The Apollo 13 Mission occurred in 1970 (Moho, 2020) and was originally intended to be “humanity’s third lunar landing” (Moho, 2020), although NASA’s mission to land on the moon was a failure, as the “Saturn V rocket carrying the Apollo 13 mission” (Moho, 2020) incurred damage which prevented the mission from moving forward. Specifically, the “Saturn V rocket” (Moho, 2020) had its “service module’s No.2 oxygen tank” (Loftus, 2020) explode and its “No.1 tank failed as well” (Loftus, 2020), which the damaged rocket made the mission impractical and made recovery of the astronauts on board questionable. Although, the Apollo 13 mission has been deemed by many as a “Successful Failure”(Loftus, 2020; Moho, 2020), although the Apollo 13 team was unsuccessful in reaching their goal of landing on the moon for the third time, they were successful in problem-solving, rescuing, and bringing the team astronaut members on board of the “Saturn V rocket” (Moho, 2020) back home safely to Earth. Bringing the Apollo 13 mission team home was not easy, as the Apollo 13 team was constricted to a very strict time crunch, but the successful rescue of the Apolo 13 astronauts was facilitated by relentless shared leadership (PSU WC, L.9, p.9) of the leaders of the astronaut team and the mission control team (Gene Kranz) (Edwards, 2010).

All of the NASA personnel involved in the Apollo 13 mission were part of a “team” (PSU WC, L.9, p.2) where “there is a single mission or goal” (PSU WC, L.9, p.2) and  “the team members cannot function without interacting with each other while working on the task” (PSU WC, L.9, p.2). The NASA personnel involved in the Apollo 13 mission were part of a “team” (PSU WC, L.9, p.2), not a “group” (PSU WC, L.9, p.2), as the members of this team needed to work together interdependently (PSU WC, L.9, p.2) rather than separately to accomplish their goal. The interdependence (PSU WC, L.9, p.2) of the members of the team was necessary to ensure that all members were on the same page, to ensure that the mission went smoothly, and that all activities of the mission were correctly coordinated.

Once the “Saturn V rocket” (Moho, 2020) was launched into space communication between the astronaut team on the rocket and the mission control team at NASA occurred strictly through the use of a radio communication system. This implies that part of the Apollo 13 mission team operated as a “virtual team”(Northouse, 2022, p.461), as they were “geographically dispersed”(Northouse, 2022, p.461) and relied “on technology to interact and collaborate”(Northouse, 2022, p.461). It was stated in the text that “trust is an important factor when leading virtual teams”(Northouse, 2022, p.462), which trust seemed to be an especially important factor in the Apollo 13 mission as the astronauts in the “Saturn V rocket” (Moho, 2020) had to have immense trust and faith in the responsiveness of the mission control team back at NASA while they were navigating their dangerous mission. The trust established by the astronaut team and the mission control team may have served to lessen the panic, uncertainty, and fear the astronauts had when their rocket incurred detrimental damages and subsequently may have served to facilitate problem-solving between the teams.

When the “Saturn V rocket” (Moho, 2020) was launched into space, the astronaut team on board the rocket appeared to be in the group “performing stage” (PSU WC, L.9, p.3) of development, as the “forming” (PSU WC, L.9, p.3), “storming” (PSU WC, L.9, p.3), and “Norming” (PSU WC, L.9, p.3) stages of team development most likely occurred a long time before the start of the mission, as the astronaut and mission control team spent an immense amount of time preparing and training for the Apollo 13 mission. The interactions between the mission control team and the astronaut team during the mission were not characterized by any conflicts, so therefore the Apollo 13 mission team was not in this stage of group development. In addition, a formal leader of the Apollo 13 mission, the flight director Gene Kranz (Edwards, 2010), had already been established within the team, and “group norms” (PSU WC, L.9, p.3) for the team had already been well established before the onset of the mission, therefore ruling out the team as being in the “Norming” (PSU WC, L.9, p.3) stage of development when the mission occurred.

