Historical context

Polar exploration, particularly during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, marked a period known as the “Heroic Age of Antarctic Exploration,” characterised by a series of daring and often perilous expeditions to the Earth’s polar regions. This era was driven by a combination of scientific curiosity, national pride, and the human spirit of adventure. Notable figures such as Sir Ernest Shackleton, Robert Falcon Scott, and Roald Amundsen emerged as leaders who faced immense challenges in exploring the Antarctic, a region notorious for its extreme cold, unpredictable weather, and vast, featureless ice expanses (Fiennes, Reference Fiennes2003; Huntford, Reference Huntford1999).

These expeditions were not merely physical journeys but also profound tests of human endurance, leadership, and survival under some of the most inhospitable conditions on the planet. The Antarctic environment presented unique challenges that demanded exceptional leadership qualities. Leaders had to navigate the delicate balance between the goals of the expedition and the well-being of their team members, often making life-or-death decisions with limited information and resources. As Nansen (Reference Nansen1897) and Preston (Reference Preston1998) highlight, the success or failure of these missions frequently depended on the leader’s ability to maintain group cohesion and morale, even when faced with relentless environmental and psychological pressures.

The series of Fram expeditions, particularly the third expedition led by Norwegian explorer Roald Amundsen from 1910 to 1912, stand out as significant milestones in the history of polar exploration. The first two Fram expeditions, led by Fridtjof Nansen and Otto Sverdrup, demonstrated the feasibility of long-term expeditions in polar regions and laid the groundwork for future exploration (Nansen, Reference Nansen1897; Sverdrup, Reference Sverdrup1904). However, it was Amundsen’s third Fram expedition that achieved one of the most celebrated accomplishments in the annals of exploration history: the successful journey to the South Pole.

Initially, Amundsen’s plan for the third Fram expedition was to reach the North Pole. However, upon learning that the North Pole had already been claimed by Frederick Cook and Robert Peary, Amundsen made the strategic decision to secretly redirect his efforts toward the South Pole—a move that was not disclosed to most of his team until the last minute (Huntford, Reference Huntford1999). This decision, while ultimately successful, introduced a layer of complexity and tension to the expedition, setting the stage for a challenging journey both logistically and interpersonally. The expedition’s triumph in reaching the South Pole on December 14, 1911, solidified Amundsen’s place in history but also overshadowed the internal conflicts and leadership challenges that arose during the journey (Fiennes, Reference Fiennes2003).

A critical event during the expedition was the “false start,” which occurred early in the season in which their journey toward the South Pole took place. This event has often been overlooked in the triumphant narrative of Amundsen’s success, yet it was a pivotal moment that highlighted the intense pressures faced by the team and brought underlying leadership conflicts to the forefront. The false start involved an aborted attempt to begin the final leg of the journey due to a miscalculation in timing and weather conditions. Amundsen, keen to gain a head start and capitalise on favourable conditions, pushed the team to depart only a few weeks after the sun had reappeared following the polar winter. However, they were soon forced to retreat after encountering severe cold, realising that the conditions were far more treacherous than anticipated that early in the season.

Amundsen’s decision to attempt an early departure for the South Pole was likely influenced by his desire to secure an advantage over the British expedition led by Scott. Contrary to some secondary accounts, there is no evidence that he feared Scott’s motor sledges as a serious threat. Instead, Amundsen’s stated reasoning for the early start was his belief that temperatures might improve further inland on the barrier—a hypothesis that proved incorrect. Additionally, Amundsen’s determination to reach the South Pole before Scott, given his secretive and ambitious change of plans to target the Antarctic instead of the Arctic, added significant pressure to his decision-making process (May, Reference May2016, p. 272).

The retreat after the false start, although necessary for the safety of the team, exposed significant cracks in the leadership dynamic, particularly between Amundsen and Hjalmar Johansen, one of the most experienced members of the expedition. Johansen, who had previously served under Fridtjof Nansen and was highly respected for his polar expertise, openly criticised Amundsen’s decision-making during this episode. He argued that the disorganised last leg of the return journey, where essentially every man was left to fend for himself, was a reckless gamble that put the entire team at unnecessary risk.

