December 22, 2024

Letters: Letters: Business Lessons From the Shackleton Mission

Re “Reinvention and Survival, Circa 1915” (Dec. 25), Nancy F. Koehn saw several business leadership lessons in the failed expedition of the polar explorer Ernest Shackleton.

In describing Shackleton and his crew, the article said that “whatever came before them on the ice, their leader would give his all to bring them home alive.” Today, however, chief executives fail to understand that this is a leader’s primary responsibility.

Corporate tyrants are laying off employees the minute the value of their own stock options threatens to decrease by a penny. Driven by greed, these executives lack what your article called a “credible commitment to a larger purpose and flexible, imaginative methods to achieve a goal,” where the larger purpose is the prosperity of the human race as a whole, not the magnitude of their personal portfolios.

Bill Appledorf

San Francisco, Dec. 25

To the Editor:

In the article, Professor Koehn says Shackleton’s ability to adapt to new circumstances could be applied to various recent events: the financial crisis of 2008, the gulf oil spill and the Japanese nuclear disaster.

That’s not the right message. The right message is a little thinking ahead can prevent crises.

Shackleton led a disastrous misadventure to traverse the South Pole, and didn’t listen to warnings. While reacting correctly to a crisis is admirable, thinking ahead to prevent the crisis is a lot better.

Looking at the 2008 financial crisis, why did we previously relax regulations on financial institutions? As for the oil spill, why did we not have strong controls on offshore drilling? And in the case of the nuclear disaster, why build a nuclear plant on the coast in an earthquake zone?

Roger Craine

Berkeley, Calif., Dec. 25

The writer is an economics professor at the University of California, Berkeley.

To the Editor:

As a retired Latin teacher, I suspect that Shackleton kept in mind a particular scene early in “The Aeneid” by Virgil, where a small band fleeing the Greeks’ destruction of Troy and newly shipwrecked on unknown land — wet, hungry and despairing — is nonetheless rallied to survival by its leader, Aeneas. He assures the group that someday it will recall this moment with something like pleasure.

But Virgil tells us that, even as Aeneas utters these hopeful words, he presses grief deep into his heart, lest his true feelings unnerve his followers.

Hannah Metzger

Chicago, Dec. 27

To the Editor:

When discussing leadership, many people miss one key ingredient: A great leader never accomplishes his goals alone. One of the first principles of leadership is to surround yourself with highly competent people and let them do whatever it is they do best.

In the case of Shackleton’s crew, Frank Worsley stands out as such a person. He was instrumental in guiding the small lifeboat from Elephant Island to South Georgia Island to seek help in rescuing the stranded crew. He had to navigate through some of the worst seas in the world, in conditions of unbelievably bad weather.

Ernest Fitzgerald

New Orleans, Dec. 26

 

The writer is a retired Marine lieutenant colonel.

Letters for Sunday Business may be sent to sunbiz@nytimes.com.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=79a3f31340a7b4f1b150221f573db408

Essay: Leadership Lessons From the Shackleton Expedition

The race to the pole has long attracted leadership experts, who like to contrast the Amundsen focus on efficiency and innovation with Scott’s more deliberate dedication to scientific pursuit.

But another polar explorer — Ernest Shackleton — faced harsh conditions in a way that speaks more directly to our time. The Shackleton expedition, from 1914 to 1916, is a compelling story of leadership when disaster strikes again and again.

Consider just a handful of recent events: the financial crisis of 2008; the gulf oil spill of 2010; and the Japanese nuclear disaster, the debt-ceiling debacle and euro crisis this year. Constant turbulence seems to be the new normal, and effective leadership is crucial in containing it.

Real leaders, wrote the novelist David Foster Wallace, are people who “help us overcome the limitations of our own individual laziness and selfishness and weakness and fear and get us to do better, harder things than we can get ourselves to do on our own.”

Shackleton exemplified this kind of leadership for almost two years on the ice. What can we learn from his actions?

As a historian at the Harvard Business School, I wrote a case study about him that has drawn more interest from executives than any other I have taught.

As some talented research assistants and I worked on the study, I was struck by Shackleton’s ability to respond to constantly changing circumstances. When his expedition encountered serious trouble, he had to reinvent the team’s goals. He had begun the voyage with a mission of exploration, but it quickly became a mission of survival.

This capacity is vital in our own time, when leaders must often change course midstream — jettisoning earlier standards of success and redefining their purposes and plans.