A formal leader of the mission control team at NASA was needed as there were many NASA personnel involved in managing and monitoring the Apollo 13 mission from the ground and it was stated in the lesson that “In larger groups, it is less likely that leadership can be shared among group members” (PSU WC, L.9, p.3), as there were simply too many group members to take charge of and coordinate the leadership tasks of the mission. Although shared leadership (PSU WC, L.9, p.9) may have been evident in the astronaut team aboard the “Saturn V rocket” (Moho, 2020) as there were only three astronauts aboard the rocket who were in charge of solving the technical difficulties aboard the rocket, thus making it more likely that they worked together and shared leadership responsibilities in getting back to earth safely. It should also be noted that although before the “Saturn V rocket” (Moho, 2020) failure occurred, it appears that shared leadership was not a part of the mission control teams processes, after the “Saturn V rocket” (Moho, 2020) failure, shared leadership among the experts at NASA was essential to saving the astronaut crew aboard the “Saturn V rocket” (Moho, 2020), as there was simply not enough time for the flight director Kranz to lead and mange everyone on the Apollo 13 mission team and therefore these leadership roles needed to be delegated to maintain the integrity of the mission. It was stated in the text that “Shared leadership is even more important for virtual teams”(Northouse, 2022, p.464) as shared leadership “promotes both effective collaboration and performance”(Northouse, 2022, p.464), which “effective collaboration and performance”(Northouse, 2022, p.464) was essential for problem-solving on the Apollo 13 mission.

Eight “Characteristics of Team Excellence”(Northouse, 2022, p.467), proposed by “Larson and LaFasto (1989)”(Northouse, 2022, p.466), were presented in the text. The first “Characteristic of Team Excellence”(Northouse, 2022, p.467) proposed in the text was a team’s possession of a “Clear, Elevating Goal”(Northouse, 2022, p.467) which “energizes team members, orients them toward their collective objective, and fully engages their talents”(Northouse, 2022, p.467). The initial goal of the Apollo 13 mission was to successfully land on the moon (Moho, 2020), although “The lunar landing objective was abandoned within minutes of the initial explosion” (Loftus, 2020) of the rocket. Regardless of the mission’s goals changing during the mission, both of these goals energized team members (Northouse, 2022, p.467), as this was a highly publicized event as it was a matter of life and death for the astronauts aboard the rocket. The goals of the Apollo mission team also oriented team members “toward their collective objective”(Northouse, 2022, p.467), as the team’s objective, was very evident in both parts of the team’s mission, and these goals also required team members to fully engage “their talents”(Northouse, 2022, p.467), as the team members expertise was critical for the success and retrieval of the astronauts of the mission.

The second “Characteristic of Team Excellence”(Northouse, 2022, p.467) proposed in the text was a “Results-Driven Structure”(Northouse, 2022, p.467) of the team. When the failure of the “Saturn V rocket” (Moho, 2020) occurred, the Apollo 13 mission team altered its structure to a “Problem resolution”(Northouse, 2022, p.468) team, as at this time the team’s primary mission switched to saving the astronauts on board the rocket, which it was stated in the text that this type of team structure needs to “emphasize trust so that all will be willing and able to contribute”(Northouse, 2022, p.468). Trust was an important factor in the Apollo 13 mission’s team structure as lives were at stake during the mission and this was emphasized by the leader, Kranz, requesting that “all brains in the game”(JWMI, 2020) be utilized in order to avoid any possible mistakes and achieve the team’s goals.

The third “Characteristic of Team Excellence”(Northouse, 2022, p.467) proposed in the text was “Competent Team Members”(Northouse, 2022, p.468), which consists of team members possessing adequate “technical competence”(Northouse, 2022, p.468), “the right number”(Northouse, 2022, p.468) of members in the team, members being “personally competent in interpersonal and teamwork skills”(Northouse, 2022, p.468), and a diversity “of members to “accomplish the team’s goals”(Northouse, 2022, p.468). It was stated in an article by Forbes that “NASA’s people had been in the lunar-landing business for 9 years when the explosion occurred aboard Apollo 13” (Loftus, 2020), suggesting that the Apollo 13 mission’s team members were equipped with the necessary “technical competence”(Northouse, 2022, p.468) needed to save the mission. It was also stated in this same article that “NASA trained and trained and trained” (Loftus, 2020) its team members, which suggests that its team members may have well established their “interpersonal and teamwork skills”(Northouse, 2022, p.468) with each other well before the onset of the mission.