Interestingly, Amundsen himself did not document the last leg of the return journey in his diary—a notable omission that contrasts with his usually meticulous record-keeping. This silence could suggest a variety of underlying reasons, such as discomfort with the situation, a desire to avoid recording potential failures, or a focus on maintaining the broader narrative of the expedition’s success. In his published expedition narrative, Amundsen acknowledges that Hanssen and Wisting drove first and faster than the rest but emphasises that this was their usual practice, further motivated by the weather: “On the way home we kept the same order as on the previous days. Hanssen and Wisting, as a rule, were a long way ahead, unless they stopped and waited. We went at a tearing pace. We had thought of halting at the sixteen-mile flag, as we called it—the mark at thirty kilometers from Framheim—and waiting for the others to come up, but as the weather was of the best, calm and clear, and with our tracks on the way south perfectly plain, I decided to go on. The sooner we got the bad heels into the house, the better. The two first sledges arrived at 4 p.m.; the next at 6, and the two following ones at 6.30. The last did not come in till 12.30 a.m. Heaven knows what they had been doing on the way!” (Amundsen, Reference Amundsen1912, p. 388). Furthermore, Amundsen made no mention at all of the false start in his later autobiography (Amundsen, Reference Amundsen1927).

Johansen’s frustrations were not merely about the chaotic conditions of the retreat but also about the broader leadership style of Amundsen, which he viewed as increasingly authoritarian and dismissive of input from other seasoned members of the team (Johansen, Reference Johansen2011). The confrontation between Johansen and Amundsen after the false start became a significant moment of dissent within the expedition. Johansen’s criticism was not received well by Amundsen, who perceived it as a direct challenge to his authority. This tension escalated to the point where Amundsen made the controversial decision to exclude Johansen from the final push to the South Pole, relegating him to a secondary role in the expedition (Huntford, Reference Huntford2012). Johansen was ordered, along with Kristian Prestrud and Jørgen Stubberud, to explore a section of Antarctica east of the base camp called King Edward VII Land.

Although Johansen thereby was excluded from the South Pole dash, his inclusion in the King Edward VII Land expedition was also a logical decision given his polar expertise and the inexperience of Prestrud and Stubberud, who were also recovering from frostbite. Despite this, Johansen’s position in the party could still be seen as a secondary “degradation,” as leadership of the King Edward VII Land expedition was given to Prestrud, a first helmsman with limited polar experience.

Interestingly, in his expedition narrative, Amundsen makes no mention of the argument with Johansen at all. Instead, he provides a brief and somewhat ambiguous explanation for his decision to exclude Johansen, Prestrud, and Stubberud, stating only that “Circumstances had arisen which made me consider it necessary to divide the party into two” (Amundsen, Reference Amundsen1912, p. 389). In his diary, on the other hand, he clearly states that “To my astonishment, Johansen took the occasion to make unflattering statements regarding my position as leader for our actions here. It was not only our drive home yesterday that he considered to be highly irresponsible, strange, etc, etc. but many other things which I as leader had done over time. I received no reply to my request for further grounds for these statements. The gross and unforgivable thing in these statements is that they were made in the company of others. Here the bull must be taken by the horns and an example made immediately. At the dinner table, I informed him that after his statements, I found it only right to exclude him from taking part in the polar journey. Instead I have ordered him, in writing, to take part in a research expedition to King Edward VII’s Land under Prestrud’s leadership.” (Amundsen, Reference Amundsen2010, pp. 283–284).

This decision had profound implications for the dynamics of the expedition. While it allowed Amundsen to assert his authority and maintain a unified team for the final leg of the journey, it also highlighted the cost of such leadership decisions in extreme environments. Johansen’s exclusion was seen by some as necessary to prevent further discord, but it also underscored the ethical dilemmas inherent in leadership during high-stakes missions where survival is at risk. The diaries of other team members, such as Sverre Hassel and Olav Bjaaland, reveal that while the team remained outwardly focused on the goal of reaching the South Pole, the incident left a lasting impact on group cohesion and morale (Bjaaland, Reference Bjaaland2011; Hassel, Reference Hassel2011). On the other hand, Johansen’s exclusion from the South Pole push was generally perceived by the team as a necessary decision driven by concerns over his behaviour and the potential risks it posed to the expedition’s unity and success. Johansen’s public criticism of Amundsen’s leadership was viewed as disruptive and undermining the team’s cohesion. The division of the team into two parties was seen as a pragmatic choice to minimise conflict and ensure that the most harmonious and focused group would undertake the South Pole push. While Johansen was highly experienced, his critical attitude and refusal to fully cooperate were perceived as risks that could jeopardise the expedition’s objectives. Therefore, the team accepted the exclusion as a necessary measure to maintain morale, focus, and the overall success of the mission.

