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.

C3 Servant-Leadership Philosophy

C3 Servant-Leadership Philosophy

 By:  Jody R. South

Servant-Leader in Training

The term “servant-leader” does not denote leaders that are submissive in nature or those that prescribe to a manner of self-servitude.  A speaker for the National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics, once stated “Servant-hood, humility…those aren’t things where you think less of yourself.  They are things that you think of yourself less.  You don’t always have yourself on your mind; you have others on your mind.  It’s not that you think that you are terrible or you have low self-esteem.  Servant-leadership means [that] you just think of other people a whole lot more” (Bechler, 2014).

This essay is intended to briefly convey the leadership ideology of the author as a servant-leader in training and does not explore several major leadership functions as they would be beyond both scope and intent.  Further, the essay to follow shall endeavor to delineate a synopsis of the author’s C³ (Catalytic, Courageous, and Contagious) leadership philosophy.

The first section describes what it is to be a catalyst as a leader and how these leaders drive change in organizations.  The next section outlines courageous leadership as it pertains to ethics.  Lastly, this paper describes the author’s viewpoint of what it takes to be a contagious leader.           

Be a Catalyst

            Servant-leaders in training should strive to be catalysts.  Catalytic leaders are capable of precipitating meaningful change in an organization.  Organizations unwilling to adapt to internal and external forces risk underachieving stakeholder expectations and possible collapse.  However, change for the sake of change should be avoided at all costs.  Meaningful change is a cultivated transformation that materializes as a result of internal modifications (e.g. a new procedure put in place to achieve better employee performance) or external forces such as government legislation that directly affects an organization. 

            Catalytic leaders are champions of positive, meaningful change.  They expedite change by mitigating risk, limiting distractions, and endeavoring to eliminate bureaucratic processes whenever ethically possible.  Yukl (2001) defined several behaviors that elucidate the methodology of influencing the conduct of followers (p.312).  These behaviors include:

·         Articulating an appealing vision

·         Using strong, expressive forms of communication when articulating the vision

·         Taking personal risks and self-sacrifices to attain the vision

·         Communicating high expectations

·         Expressing optimism and confidence in followers

·         Modeling behaviors consistent with the vision

·         Managing follower impressions of the leader

·         Building identification with the group or organization

·         Empowering followers (p.312) 

Becoming a catalytic leader requires charisma and the ability to unite both followers and senior leadership alike to support his or her cause. 

            However, positive organizational change does not necessitate a position of executive leadership.  There are several methods of enacting positive change from even the lowest echelons of an organization.

            One such method involves forming a coalition of like-minded individuals within an organization.  This should not be confused with unionizing.  There is power in numbers.  Senior leadership may value such a council as they often have a better view of the front-line.  The other side of this equation is the benefit to fellow employees.  The coalition would be valuable to them as a direct conduit from senior leadership that serves as both a point of dissemination of change initiatives at the top and as mitigation for the apprehension and fear of the unknown that often accompanies change in an organization.

           Be Courageous

            Servant-leaders in training should have the courage and the redoubtable moral strength to “own up” to their mistakes and should encourage subordinates to do the same.  Courageous leaders follow an ethical compass that is aligned with their own personal morality.  Bill George noted that:

True North is the internal compass that guides you successfully through life. It represents who you are as a human being at your deepest level. It is your orienting point—your fixed point in a spinning world—that helps you stay on track as a leader. Your True North is based on what is most important to you, your most cherished values, your passions and motivations, the sources of satisfaction in your life (George, Geren, & Sims, 2007).

These leaders find the courage to speak up and to speak out when others insist on maintaining the status quo and not “rocking the boat”. 

            Courageous leaders are able to accept constructive criticism about their performance in order to improve in their role.  These leaders seek out the opinions of their followers to better serve them.  They are communicators; they do not have an “open-door policy”.  An open door does not in and of itself mean that an employee will use it.  Rather, these leaders prefer to actively engage with followers by visiting with them where the employees feel most comfortable: in their own work spaces.  Visiting an employee’s cubicle or engaging in a dyadic conversation in the break room will go much further in winning hearts and minds.

Be Contagious

            Finally, servant-leaders in training should be contagious.  Leaders should model the way in which they would like to see their subordinates conduct themselves.  “Such leaders earn the respect and trust of others; as a result, people are motivated and committed to following them” (Kouzes & Posner, 1987, p.68). 

A Marine Colonel once noted to his subordinates in the defense contracting industry,

We work for the young trigger puller in the fighting hole…for that 18 year old in the trench that is scared to death that he might not make it home.  They are why we do what we do…for men and women such as this – they deserve the best we have to offer (Col. Peter James, United States Marine Corps Forces, Pacific Experimentation Center, personal communication, August 21, 2013).

Leaders should inspire employees and promote a clear sense of how their work affects corporate image and financials as well as customer satisfaction.  Depending on one’s industry, this can have a great effect on employee and product output effectiveness.

            In order to be contagious, servant-leaders in training should also distinguish the methodology in which they project their power.  Power, as a derivative of influence and persuasion, can be interpreted as either persuasive or coercive. 

Persuasive power creates opportunities and alternatives so individuals can choose and build autonomy.  Coercive Power is used to get people to travel a predetermined path.  The servant-leader practices persuasive power and walks a fine line in most people’s minds.  This is a wise and useful insight, but in practice it is, for many, a bit like trying to grab a handful of smoke (Spears, Lawrence, & Showkeir, 2002, p.153).

Disseminating an idea, message, or plan must be done tactfully.  The employment of persuasive power allows followers and fellow servant-leaders to follow their own path while maintaining a common direction.

Conclusion

“A Servant-Leaders lives, loves, and leads by conscience—the inward moral sense of what is right and what is wrong” (Sipe & Frick, 2009, p.17).  Servant-leaders in training should maintain a reputation for probity in their profession. 

Leaders that follow the C³ philosophy of leadership are catalytic.  They fan the flames of change in an organization by garnering follower and senior management support and by cutting through red tape.  They are also courageous.  Courageous leaders have a strong sense of what is right and have the valor to excel in the face of complacency.  Finally, C³ leaders are contagious.  These leaders are viral.  They are capable of motivating followers to share their values and ignite a passion that drives their corporate culture. 

References

George, B., Geren, D, and Sims, P. (2007). True north: Discover your authentic leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. 

Kouzes, J. M., and Posner, B.Z. (1987). The leadership challenge. 3rd ed. California: Jossey Bass Inc. 

Sipe, J. W., and Frick, D. M. (2009). Seven pillars of servant leadership: practicing the wisdom of leading by serving. New York: Paulist Press. 

Spears, L. C., Lawrence, M., & Showkeir, J. D. (2002). Focus on leadership: servant-leadership for the twenty-first century. New York: J. Wiley & Sons. 

Yukl, G. (2001). Leadership in organizations. Paramus, NJ: Prentice Hall. 

Bechler, J. (2014). National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics Champions of Character: Servant Leadership. YouTube. Retrieved February 26, 2014, from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MSG22HzXfQ