The fourth “Characteristic of Team Excellence”(Northouse, 2022, p.467) proposed in the text was “Unified Commitment”(Northouse, 2022, p.468), which consists of team members having “a sense of unity or identification”(Northouse, 2022, p.468) which may emerge from “involving members in all aspects of the process”(Northouse, 2022, p.468). The flight director Gene Kranz (Edwards, 2010), or more specifically the formal leader of the Apollo 13 mission, requested at the onset of the mission’s failure that “all brains in the game”(JWMI, 2020) be utilized in order to avoid any group think and to ensure that the best possible solution to the problem was generated and utilized to get the astronauts on board back home. It should also be noted that “a sense of unity”(Northouse, 2022, p.468) may have been instilled in team members through the urgency of the situation, as it was evident from the damages done to the rocket that unity of the team members was essential if the team was to be successful in solving the team’s problems.

The fifth “Characteristic of Team Excellence”(Northouse, 2022, p.467) proposed in the text was a “Collaborative Climate”(Northouse, 2022, p.469), which entails a work environment where “members can stay problem-focused, listen to and understand one another, feel free to take risks, and be willing to compensate for one another”(Northouse, 2022, p.469). Kranz, the formal leader of the Apollo 13 mission, was said to have fostered a “Collaborative Climate”(Northouse, 2022, p.469) in the group by instructing “his team to work the problem by creating a culture of debate”(JWMI, 2020), which debates may be said to facilitate collaboration, as they invite new perspectives and ideas, facilitate evaluation of ideas, and help to eliminate faulty ideas.

The sixth “Characteristic of Team Excellence”(Northouse, 2022, p.467) proposed in the text was “Standards of Excellence”(Northouse, 2022, p.469), which refer to “Clear norms of conduct (how we should behave)”(Northouse, 2022, p.469). Before the rocket failure occurred, both the astronaut team and the mission control team had very “Clear norms of conduct”(Northouse 2022, p.469) that were established during the extensive training these personnel received before the start of the mission. Although, the “Clear norms of conduct”(Northouse, 2022, p.469) or “Standards of Excellence”(Northouse, 2022, p.469) after the rocket failure occurred during the mission, became unclear for the team as rocket failure was not anticipated and therefore the solution to the problem was unclear.

It was stated in the text that the seventh “Characteristic of Team Excellence”(Northouse, 2022, p.467) was “External Support and Recognition”(Northouse, 2022, p.470) which “includes material resources, rewards for excellent performance, an educational system to develop necessary team skills, and an informational system to provide data needed to accomplish the task”(Northouse, 2022, p.470). The Apollo mission team’s success in successfully bringing home the astronauts may certainly be attributed to the appropriate “material resources”(Northouse, 2022, p.470) available to them during the crisis; an excellent “educational system to develop necessary team skills”(Northouse, 2022, p.470) necessary for excellent performance; and all of the appropriate informational”(Northouse, 2022, p.470) systems, such as the other NASA experts in the field, “needed to accomplish the task”(Northouse, 2022, p.470) of successfully get the astronauts home.

Lastly, the eighth “Characteristic of team excellence” (Northouse, 2022, p.467) was stated in the text to be “Principled Leadership”(Northouse, 2022, p.470) which was said to occur when “Effective team leaders are committed to the team’s goals and give members autonomy to unleash their talents when possible”(Northouse, 2022, p.470). In an article by JWMI, the author stated that Kranz “questions his team and challenges their recommendations, but he exhibits true leadership by empowering them to make decisions and find solutions that eventually bring the team home safely”(JWMI, 2020), which relates to principled leadership as Kranz, the leader of the mission control team was committed to the teams goals by analyzing his teams recommendations (JWMI, 2020) to ensure the best outcome for the team. In addition, Kranz also engaged in “Principled Leadership”(Northouse, 2022, p.470) by giving his team members “autonomy”(Northouse, 2022, p.470) by “empowering them to make decisions and find solutions”(JWMI, 2020) for the rocket failure.