Historians have approached the false start of Roald Amundsen’s South Pole expedition with varying perspectives, often interpreting it as a critical moment that reveals the complexities of Amundsen’s leadership and the internal dynamics of his team. For example, Huntford (Reference Huntford1999) presents the false start as a defining event that underscores Amundsen’s authoritarian approach. Huntford (Reference Huntford1999) relied on a selective use of primary sources, particularly Amundsen’s diary and a few others, to argue that this episode exposed significant tensions within the team, especially between Amundsen and Johansen. Huntford (Reference Huntford1999) suggests that Amundsen’s decision to push forward, despite the adverse conditions, was driven by his determination to maintain control over the expedition and assert his leadership, even if it meant risking the unity and morale of his team.

In contrast to Huntford’s (Reference Huntford1999) critical portrayal, Bomann-Larsen (Reference Bomann-Larsen2006) offers a more nuanced interpretation of the false start in his biography, emphasising the harsh environmental conditions and the difficult choices faced by Amundsen. Bomann-Larsen (Reference Bomann-Larsen2006) acknowledges Amundsen’s misjudgement in attempting to break camp early, but he also highlights the leader’s pragmatism in choosing to turn back to avoid a complete collapse of the expedition. Rather than solely focusing on Amundsen’s authoritarian tendencies, Bomann-Larsen (Reference Bomann-Larsen2006) explores the human dimensions of the conflict, particularly the heroic actions of Johansen in saving Prestrud, and the subsequent power struggle that ensued within the team. He presents Amundsen not just as a figure obsessed with control, but as a leader grappling with the immense pressures of ensuring the survival and success of his expedition, even at the cost of personal relationships and team cohesion.

Similar to Bomann-Larsen (Reference Bomann-Larsen2006), Bown (Reference Bown2012) offers a balanced view of the false start in his biography on Amundsen, acknowledging the severe conditions the team faced and Amundsen’s pragmatic, if contentious, decision-making. Bown (Reference Bown2012) details the extreme cold and the suffering of both men and dogs, highlighting Amundsen’s initial determination to press on but also his eventual realisation that they must turn back to avoid catastrophic failure. The false start exposed the growing rift between Amundsen and Johansen, culminating in Johansen’s public outburst at Amundsen, which Bown (Reference Bown2012) interprets as a significant tipping point in their relationship. While Bown (Reference Bown2012) acknowledges Amundsen’s harsh treatment of Johansen, including his decision to exclude him from the South Pole party, he suggests that Amundsen’s actions, though sometimes ruthless, were driven by the immense pressure of the polar race and a genuine fear of failure. This perspective underscores the complex interplay between leadership, loyalty, and survival in extreme environments, portraying Amundsen as a leader deeply committed to his goal but not without flaws and human vulnerabilities.

However, it is important to note that previous historiographical interpretations, including the ones by Bomann-Larsen (Reference Bomann-Larsen2006), Bown (Reference Bown2012), and Huntford (Reference Huntford1999), have not fully utilised the breadth of primary texts available from all participants of the expedition. This study distinguishes itself by relying on the diaries and autobiographical writings of all key expedition members, providing a more comprehensive and nuanced understanding of the false start. This approach challenges earlier interpretations by showing how the broader array of voices within the expedition reflects a more intricate interplay of conflict, loyalty, and survival under Amundsen’s leadership.

The false start and the subsequent fallout between Amundsen and Johansen serve as a compelling case study in the complexities of leadership in extreme environments. The event illustrates the fine line between decisive leadership and authoritarianism, as well as the challenges of managing dissent within a team where the stakes are life and death. It also provides insight into the psychological and relational strains that can emerge in such high-pressure situations, shedding light on the delicate balance leaders must maintain between asserting control and fostering team unity. The handling of this conflict and its resolution offers valuable lessons not only for understanding the dynamics of the expedition but also for leadership in other extreme contexts.

Leadership frameworks in extreme environments

Leadership in extreme environments, such as polar expeditions, is fundamentally shaped by the challenges of isolation, harsh conditions, and the need for rapid decision-making. Theoretical frameworks often distinguish between transformational leadership, which emphasises shared vision and team cohesion, and transactional leadership, which relies on clear structures and task-oriented management (Bass, Reference Bass1990; Bass & Bass, Reference Bass and Bass2008). While transformational leadership fosters unity and long-term commitment, transactional leadership is often more effective in immediate, high-stakes contexts.