SHACKLETON can serve as a role model even though his expedition, judged by its initial objectives, was a colossal failure. His ship, the Endurance, never reached Antarctica. None of its 28 crew members set foot on the continent. The journey strained Shackleton’s finances to the breaking point, and at the end of it, in late 1916, its fame-seeking protagonist found his accomplishments eclipsed by the horrors of World War I.

When the Endurance set sail in August 1914, Shackleton had a bold, potentially history-making goal: he and his team would be the first to walk across the continent, starting from the coast of the Weddell Sea, traversing the South Pole and ending up at the Ross Sea.

But from the beginning, the expedition encountered unfamiliar challenges. In late 1914, the ship arrived at a whaling settlement on South Georgia Island, the last southern port of call before the Antarctic Circle. Local seamen urged Shackleton to postpone his venture because of unusually thick pack ice that could trap the ship if the wind and temperatures shifted suddenly.

Impatient to get moving, Shackleton commanded the ship to continue south, navigating through the icy jigsaw puzzle. In January 1915, the vessel came within sight of the Antarctic mainland. But harsh winds and cold temperatures descended quickly, and the pack ice trapped the ship, just as the South Georgia seamen had warned.

The Endurance was immobilized, held hostage to the drifting ice floes. Shackleton realized that his men would have to wait out the coming winter in the ship’s cramped quarters until summer’s thaw.

Shackleton feared the potential effects of idleness, ennui and dissidence among his men more than he did the ice and cold. He required that each man maintain his ordinary duties as closely as possible. Sailors swabbed decks; scientists collected specimens from the ice; others were assigned to hunt for seals and penguins when fresh meat, a protection against scurvy, ran low.

He also kept a strict routine for meals and insisted that the men socialize after dinner, as a tonic for declining morale. Still, collective disappointment, and tempers, flared.

Nancy F. Koehn is a historian and professor of business administration at the Harvard Business School. She is a regular contributor to the Off the Shelf book review column in Sunday Business.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=4eb853c902a1096da2a6f7cb3b5ad383

I.H.T. Special Report: Energy: The Year of Peril and Promise in Energy Production

The tsunami and earthquake that devastated northern Japan in March crippled the Fukushima nuclear reactor complex and shook faith in the safety of nuclear power worldwide. A tide of revolutionary fervor in North Africa and the Middle East temporarily cut oil production, pushed up prices and raised questions about political stability in the critical oil-producing region.

At the same time, new discoveries and increased production of natural gas in the United States and elsewhere drove prices down, foretelling a major shift to natural gas as both a transportation fuel and as a possible substitute for coal in electricity generation.

But offshore oil drilling in the United States is still feeling the political and regulatory effects of the April 2010 BP blowout and spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

One of the most eventful periods in energy news in recent memory has led to a shifting of the global landscape that is characterized by both promise and potential peril. Not only industry, but capitals around the world are trying to figure out how to plan for the new energy order.

A concerted international move in June to release oil stockpiles to stabilize world prices in response to the unrest in Libya sent a sharp signal to the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting States that its power to dictate oil prices was on the wane.

“The energy sector is undergoing a major transformation globally,” said Rajendra K. Pachauri, director general of The Energy and Resources Institute in New Delhi and chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change of India.

“There are new concerns arising out of the Fukushima nuclear disaster and the serious Deepwater Horizon oil spill that expansion in supply of energy would be associated with larger risks,” Dr. Pachauri said. “Therefore, many countries are rethinking energy supply strategies and the very drivers of energy demand.”

Germany, for example, aims by 2022 to eliminate nuclear power on its territory — today nuclear power provides 23 percent of the country’s electricity. The government is establishing plans to increase the share of electricity generated from renewable sources to 35 percent by 2020, up from about 18 percent now. Many doubt whether either is possible, but the country has undertaken an aggressive program of energy conservation and efficiency to reduce demand.

The future of nuclear power suffered another blow in September, when Siemens, the largest engineering company in Europe, announced that it would no longer build nuclear power plants anywhere in the world. The company’s chairman, Peter Löscher, said that Siemens was ending plans to cooperate with Rosatom, the Russian state-controlled nuclear power company, in the construction of dozens of nuclear plants throughout Russia over the coming two decades.

Mr. Löscher also said that his company planned to expand significantly its portfolio of renewable energy technologies.

Even before Fukushima, the future of nuclear energy in the United States was already shaky because of the high cost of building and insuring nuclear plants there, and because — unlike Germany and other European countries — the United States has not moved aggressively toward requiring renewable, noncarbon-emitting power generation.