In terms of the “Leadership Decisions”(Northouse, 2022, p.471), which refer to “the major decisions the team’s leadership needs to make when determining whether and how to intervene to improve team functioning”(Northouse, 2022, p.471), this process was much more straightforward in the case of the Apollo 13 mission than compared to the text’s description of this process. For example, the first leadership decision mentioned in the text is “Should I monitor the team or take action?”(Northouse, 2022, p.471), and in the case of the Apollo 13 mission rocket failure, the decision to “take action”(Northouse, 2022, p.471) was very straightforward as the astronaut team was requesting an immediate intervention to solve the rocket failures that occurred and to preserve the lives of the astronaut’s on board the rocket. The second leadership decision that must be made in order “to improve team functioning”(Northouse, 2022, p.471) is “Should I intervene to meet task or relational needs?”(Northouse, 2022, p.474), and in the case of the Apollo 13 mission it was made evident by the astronaut’s that a task related intervention was needed. It was stated in the text that “solving problems”(Northouse, 2022, p.474) is a “Task leadership function”(Northouse, 2022, p.474), which the issue the astronaut team was facing was a problem-solving issue, as they were unsure how to resolve the issue the most effectively in the most timely manner, and can therefore be considered as a task-related issue (Northouse, 2022, p.474) that needed an intervention. The third leadership decision that must be made “to improve team functioning”(Northouse, 2022, p.471) is “Should I intervene internally or externally?”(Northouse, 2022, p.475), which in the case of the Apollo 13 mission both an internal and external intervention was needed to help resolve the astronaut’s team issues. For example, an “internal task intervention”(Northouse, 2022, p.475) was needed to refocus the team’s efforts towards focusing on a new goal, which was safely returning home. In addition, an “external environmental intervention”(Northouse, 2022, p.475) was needed to obtain “external support for the team”(Northouse, 2022, p.475), such as with networking (PSU WC, L.9, p.5) to acquire the rescue mission to retrieve the astronauts from the ocean after they crash landed into the ocean and with bringing in other NASA experts to help come up with the best solution to bringing the astronauts’ home. Overall, the decision of whether or not to intervene and how to intervene was made obvious to the leader of the Apollo 13 mission once the problem itself was realized.

In terms of “Leadership Actions”(Northouse, 2022, p.475), it was stated in the text that “to be an effective leader, one needs to respond with the action that is required of the situation”(Northouse, 2022, p.476), which the formal leader Kranz and everyone on the mission control team at NASA (and other NASA personnel) worked diligently through shared leadership (PSU WC, L.9, p.9) to determine a course of action that best met the needs of the situation, the astronauts, and resolved the team problems the most effectively. For example, the team initiated “Internal Task Leadership Actions”(Northouse, 2022, p.476) to address and provide a solution to the team’s problems, specific actions taken include “Structuring for results”’(Northouse, 2022, p.476) and “Facilitating decision making”(Northouse, 2022, p.476). In terms of the leadership-driven action of “Structuring for results”’(Northouse, 2022, p.476), the leaders of the Apollo 13 mission specifically engaged in “planning”(Northouse, 2022, p.476) to resolve the rocket failure, “visioning”(Northouse, 2022, p.476) by creating a vision of urgency to resolve the rocket failure, “organizing”(Northouse, 2022, p.476) experts in the field to develop a solution, “clarifying roles”(Northouse, 2022, p.476) of the astronaut team in resolving the issue from their side, and “delegating”(Northouse, 2022, p.476) research tasks to resolve the rocket failure. In addition, the leaders of the Apollo 13 mission also engaged in “Facilitating decision making”(Northouse, 2022, p.476) by “informing”(Northouse, 2022, p.476) the NASA team members of the mission failure, “controlling”(Northouse, 2022, p.476) the actions of the astronaut crew, “coordinating”(Northouse, 2022, p.476) experts at NASA to find a solution to the rocket problem, “synthesizing”(Northouse, 2022, p.476) information from experts at NASA to make an informed decision, and by “focusing on issues”(Northouse, 2022, p.476) that were detrimental to the astronaut team. The “External Environmental Leadership Actions”(Northouse, 2022, p.477) that the leaders of the Apollo 13 mission engaged in include “Networking and forming alliances in the environment”(Northouse, 2022, p.478), “Advocating and representing the team to the environment”(Northouse, 2022, p.478), and “Sharing relevant information with the team”(Northouse, 2022, p.478). The leaders of the mission engaged in “Networking and forming alliances in the environment”(Northouse, 2022, p.478) by “gathering information”(Northouse, 2022, p.478) in the environment from other experts at NASA. Leaders of the mission also engaged in “Advocating and representing the team to the environment”(Northouse, 2022, p.478) by bringing company-wide attention to the issue and by gathering experts in the field at NASA to solve the rocket issue.