Amundsen’s leadership style was predominantly transactional, characterised by decisive, unilateral actions. His decision to abort the “false start,” despite its impact on morale and team cohesion, exemplified his pragmatism in prioritising survival over inclusivity. This style enabled him to maintain control and focus under life-threatening conditions, yet it also exposed the limitations of authoritarian methods when managing a diverse team. For example, his swift demotion of Johansen after the latter’s public criticism highlighted the fine line between asserting authority and fostering trust.

Scholars have emphasised that transactional leadership in extreme environments must be tempered by effective communication and a willingness to engage with dissent (Hogan, Curphy– & Hogan, Reference Hogan, Curphy and Hogan1994; Seeger, Reference Seeger2003). Amundsen’s failure to adequately address Johansen’s concerns contributed to a breakdown in trust and team morale, ultimately centralising decision-making to the exclusion of experienced voices. This contrasts with other polar leaders, such as Sir Ernest Shackleton, whose more inclusive and morale-focused leadership style succeeded in maintaining cohesion under similarly harsh conditions (Morrell & Capparell, Reference Morrell and Capparell2001).

While Amundsen’s transactional approach was essential to his South Pole success, it serves as a case study in the trade-offs inherent in leadership under extreme stress. Leaders in these contexts must balance the need for rapid, decisive action with the imperative to maintain team cohesion and psychological resilience (Leach, Reference Leach1994; Palinkas, Reference Palinkas2003).

Conflict and group dynamics

The conflict between Amundsen and Johansen during the South Pole expedition offers a compelling lens through which to explore the dynamics of leadership and group cohesion in extreme environments. Johansen, an experienced polar explorer, openly criticised Amundsen’s decisions during the false start, particularly the chaotic conditions of the retreat journey. This confrontation, unprecedented in the rigid hierarchy of the expedition, not only challenged Amundsen’s authority but also exposed underlying fractures in team dynamics.

Amundsen’s response—demoting Johansen and excluding him from the South Pole push—was a decisive assertion of authority. While strategically necessary to restore order, this decision also had profound implications for the psychological well-being and cohesion of the team. Johansen’s relegation to the King Edward VII Land expedition, under the inexperienced Prestrud, underscored the punitive nature of Amundsen’s leadership, despite its logistical justification. This exclusion also reflected a broader pattern in Amundsen’s leadership, where dissent was met with marginalisation, as seen in his interactions with other team members in later expeditions (Huntford, Reference Huntford1999; May, Reference May2016).

Survival psychology research sheds light on the cumulative impact of such leadership conflicts in extreme environments. Prolonged exposure to environmental stressors exacerbates interpersonal tensions, making effective communication and trust-building critical to maintaining cohesion (Bartone, Johnsen, Eid, Brun & Laberg, Reference Bartone, Johnsen, Eid, Brun and Laberg2002; Palinkas, Reference Palinkas2003). Amundsen’s authoritarian approach, while operationally effective, left little room for constructive dissent, which could have mitigated the psychological strain on the team. In contrast, inclusive leadership styles that emphasise mutual support and shared responsibility have been shown to enhance resilience and morale in high-pressure settings (Morrell & Capparell, Reference Morrell and Capparell2001).

The Johansen conflict also highlights the differing responses of team members to leadership under stress. Younger, less experienced members often refrained from criticising Amundsen, aligning with him out of loyalty or deference. In contrast, seasoned explorers like Johansen, who possessed greater autonomy and expertise, were more likely to voice dissent, even at personal cost. This dynamic illustrates the importance of understanding how individual differences in experience and loyalty shape responses to leadership in extreme environments (Johansen, Reference Johansen2011; Næss, Reference Næss, Drivenes and Jølle2004).

Survival psychology and group cohesion

Survival in extreme environments, such as polar expeditions, demands not only physical endurance but also a high degree of psychological resilience. The psychological challenges posed by these environments are profound, as individuals and teams must cope with isolation, extreme cold, physical exhaustion, and the constant threat of failure or death. The study of survival psychology provides valuable insights into how these stressors impact individual behaviour and group dynamics, particularly in relation to leadership and team cohesion (Leach, Reference Leach1994; Palinkas, Reference Palinkas2003).