“Two things have happened in the last year, both affecting nuclear power negatively,” said Jason Grumet, president of the Bipartisan Policy Center in Washington, a nonpartisan research organization. “First Fukushima, and then the rising supplies and falling prices of natural gas have fundamentally changed the economics of nuclear power.” Utilities find it far cheaper to turn to natural gas for supplemental power generation and see no value in investing in new nuclear generating plants, which can cost $10 billion or more, he said.

Natural gas now sells for $4 to $5 per thousand cubic feet, or 28.3 cubic meters, in the United States, far below its peak price. “If natural gas were still selling for $13,” Mr. Grumet said, “we’d be building several nuclear plants right now.”

Because the United States has not adopted a national climate change policy that would drive demand for nonpolluting energy sources, the prospects for alternative energy sources like wind, solar, geothermal and hydro are poorer in the United States than elsewhere else in the world. Renewable energy also suffered a sharp blow in the United States in September with the bankruptcy of Solyndra, a once-promising solar energy venture in California that received $535 million in federal loans. Republicans in Congress seized on the collapse of the company to question the Obama administration’s approach to supporting alternative energy ventures and the concept of so-called green jobs.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=c0cd7d82b6c774b21e4927ff4ca21182

Special Report: Energy: The Year of Peril and Promise in Energy Production

The tsunami and earthquake that devastated northern Japan in March crippled the Fukushima nuclear reactor complex and shook faith in the safety of nuclear power worldwide. A tide of revolutionary fervor in North Africa and the Middle East temporarily cut oil production, pushed up prices and raised questions about political stability in the critical oil-producing region.

At the same time, new discoveries and increased production of natural gas in the United States and elsewhere drove prices down, foretelling a major shift to natural gas as both a transportation fuel and as a possible substitute for coal in electricity generation.

But offshore oil drilling in the United States is still feeling the political and regulatory effects of the April 2010 BP blowout and spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

One of the most eventful periods in energy news in recent memory has led to a shifting of the global landscape that is characterized by both promise and potential peril. Not only industry, but capitals around the world are trying to figure out how to plan for the new energy order.

A concerted international move in June to release oil stockpiles to stabilize world prices in response to the unrest in Libya sent a sharp signal to the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting States that its power to dictate oil prices was on the wane.

“The energy sector is undergoing a major transformation globally,” said Rajendra K. Pachauri, director general of The Energy and Resources Institute in New Delhi and chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change of India.

“There are new concerns arising out of the Fukushima nuclear disaster and the serious Deepwater Horizon oil spill that expansion in supply of energy would be associated with larger risks,” Dr. Pachauri said. “Therefore, many countries are rethinking energy supply strategies and the very drivers of energy demand.”

Germany, for example, aims by 2022 to eliminate nuclear power on its territory — today nuclear power provides 23 percent of the country’s electricity. The government is establishing plans to increase the share of electricity generated from renewable sources to 35 percent by 2020, up from about 18 percent now. Many doubt whether either is possible, but the country has undertaken an aggressive program of energy conservation and efficiency to reduce demand.

The future of nuclear power suffered another blow in September, when Siemens, the largest engineering company in Europe, announced that it would no longer build nuclear power plants anywhere in the world. The company’s chairman, Peter Löscher, said that Siemens was ending plans to cooperate with Rosatom, the Russian state-controlled nuclear power company, in the construction of dozens of nuclear plants throughout Russia over the coming two decades.

Mr. Löscher also said that his company planned to expand significantly its portfolio of renewable energy technologies.

Even before Fukushima, the future of nuclear energy in the United States was already shaky because of the high cost of building and insuring nuclear plants there, and because — unlike Germany and other European countries — the United States has not moved aggressively toward requiring renewable, noncarbon-emitting power generation.

“Two things have happened in the last year, both affecting nuclear power negatively,” said Jason Grumet, president of the Bipartisan Policy Center in Washington, a nonpartisan research organization. “First Fukushima, and then the rising supplies and falling prices of natural gas have fundamentally changed the economics of nuclear power.” Utilities find it far cheaper to turn to natural gas for supplemental power generation and see no value in investing in new nuclear generating plants, which can cost $10 billion or more, he said.

Natural gas now sells for $4 to $5 per thousand cubic feet, or 28.3 cubic meters, in the United States, far below its peak price. “If natural gas were still selling for $13,” Mr. Grumet said, “we’d be building several nuclear plants right now.”