Lastly, it was emphasized in the Team Leadership theory in the text that one of the key functions of  “the leader is to do whatever is necessary to take care of unmet needs of the team”(Northouse, 2022, p.479). This is exactly what the leaders of the Apollo 13 mission did and accomplished by resolving the rocket failure problem and safely returning the astronaut crew home. The Apollo 13 mission team and its leaders united and performed shared leadership which facilitated the rescue of the Apollo 13 astronauts. Their mission to rescue the astronaut crew was difficult as the Apollo 13 mission team was spread out in a traditional environment and partially virtually (Northouse, 2022, p.461). Despite the many roadblocks the Apollo 13 mission team faced, they had an advantage as their performance was excellent, and may be partially attributed to the fact that they were in the “performing stage” (PSU WC, L.9, p.3) of development. The Apollo 13 team and its leaders also engaged in shared leadership (PSU WC, L.9, p.9), which thus facilitated the use of NASA experts to devise and implement a successful solution to the rocket failure. In addition, the leaders of the Apollo 13 mission also engaged in all eight Characteristics “of Team Excellence” (Northouse, 2022, p.467) that were described in the text. Lastly, the shared leaders of the mission chose the right variety of leadership decisions (Northouse, 2022, p.471) and actions (Northouse, 2022, p.475) to implement which ultimately led to the successful rescue of the astronauts.

References:

Edwards, O. (2010, April). How Gene Kranz’s Apollo 13 Vest Boosted Morale For His Team. Smithsonian Magazine. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/gene-kranzs-apollo-vest-9045125/

JWMI. (2020, September 11). JWMI Connect Series: Leadership Lessons from the Movie “Apollo 13”. JWMI. https://jackwelch.strayer.edu/winning/leadership-lessons-movie-apollo-13/

Loftus, G. (2013, April 3). Apollo 13: Lessons From the Successful Failure. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/geoffloftus/2013/04/03/apollo-13-lessons-from-the-successful-failure/?sh=2862f15f5d0b

Mohon, L. (2020, April 6). Apollo 13: The Successful Failure. NASA. https://www.nasa.gov/missions/apollo/apollo-13-the-successful-failure/

Northouse, P. G. (2022). Chapter 16: team leadership. Leadership theory & practice (9th ed.). Thousand Oaks, California:  SAGE Publishing, Inc.

Pennsylvania State University World Campus. PSYCH 485 – Lesson 9: Team leadership. Description of team leadership – definition of team and group (p.2). Canvas. https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2283258/modules/items/38927224

Pennsylvania State University World Campus. PSYCH 485 – Lesson 9: Team leadership. Description of team leadership – three aspects to groups (p.3). Canvas. https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2283258/modules/items/38927225

Pennsylvania State University World Campus. PSYCH 485 – Lesson 9: Team leadership. Complexity of Team Leadership (p.5). Canvas. https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2283258/modules/items/38927227

Pennsylvania State University World Campus. PSYCH 485 – Lesson 9: Team leadership. Shared leadership (p.9). Canvas. https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2283258/modules/items/38927231