Introduction
Leadership studies have often focused on developing theory and offering propositions for practice. However, it is possible to explore a leadership situation and determine theories and models that are put into practice. It is essential to highlight that practicing leadership is not always premeditated, which means that theories only reveal themselves from the actions of leaders.
This paper examines two films featuring Mount Everest expeditions and how leadership theories and models are applied. In this case, both movies reveal similarities in the need for trust and the engagement of all members when making critical decisions. However, differences also exist in how leaders behave and seek to involve members in making critical decisions. The first movie is titled MT Everest – Layers of Leadership Course, and the second is Into Thin Air – Death on Everest. In this paper, the movies will be referred to as Movie 1 and Movie 2, respectively.
Summary of the Cases
Movie 1 is a short video that describes leadership theories, characters, sacrifice, and competence displayed during an expedition. The unique aspect of this video is that it features a blind man embarking on an expedition with a team of people who trust him. His disability does not deter his ambitions, and it can be argued that his vision and desire inspire others to the point of becoming leaders themselves. Additionally, the team spirit in these situations makes most of what is accomplished possible, especially when the team deliberates and makes decisions that are well-received by all those involved.
The situation in Movie 2 is slightly different in that a larger team is involved, and members often display what can be described as individualistic tendencies. Additionally, the movie can be labeled a leadership disaster, as the deaths can be attributed to poor leadership or members not following the directions given by the leader. This movie serves as a compelling case study of the types of leadership that are likely to fail, offering valuable lessons that can be applied across all leader-member contexts. However, not everything is negative; some positive leadership outcomes can still emerge.
Applying Leadership Theories
Shared Leadership
The two movies have manifested several leadership theories and models, but shared leadership is arguably the most important. The rationale is that expeditions on the mountain require more than one individual to work as a team to accomplish a single mission. The shared leadership was made possible by the fact that the members trusted each other, despite the team often being comprised of individuals who did not know one another and had only been briefly introduced.
In Movie 1, Peavy expresses at 2:08 that there are people he refused to bring on an expedition because they could not be good team members. As the leader, he needed to bring people who knew the Himalayas well, but equally important, people who could be trusted. He further expresses that trust is essential, even if the members may not have the most excellent knowledge of the Himalayas. This is manifested in his agreement to take Erik, a blind man, on an expedition. His decision was risky and was based solely on the fact that Erik could be trusted.
Due to the trust, even the tent manager could briefly undertake the role of a leader. His duties often revolved around the tend, but he had mastered weather patterns, which helped him save the climbers when they got stuck in a storm. Without trust, the team could not have believed his words and encouragement, and so they resorted to making their own decisions based on what they knew or their expertise. Although a team leader was in charge of the expedition, various team members played key roles, contributing to the expedition’s success. In literature, shared leadership has been expressed as a facilitator of team performance (D’Innocenzo et al., 2014).
When in crisis, the members often deliberated on courses of action, which alleviated Peavy’s worries about not having an assistant team leader. Erik also expresses in 7:28 that when one needs it, leadership seems to spring from the most unexpected places. The tent manager is only one example in the movie where people not in leadership positions played leadership roles.
While the shared leadership in Movie 1 facilitated success, the ineffectiveness of shared leadership in Movie 2 caused chaos. Several individuals can be conceptualized as having leadership roles in the team. However, some continued to make decisions that defied what was agreed upon during meetings.
For example, when confronted with the possibility of a slow jam at a very high altitude, which would have made rescue impossible, Scott replied that he liked to let his pupils make their own decisions. He argued that things can happen very first up there. Rob believed that people could die if proper precautions were not taken. Even though each led a different team, they were all part of the same expedition, which meant that Rob and Scot were co-leaders. This movie is not the best context for exploring shared leadership since the inability to take advice from one another or the members meant that conflicts were the order of the day.
Leadership Power
Leadership power is another model that manifests itself in the two movies. According to Pfeffer and Fong (2005), the feeling of power motivates individuals to engage in self-enhancing behaviors. In both movies, the team leaders take all the necessary actions to ensure they can effectively lead their teams to the summit. In Movie 1, Peavy takes a considerable amount of time to plan and prepare for the expedition, which can be perceived as a form of self-enhancement. In Movie 2, both team leaders pursue self-enhancement by building competence.
