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.