Because the United States has not adopted a national climate change policy that would drive demand for nonpolluting energy sources, the prospects for alternative energy sources like wind, solar, geothermal and hydro are poorer in the United States than elsewhere else in the world. Renewable energy also suffered a sharp blow in the United States in September with the bankruptcy of Solyndra, a once-promising solar energy venture in California that received $535 million in federal loans. Republicans in Congress seized on the collapse of the company to question the Obama administration’s approach to supporting alternative energy ventures and the concept of so-called green jobs.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/11/business/energy-environment/the-year-of-peril-and-promise-in-energy-production.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Asian Stocks Lose Early Gains

Markets in Japan, which is beset by feeble growth, political infighting, a strong currency and high government debt, initially barely blinked at Moody’s action, which was announced early on Wednesday.

In fact, the move came as little surprise, given the country’s economic challenges and the fact that Standard Poor’s had announced a similar downgrade in January.

But after rising in early trading, the Nikkei 225 index was 0.2 percent lower by the lunchtime break in Tokyo. The yen was little changed, trading at about 76.75 yen per U.S. dollar.

Moody’s move takes the rating to Aa3, from Aa2, with the ratings agency citing “large budget deficits and the build-up in Japanese government debt since the 2009 global recession” for its downgrade.

“Over the past five years, frequent changes in administrations have prevented the government from implementing long-term economic and fiscal strategies into effective and durable policies,” Moody’s wrote in a statement.

The March 11 earthquake and tsunami and the subsequent nuclear disaster have delayed a recovery from the 2009 global recession and have aggravated deflationary conditions, Moody’s wrote, adding that “prospects for economic growth are weak, making it more difficult for the government to achieve deficit reduction targets.”

Elsewhere in the Asia-Pacific region, stocks were mixed. The key index in Australia was flat and New Zealand gained 0.5 percent, and the Shanghai composite index was 0.2 percent higher by midmorning.

Elsewhere, however, the markets slipped, ignoring the firm rally in the U.S. markets during the previous day. Analysts cautioned that the lingering uncertainties about the U.S. economy and European debt woes remain in place and are likely to produce more volatility in coming months.

The Straits Times index in Singapore and the Taiex in Taiwan were 0.8 percent and 1 percent lower, respectively, by midmorning. The Kospi in South Korea fell 1.3 percent, and in Hong Kong, the Hang Seng retreated 1.1 percent.

On Wall Street on Tuesday, the Dow Jones industrial average finished nearly 3 percent higher and the Standard Poor’s 500 rallied 3.4 percent, with investors apparently seeking out buying opportunities before Federal Reserve’s annual symposium in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, on Friday.

Investors also harbored hopes that the Fed chairman, Ben S. Bernanke, would announce fresh Federal Reserve support for the U.S. economy at the event.

Futures on the S. P. 500 were down 0.7 percent during the Asian morning, signaling that Wall Street may give up some of Tuesday’s gains when trading resumes Wednesday.

Gold, which had sagged sharply on Tuesday, climbed again Wednesday morning — a reflection that the precious metal’s appeal as a relative haven amid times of uncertainty remained undiminished.

Gold was trading at $1,852 an ounce by midmorning in Asia, up from about $1,830 earlier in the day.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/25/business/daily-stock-market-activity.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

After Inspections, China Moves Ahead With Nuclear Plans

BEIJING — After taking a step back in the wake of Japan’s nuclear disaster this year, energy-hungry China is moving cautiously ahead with its ambitious nuclear energy program.

That is the message that Chinese officials have been giving to visiting environmental experts and local news media. According to a statement posted Tuesday on the Web site of the Ministry of Environmental Protection, the vice minister, Li Ganjie, told a visiting delegation from the United States that China had completed an inspection of the country’s 13 nuclear power plants. The statement implied that the plants had passed the test, which was announced in April after the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant disaster in Japan.

By October, Mr. Li said, the ministry will have tested 28 plants under construction. Until those inspections are completed, he said, China will not approve the plants for operation.

The decision to move forward was not a surprise. With China’s energy demand estimated to be rising by 12 percent a year, the country’s leaders have declared nuclear power to be an important part of China’s energy future.

The government wants to have 100 plants operational by 2020.

“The fundamental issue for China is their demand for power is exceptional,” said James Maguire, a regional managing director of power construction at Aon Risk Solutions in Hong Kong. “Nuclear is an important part of the mix.”

Indeed, even during the Japanese crisis, China and other growing countries, like India, declared that they were moving ahead with their nuclear plans.

Although China has shown an impressive ability to develop new nuclear technologies, it still faces many challenges that its review may have ignored, said Thomas B. Cochran, a senior scientist at the Natural Resources Defense Council in Washington.

Some Chinese sites are near densely populated areas or the coast, where they may be susceptible to the sort of tsunami that hit the Japanese plant in March.

