When it comes to Antarctic explorers such as Scott, Amundson and Shackleton, what makes them good leaders?what were their leadership styles and...

Captain James Ross was the first of the modern explorers
of Antarctica.  He described a number of features visible from his ship, including what
was later called the Ross Ice Shelf.

Scott was the first to
explore Antarctica scientifically: the Discovery Expedition (1901) included geologists,
meteorologists, and biologists.  This expedition made no attempt to reach the South
Pole.

Roald Amundsen went south in 1910 specifically to
reach the Pole.  With four other men he reached the Pole in December 1911, leading the
first expedition to reach that point.  He returned to his ship
uneventfully.

In 1910 Scott returned  to Antarctica in
charge of the Terra Nova expedition.  It was not until he reached Australia that he
learned of the Amundsen expedition (Amundsen was supposed to be going to the Arctic, but
changed his mind).  He was poorly prepared and poorly organized for the journey; he
arrived rather late in the Antarctic summer. He arrived at the Pole and found a note
from Amundsen, who had arrived five weeks earlier.  On the return trek his team was
trapped by storms, ran out of food, and the three men died from hunger, cold, and
exhaustion.  I believe the tent in which they died still
stands.

Shackleton accompanied Scott on the Discovery
Expedition but fell ill and had to return home.  He returned to Antarctica in 1914 with
the intention of trekking to the Pole and, rather than returning, continuing on so as to
cross the whole continent.  His ship, the Endurance, became trapped
in the expanding sea-ice, and after riding out the severe Antarctic winter, was
eventually crushed.  Shackleton salvaged what he could and led his men, carrying their
gear and two lifeboats, on a long trek to the coast.  He left most of his crew in camp
and sailed, with five others, in a lifeboat to the nearest place where there would be a
ship to rescue them.  In the end he brought all his men
home.

So:  Amundsen reached the Pole and returned safely;
Scott got to the Pole but died on the return; Shackleton barely got ashore but survived
the winter, the loss of his ship, a long trek in retreat, a longer voyage in an open
boat, and returned safely.

Why the difference?  How did
each of the leaders bring about the manner of each expedition's
ending?

Amundsen had a great deal of experience in both the
Arctic and Antarctic. He learned from the Eskimos how to survive in the North:  proper
food, clothing, and equipment that would keep his people alive.  This knowledge, his own
common sense, and some luck with the weather, helped his own expedition make a
businesslike trip to the Pole and back.

Scott was very
different.  Discussions of his failure continue to this day.  It seems he had neither
the practical experience of Amundsen, nor his common sense, his ability to lead an
expedition to success, or his luck.  He seems to have relied more on the British idea of
"muddling through" than on planning, preparation, and
training.

Shackleton's trip was aborted at the very
beginning, through no fault of his own.  Once he had to abandon the idea of proceeding,
he showed extraordinary ability to keep his people alive, healthy, and confident.  When
it was time to retreat, he showed equal ability to lead the men on a very difficult
journey without losing any of them.  I think this is perhaps the greatest example of
leadership I have ever heard of.