwhelmed?  Are they receiving enough training?  Take notes and follow up in a timely manner (2014). 

One can easily notice the similarities between Servant-Leadership and Jason’s methods of leading.

            O’Donnell has learned that not only is Management by walking around an effective leadership tool, it is also an effective tool for measuring corporate culture.  Jason noted, “When you roam the halls of an organization, take note of the type of items that are posted on bulletin boards.  Look at people’s desks, at break room walls” (personal communication, January 15, 2014).  Knowing what is important to an organization and to its employees is valuable and can be an excellent tool for any new leader.     

O’Donnell’s method of engaging his employees seems to embody the core of servant-leadership.  Greenleaf noted, “I have a bias about this which suggests that only a true natural servant automatically responds to any problem by listening first” (2002, p.31).  Jason’s capability to “listen first” allows him to gain a better perspective of his employees’ thoughts and concerns.  This, in turn, aids in employee morale and turnover.

Greenleaf also noted that “the best test, and the most difficult to administer is: Do those served grow as persons?  Do they, while being served, become healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous, more likely themselves to become servants” (1977, pp.13-14).  O’Donnell’s analogies of horse and fish seem to exemplify the quest to answer Greenleaf’s servant-leadership query.  However, Jason takes it a step further.  He then answers the unsolicited question of what to do with those that do not wish to learn or to grow by divesting these employees to the oversight and control of a manager as opposed to a leader, thus, freeing up leadership to help other employees that wish to cultivate their talents.

O’Donnell practices “management by walking around”.  As a terminology, “management by walking [or wondering] around” seems to have originated around the same time as servant-leadership.  Like servant-leadership, O’Donnell’s methodology seems to be quite effective in practice.  However, it does not, on the surface, seem to express the nurturing spirit of servant-leadership for the leader as well as the employee.  As a philosophy for leadership, the intent of servant-leadership is to:

…nurture human wholeness and human flourishing.  A conscious moral choice to serve arises from an innate desire for wholeness for self and for others; the desire for wholeness extends to and potentially engages all aspects of personal, relational, organizational and community development and functioning (Horsman, 2013).

Here, Horsman defines servant-leadership as not only a leadership philosophy, but as a way of life and a way of living. 

In the novel, The Journey to the East, the author’s message seems to consistently address giving life meaning (Hesse, 1957).  It is no wonder that Greenleaf was inspired by Hesse to develop the philosophy of Servant-Leadership, which seems to take “management by walking around” to a new level.  

Wilber found through anthropological and developmental psychological research, that humans possess an innate aptitude to develop from “ego-centrism towards progressively more expansive and inclusive levels of socio-centrism” (Wilber, 2006).  Wilbur, like Abraham Maslow before him, believed that people have a tendency to transcend motivations throughout their growth as human beings.

Conclusion

  It is undeniable that O’Donnell displays several characteristics of a Servant-Leader.  Over the past decade, many noted authors and subject matter experts have commented on and written about Servant-Leadership.  O’Donnell exhibits many of the characteristics enumerated by Larry Spears, such as listening, empathy, awareness, foresight, and commitment to people (1995, pp.5-7).  Jason’s predilection for “management by walking around” allows him to practice several of the aforementioned structures of servant-leadership.

References

Greenleaf, R.K. (1977). Servant leadership: a journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness. New York: Paulist Press

Greenleaf, R. K., & Spears, L. C. (2002). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness (25th anniversary ed.). New York: Paulist Press.

Hesse, H. (1957). The journey to the East. New York: Noonday Press.

Horsman, J. (Director) (2014, January 7). Foundations Of Servant-Leadership. Introduction to Servant-Leadership. Lecture conducted from Gonzaga University January 7, 2014.

Spears, L.C. (1995). Servant leadership and the Greenleaf legacy. In L.C. Spears (Ed.), Reflections on leadership: How Robert K. Greenleaf’s theory of servant-leadership influenced today’s top management thinkers. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

What is Servant-Leadership? (2014). Retrieved January 21, 2014, from https://greenleaf.org/what-is-servant-leadership/

Wilber, K. (2006). Integral spirituality: A startling new role for religion in the modern world. Boston, MA: Integral Books.