However, it can be argued that the exercise of power itself is more observable than the extent to which leaders self-enhance. In Movie 1, Peavy is keen to share the power of the team members, as a single goal unites them, and they are pushing in the same direction. On the contrary, Movie 2 primarily depicts conflicts between leadership and power, as explained by Maner and Mead (2010), who argue that power can also serve self-interests.
Scott embodies such conflicts since he is keen to make the news as one of the first people to reach the peak. His selfish interests are observed when he learns of the media presence and that their efforts could make headlines worldwide. As such, he becomes reckless when handling his clients, and arguments between him and Rob become more frequent. Even though Rob seems authoritarian, it can be argued that he knows the expedition better than everyone else, including Scott, who does not seem to realize the dangers and the precautions that must be taken.
Leadership Process
The leadership process is one of the most interesting models to examine from the two movies, since what is observed in the movies either supports or contradicts what is established in the literature. For example, DeRue and Ashford (2010) argue that leadership identity is formed through claiming and granting. Additionally, these researchers claim that leadership involves mutual influence independent of any formal role or hierarchical structure. Leadership is diffused among the members of a particular social system.
In Movie 1, the ideas of DeRue and Ashford (2010) are evident, as Peavy and his team do not rely on the hierarchical structure to lead. Indeed, Peavy often selects competent people, which means he does not seek to be the ultimate leader but part of a group that can help each other achieve their objectives. Additionally, more than one other member of the team has taken up leadership roles at some point during the expeditions, regardless of their role or position. The leadership and follower relationship develops during deliberations, and whoever is in the best position to lead takes charge.
On the contrary, Movie 1 displays a different conceptualization of the leadership process altogether. First, the hierarchical position of the members has already been established, and the rest become followers by default. Rob and Scott are the guides who also know the expedition and guide clients who do not possess the same competencies. Therefore, it can be understood that such members should not be allowed to make decisions or lead in any capacity. The first casualty in the movie appears when a member removes his boots despite all the warnings and directions that boots should be worn at all times. In this case, the ideas of DeRue and Ashford (2010) regarding mutual influence do not seem to apply, as the team’s hierarchical structure forms leadership identities.
Leadership Failure
Leadership failure is most evident in Movie 2, where followers struggle to identify with the leader. It is essential to acknowledge that the teams comprise individuals who are not well acquainted with each other and are led by guides with different ambitions. First, it can be argued that the leader-member relationship is not established correctly, as the individuals involved do not have sufficient time to create and nurture these relationships.
Therefore, leadership emerges as individuals occupying roles that give them authority to guide others through the expedition. Therefore, the lack of a proper relationship means that the respect due to a leader is absent, and such guides as Rob are only seen as individuals giving orders. On the contrary, Scott believes he is making his pupils happy by allowing them to make their own decisions. Even though he seems reckless, it can be argued that he is at least trying to build competencies among the members in case a disaster happens at a high altitude and the team may have to make its own decisions without the leader.
In some cases, leadership is about making compromises and letting others’ ideas prevail. In Movie 2, it can be argued that Rob is more sensible, and his precautions are warranted. Scott is a risk-taker who pushes his luck, forcing the rest to choose between sticking with him or abandoning him. The team reached the top, but rescue was increasingly impossible, as Rob had argued. Taking on the leadership role means being responsible and not putting the team’s lives at risk.
Scott believed it was time for him to reach the top and was determined to do so at all costs. From a leadership perspective, Scott does not inspire confidence or allow shared leadership to produce the desired results. Leadership failure begins when those in leadership positions disagree on the direction and make compromises that should never be made under the circumstances presented by the expedition. Movie 1’s success highlights how shared leadership and pulling in the same direction result in success, even when faced with extreme difficulties.
Therefore, failed leadership stems from a leader’s unsuccessful efforts to control a disjointed group that rarely acknowledges or respects the position or power of the individual in charge. In Movie 2, Rob and Scott are the leaders, but their differences and disagreements meant that even the members occasionally fail to follow their guidelines. In Move 1, Peavy hardly seeks any control and is willing to listen to anyone with the right ideas whenever the group faces a problem. In this case, shared leadership becomes a key ingredient for shared leadership.