One of the central themes in survival psychology is the concept of “expedition mentality,” a psychological state that emphasises adaptability, resilience, and the ability to maintain focus on long-term goals despite immediate hardships (Leach, Reference Leach1994). This mentality is crucial in ensuring that team members can sustain their efforts over extended periods in hostile environments. For instance, during Amundsen’s South Pole expedition, the ability of the team to endure the harsh Antarctic conditions was not solely a function of physical fitness, but also of their collective psychological resilience. Roald Amundsen’s leadership was pivotal in fostering this expedition mentality, as his clear vision and authoritative style helped to maintain the focus and discipline necessary for survival (Huntford, Reference Huntford1999).

However, survival psychology also highlights the potential for psychological stress to undermine group cohesion, particularly when the stress is exacerbated by leadership conflicts or a lack of effective communication. In extreme environments, stress can manifest in various ways, including irritability, anxiety, and a breakdown in social relationships (Palinkas, Reference Palinkas2003). These symptoms can be particularly dangerous in a small, isolated group, where the success of the mission depends on the ability of team members to work together cohesively. During Amundsen’s South Pole expedition, the conflict between Amundsen and Hjalmar Johansen following the “false start” incident serves as a case in point. The psychological strain of the harsh environment, combined with the interpersonal tension between the two men, created a fissure in the group’s cohesion that had lasting effects on the dynamics of the expedition (Johansen, Reference Johansen2011).

Group cohesion, which refers to the bonds that hold a team together and enable them to work effectively as a unit, is a critical factor in the success of missions in extreme environments. High levels of group cohesion have been shown to enhance morale, improve communication, and increase the likelihood of mission success (Bartone et al., Reference Bartone, Johnsen, Eid, Brun and Laberg2002). In the context of polar expeditions, maintaining group cohesion is particularly challenging due to the prolonged isolation and the necessity of close, constant interaction among team members. Leaders play a key role in fostering cohesion by promoting a sense of shared purpose and ensuring that all team members feel valued and included (Bartone et al., Reference Bartone, Johnsen, Eid, Brun and Laberg2002).

Amundsen’s leadership during his South Pole expedition exemplifies both the strengths and limitations of authoritative leadership in maintaining group cohesion. While his decisive style was effective in keeping the team focused on their goal of reaching the South Pole, it also led to the marginalisation of dissenting voices, such as Johansen’s, which ultimately weakened the group’s cohesion (Huntford, Reference Huntford2012). The exclusion of Johansen from the final push to the pole, while strategically advantageous in the short term, had the potential to undermine the overall morale of the team by creating an atmosphere of distrust and division. This highlights the delicate balance that leaders in extreme environments must strike between asserting authority and fostering an inclusive, cohesive team culture.

The literature on survival psychology also emphasises the importance of social support and mutual trust within the group as key components of psychological resilience and group cohesion (Palinkas, Reference Palinkas2003). In extreme environments, where external support is minimal or nonexistent, the emotional and psychological support provided by fellow team members becomes critical to survival. The diaries of Amundsen’s South Pole expedition members reveal that despite the challenges posed by the harsh environment and internal conflicts, a strong sense of camaraderie and mutual support persisted among most of the team members, which was crucial in sustaining their morale and collective resilience (Bjaaland, Reference Bjaaland2011; Hassel, Reference Hassel2011).

Anthi (Reference Anthi1999) explores Amundsen’s underlying psychological dynamics, linking his rivalry with Scott and his experiences in polar exploration to deeper conflicts involving autonomy, guilt, and masochistic tendencies. These conflicts may have influenced his leadership style and decision-making during the South Pole expedition. In addition, Anthi (Reference Anthi1999) links Amundsen’s regression to a paranoid state with unresolved feelings of guilt and rivalry. This perspective provides insight into his reaction to Johansen’s critique, which he perceived as a direct threat to his authority.

In summary, survival in extreme environments is as much a psychological challenge as it is a physical one. The ability of a team to maintain cohesion under stress, support one another, and stay focused on their mission is critical to their success. The experiences of Amundsen’s South Pole expedition underscore the complex interplay between leadership, psychological resilience, and group cohesion in such settings. Leaders must not only manage the physical aspects of the environment but also attend to the psychological and social needs of their team to ensure both individual and collective survival.