“In China’s case, they’ve got some serious problems to deal with, and they’re probably not going to deal with them,” Mr. Cochran said.

Less problematic, he said, is the issue of what to do with the used nuclear fuel. China stores its fuel at the sites of nuclear plants, as do most countries. But unlike Iran, another country with nuclear plants, China already has nuclear weapons, so few analysts are worried that it may reprocess the fuel and create weapons-grade plutonium, he said.

Shao Heng contributed research.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/17/world/asia/17china.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Panel Urges Germany to Close Nuclear Plants by 2021

The recommendations, which have not been made public, will go to a panel of specialists meeting in a closed session in Berlin this weekend. Mrs. Merkel said this week that Germany would certainly end its reliance on nuclear energy, and that the only question was how long nuclear would be needed as a “bridge technology” until other forms of energy could meet the country’s needs.

Nuclear energy provides 22.6 percent of Germany’s electricity, according to the Energy Ministry. Coal supplies more than 42 percent; natural gas, 13.6 percent; and renewable sources like wind and solar, 16.5 percent. Other sources provide the rest.

Not even Japan, site of the nuclear disaster that followed an earthquake and tsunami in March, plans to abandon nuclear power. Prime Minister Naoto Kan said on Tuesday that Japan would scrap plans to build 14 more nuclear reactors while the government re-evaluated its energy policies. Nuclear energy provides 30 percent of Japan’s electricity.

Germany’s move away from nuclear energy is being closely watched by environmental groups and other European governments, particularly those in Central and Eastern Europe that plan to develop or expand nuclear power production.

“At the moment, there is really a mixed picture in responding to the Japanese disaster by countries that have nuclear power,” said Serge Gas, a spokesman for the Nuclear Energy Agency, part of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

While Russia, Britain, France and Poland have said they will leave their nuclear energy policies largely unchanged, Italy and Switzerland have stopped development of new reactors. Germany, which has a strong antinuclear movement that cuts across the political spectrum, has gone the furthest in reacting to the Fukushima accident.

According to the World Nuclear Association, an industry group, 440 nuclear reactors operate in 31 countries, producing about 15 percent of the world’s electricity. The association said more than 60 plants were being built in 15 countries, notably Russia, China and South Korea.

Germany has 17 reactors; six are boiling water reactors, which is the design used at Fukushima, and 11 use pressurized water. The United States has 104 operating reactors, of which 35 are boiling water reactors and 69 are pressurized water.

Big German energy companies, including RWE and E.ON, have warned that the rapid withdrawal of nuclear power could spell disaster for the economy, lead to electricity shortages and turn the country into a net importer of energy.

But the so-called Ethics Commission appointed by Mrs. Merkel said that rather than being damaged by the abandonment of nuclear power, the German economy could benefit from the reduction of energy use and the development of alternative power sources.

The commission is led by a conservative, Klaus Töpfer, a former environment minister and former executive director of the United Nations Environment Program, and Matthias Kleiner, president of the German Research Foundation. The 22 panel members were drawn from the energy industry and nongovernmental organizations.

“A withdrawal from nuclear power will spur growth, offer enormous technical, economic and social opportunities to position Germany even further as an exporter of sustainable products and services,” said the panel’s 28-page report, which was seen by The International Herald Tribune. “Germany could show that a withdrawal from nuclear energy is the chance to create a high-powered economy.”

But while citing the economic benefits of a withdrawal from nuclear power, the commission emphasized that Germany’s 17 nuclear plants should be closed for safety reasons. “The withdrawal is necessary to fundamentally eliminate risks,” it said.

The commission also said it would be unacceptable for Germany to ration electricity, import power from nuclear plants in other countries or increase carbon dioxide emissions. “There is an ethical responsibility to combat climate change,” it said.

The commission acknowledged that it was not possible to greatly accelerate the development of renewable energy. Instead, it recommended measures, including reducing energy use by as much as 60 percent and developing cleaner technologies for coal-fired power plants.

Only last year, Mrs. Merkel overturned a decision by a previous Social Democratic-Green government to close Germany’s nuclear plants by 2022, instead allowing the newer reactors to operate well into the 2030s.

She quickly changed her mind in March, as the damage to the Fukushima Daiichi plant became apparent. She ordered seven of Germany’s power plants to be temporarily closed, instituted a moratorium on construction of new reactors, ordered an intensive review of security and safety measures, and appointed the Ethics Commission.

She announced the decision days before regional elections in southwestern Germany, where the Greens soundly defeated the governing conservatives.

Matthew L. Wald contributed reporting from Washington.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/12/business/energy-environment/12energy.html?partner=rss&emc=rss