Advising Future Expeditions
The experiences in the two movies can be used to advise future expeditions, one showing how it should be done and the other what to avoid. The success story in Movie 1 does not indicate that the expedition faces fewer challenges. On the contrary, it serves as evidence that the team’s character, composition, and leadership are vital. As Peavy insisted, going on an expedition takes people who can be trusted and relied upon in times of need. From a leadership perspective, Movie 1 suggests that all team members should possess at least some competencies that enable them to assume leadership roles if the leader is no longer able to provide direction.
It can be understood that climbing Everest has been commercialized and that the guides are keen to profit from their services. Additionally, the clients often have no prior experience, so they rely entirely on the guides. Therefore, bringing in an individual with leadership competence is necessary. Additionally, such an individual must share the same values, determination, vision, and direction as the leader.
Another piece of advice is that large teams are not necessarily the key to success, as their size may only magnify the conflicts among them. As illustrated in Movie 2, Rob was unable to fully exercise his leadership power due to Scott’s constant objections. Additionally, a large team means that forming leader-member relationships becomes increasingly impossible as some individuals are likely to go against the leader.
As explained above, the first casualty resulted from a simple mistake of not keeping the boots on. In a smaller team, it can be argued that such incidents can be avoided as the leader can easily notice the followers’ actions. Additionally, it would have been easier to identify people to include in the expedition by monitoring their personalities and behaviors. As Peavy explained in Movie 1, there are several people he declined to take on an expedition because they could not be trusted or relied upon. Therefore, getting to know the members can be crucial, as it becomes easier to form mutually beneficial relationships.
Lastly, the leadership process should not allow incompetence and recklessness to prevail. Mutual relationships should be shaped so that the team does not have to follow anyone who shows recklessness when making decisions. In movie 1, all the individuals understood the nature of the expedition and the dangers it posed.
In Movie 2, some members took a risk and made reckless decisions that led to casualties, using the leadership process as a mechanism for developing leader identities. A team that hopes to succeed in an expedition must assign leadership roles to the most qualified individuals. The essence of the expeditions may be an adventure, which could mean taking risks for the sake of the experience. However, casualties are a high possibility, which means that a well-developed plan agreed upon by all members should be established. Constant tent meetings meant that the team in Movie 1 had clarified all issues.
Lessons for the Workplace
Several lessons from the expeditions can be applied to the workplace. The first lesson involves the ideas of DeRue and Ashford (2010), which suggest that leadership is not simply prescribed because of the position one holds in an organization. On the contrary, leadership should be allowed to develop from the relationships that members build and maintain. Such a lesson is illustrated in Movie 1, where even the tent manager becomes a leader at some point and potentially saves the team from a storm by taking decisive action. The hierarchical structure may still exist, but this should not be a barrier for individuals to express their leadership capabilities.
Teamwork in modern corporations is critical as teams can achieve greater success than individuals. Therefore, the team leader should be allowed to develop in an environment where members communicate constantly and offer feedback. This way, the individuals with greater leadership competencies tend to lead the teams in certain situations before other conditions emerge and new leaders emerge.
The second lesson for the workplace is that conflicts between leaders and members should always be resolved before the team can undertake tasks or projects. In other words, there should be an agreement over the direction and the plans. Failing to do so will fail, as haphazard decisions are made along the way, thereby losing scope, direction, and even a sense of purpose.
Movie 2 offers these lessons when plans are abandoned and the individual’s instincts and desires take charge. The plan was always to turn back at exactly 2:00 pm, regardless of the distance left to the summit. Multiple attempts have been made, and individuals like Scott believe it is time to break this rule and push further. The disaster that happens indicates that all workers should follow a plan agreed upon by everyone.
Proposed Study
The mountaineering expeditions described in the previous section have offered two illustrations of failed and successful leadership. The lessons for the modern workplace have also been outlined, which can be used to articulate a proposed study. In this case, the topic of the proposed study would be to examine employee engagement as a necessary leader competence.
In Movie 1, the team leader is depicted as a person who welcomes ideas from the members, and constant deliberations and discussions often occur whenever the expedition faces difficulties. In Movie 2, communication was also frequent, but its nature was different, as the leaders often issued rules and directives. Therefore, communication was not the issue as it was done frequently enough to allow the expeditions to proceed, which means that the nature of the leader-member relationship was the key difference between the key cases.
Background and Justification
Worker engagement is one of the most studied concepts in organizational management and leadership. It is also one of the more recent concepts that has been found to have serious implications for modern corporations. According to Osborne and Hammoud (2017), a firm’s productivity is influenced by the efforts and engagement of its employees. Additionally, leaders have started to monitor how interpersonal behaviors affect productivity, including the extent and nature of employee engagement.
However, it can be argued that most studies on engagement relate this concept to organizational success, and few attempts have been made to link it to the subject or leadership. Not all managers display the same tendencies toward involving members in critical decision-making processes. The evidence of this position can be seen in the two cases described above, where deliberations were conducted in Movie 1 and rules were established in Movie 2.
The justification for the proposed study can also be derived from the analysis of the two cases. The reason for choosing this topic is that engagement was one of the main differences between the two movies; however, the claim that engagement was the primary reason for success can only be an assumption. Other factors may have played a key role, including the fact that the team in Movie 1 was smaller and more manageable than the one in Movie 2.
However, even larger teams can be successful if effective leadership practices are employed. The primary concept behind successful leadership is that followers buy into the leader’s vision. It means that both the leaders and members are pulling in the same direction, which is an outcome achievable through involving all people in key decisions and processes. Therefore, this study is justified, as it offers an opportunity to eliminate doubts regarding the role of engagement in leadership success. Another justification can be derived from the fact that limited research has been done on this subject. This necessitates further studies to explore this trait in relation to leadership practices.
Methods
A mixed methods approach will be used for the proposed study. First, a systematic literature review will be conducted to explore current studies on employee engagement and its relationship with leadership. Studies conducted over the past decade will be reviewed using a meta-analysis.
Additionally, all papers used must link the concept of employee engagement to one or more leadership concepts, particularly where leadership outcomes are explored. It is unclear how many of these studies can be accessed from libraries and online databases. Therefore, Google search will also be used to supplement the various sources. A key consideration is that all papers used must be peer-reviewed journal articles from primary or secondary research.
Since very few studies will meet the set criteria, primary research will also be conducted, where primary data will be collected and analyzed. In this case, survey research will be conducted in selected organizations where leadership is perceived as successful. Questionnaires will be developed for frontline managers and a select group of workers, preferably five for each organization. Therefore, each firm surveyed produces a maximum of six participants. A sample size of 60 respondents is considered sufficient for this study, which means that 10 companies will need to be investigated. Qualitative content analysis is used to collect the primary data. The focus will be on highlighting the central themes in the responses and how they answer the research questions.
Research Questions
- What is the role of employee engagement in leadership success?
- Which engagement actions are commonly adopted by frontline managers?
- What are the main employee expectations during engagement?
Conclusion
This paper explores how leadership concepts are depicted in two movies. Shared leadership, leadership power, and the leadership process have been explored through the analysis of the two movies. Additionally, Movie 1 offers valuable lessons for success, while the movie is primarily used to derive cautions from a leadership perspective. The reasons for failure and lessons for modern workplaces have also been derived. A key observation is that a well-functioning team is more likely to succeed.
References
DeRue, S., & Ashford, S. (2010). Who will lead and who will follow? A social process of leadership identity construction in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 35(4), 627-647. Web.
D’Innocenzo, L., Mathieu, J., & Kukenberger, M. (2014). A meta-analysis of different forms of shared leadership-team performance relations. Journal of Management, 42(7), 1964-1991. Web.
Maner, J., & Mead, N. (2010). The essential tension between leadership and power: When leaders sacrifice group goals for the sake of self-interest. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(3), 482-497. Web.
Osborne, S., & Hammoud, M. (2017). Effective employee engagement in the workplace. International Journal of Applied Management and Technology, 16(1), 50-67. Web.
Pfeffer, J., & Fong, C. (2005). Building organization theory from first principles: The self-enhancement motive and understanding power influence. Organizational Science, 16(4), 372-388. Web.