Organizational Behavior - II

Case Study:
Mount Everest-1996

Submitted by:
Group Number 4 Section A

Name Student ID

Ankita Tiwari 23A1HP083

Aanjney Shukla 23A1HP078

Sarthak Rastogi 23A1HP085

Souradip Dutta 23A1HP073

Sayak Dutta 23A1HP147

Satyam Singh 23A1HP090

1) Why did the tragedy occur?
Ans- A number of factors contributed to the 1996 tragedy. Some of them are listed below-

 Unfavourable Weather: The climbers encountered severe weather with gusts

over sixty miles per hour. Despite several climbers' initial reservations, they
ultimately decided to attempt the summit in the hopes that the weather would get
better. However, as they came down, the weather abruptly deteriorated, bringing
with it snow, a storm, and strong gusts.
 Problem in Rope Installation: The climbers' progress was hampered throughout
the route by bottlenecks caused by late rope affixing. The descent was made more
difficult by the lack of ropes in a few crucial locations.
 Issues with Rob Hall's and Scott Fischer's physical and mental health
occurred while they were climbing. Fischer's condition deteriorated to the point
that he could no longer act as the group's "sweep" and Hall stayed behind to cater
to the sick climbers.
 Lack of Communication and Coordination: Climbers, Sherpas, and guides
struggled to communicate with one another because to the difficult weather
conditions and logistical problems. The lack of communications and the whiteout
conditions that made it difficult to see the climbing route made the situation
worse.
 Everest's unpredictability: Krakauer's viewpoint emphasizes that there is no
system or guide that can ensure safety on the peak because Everest is perilous by
nature. The mountain's inherent dangers are made worse by its harsh
surroundings, unpredictable weather, and the thin line that separates ambition
from recklessness.
 Dissolution of climbing groups: Despite the severe weather, some climbers chose
to continue ascending, while others chose to descend. These individual decisions
led to the dissolution of the climbing groups.

Thus, Therefore, Rob and Hall’s decision making, leadership and managerial
mistakes, behavioural issues, together with logistics problems are the main reasons
why this tragedy occurred.
2. What is the root cause of this disaster?

Apart from the apparent reasons, the root cause of the disaster was the poor decision making
throughout. It was a result of a team that had low cohesion and very poor leadership. The
composition of the teams was also questionable, especially Scott Fishers’ team.
The analysis of the case can be done from perspective of the faulty decision making of the
leaders or can be attributed to the collective failure of the teams due to lack of
communication and cohesion.
 Major reason behind the disaster was the lack of high-altitude climbing skills in the
clients. It was the responsibility of the leaders to make the clients aware about the
consequences and the conditions of the expedition (Pg.3, Para.1,2,3).
 Apart from this there was minimal trust between the team members. Although the
clients trusted the leaders Hall and Fischer and believed that the guides and leaders
will take them to the top of Mount Everest, there was little to no trust from Hall and
Fischer who thought that it was highly unlikely that the clients would listen to them.
The guides and clients also had no trust or cohesion between them and had poor
communication and language problems (Boukreev’s lack of fluent English speaking
and comprehension skills). So, the breakdown of unity of command and obedience to
command in a group in extreme situations can be disastrous (Pg.5, Para.8,9).
 As a leader Hall lost objectivity in judgement since he was heavily biased by his past
failures to reach the summit and hence became a victim of groupthink tendency. One
of the clients said “Each [of the clients] spent as much as $70,000 and endures weeks
of agony to be granted this one shot at the summit.” In this scenario, it would have
been better if Hall would have returned to camp when he had learnt that the ropes
were not set up for ascent. But he was influenced by the clients and his own past
failures and continued to ascent no matter what. So, this is a classic example of
escalation of commitment on Hall’s part (Pg.11, Para.3).
 The difference in the status of guides in Fisher’s group can also be a cause like
Boukreev got 25000 $ and Beidleman got only 10000 $ which led to Beidleman
become conscious and led to a weak team cohesion and culture. This can also be
seen as a status inequity example in a team (Pg.12, Para.6).
Overall, the other reasons are mentioned in the following questions like the overconfidence
bias of Hall and others. As rightly put by Boukreev, “To cite a specific cause would be to
promote omniscience that only gods, drunks, politicians and dramatic writers can claim.”

3. Are tragedies like this simply inevitable in place like Everest?

Climbing Mount Everest will forever entail inherent risks and perilous challenges.
Throughout the years fatalities have occurred due to storms, avalanches, and massive ice
collapses. The potential for human error and unforeseeable natural events often deemed as
acts of God, further amplifies the danger. Emphasising a greater focus on minimising human
error can significantly diminish if not entirely prevent tragic incidents such as these.

The following are instances mentioned in the case “The Mount Everest-1996” that will help
us to reflect upon how the behaviour of individuals, team and leadership played a crucial role
in influencing the outcome of the expedition.

● The team of the clients was not formed thoughtfully, there was no proper evaluation
of the abilities, strengths, and weaknesses of the members of the team formed. For
example, none of the recruited clients had ever completed a successful Everest ascent,
nor had anyone climbed any other peak more than 8000 metres high (Pg.3 Para.1), a
client Klev was recruited even though he did not have a great deal of high altitude
experience (Pg.4 Para.1). Team composition was not based on individual
personalities to good effect, for example in the case it is mentioned that many worried
what others would think about them, they fretted about the possibility of not being
accepted by the team (Pg.5 Para.6). They found it difficult to establish good bond
with their teammates. Cultural difference between the team members was also not
accounted like in the case it is given how Boukreev found it difficult to develop
relationship with other climbers due to lack of fluency in English (Pg.5 Para.6).
● There were certain biases that led to the undesirable decision making finally leading
to the failure of the expedition. For example, Ficher after evaluation of the team and
acknowledging that several clients had not spent much time at high altitude concludes
that experience is overrated and it’s just the attitude that matters (Pg. 4 Para.7), this
displays his overconfidence bias. The case also mentioned about the instance where a
climber Hansen was not willing to turn around even after deteriorating health
conditions just because he had put too much of himself into the mountains to quit
 without giving it everything he had got, this shows the escalation of commitment
(Pg. 9 Para. 2) .
● There was lack of planning by the guides e.g., Fischer dealt with the series of
unexpected logistical problems during the team’s trek to base camp leading to the
wastage of considerable amount of time and energy and effecting the course of action
the team (Pg. 5 Para. 2).
Selection of equipment in appropriate quantity and making sure the availability of the
needful resources at the right time could have resisted the mishap, for example the
case shows how there was a lack of oxygen cylinder at one of time and how
unavailability of required number of radios abandoned communication at the time of
need.

● Leader should drive the decisions through logic and knowledge and not through
emotions and intuitions in order to take informed decisions proper allocation of roles
and workload should be done , there should be an agreement of the specifics of work
and how they fit together to integrate individual skills .for example in the case there
was the notion among the climbers that the guide played an invincible role and no
one could question their judgement. Fischer took his friend down to the base camp
instead of sending him with sherpa or guides and leading his team because he couldn't
see him in tears (Pg.9 Para.1).

4. What is your evaluation of Scott Fischer and Robert Hall as leaders?

Hall and Scott Fischer were highly skilled and experienced climbers, particularly in their
ascent of Mount Everest. However, their leadership abilities fell short when it came to
effectively guiding a group towards a common goal. Despite their individual competence in
scaling such extreme altitudes, they lacked the capacity to build, manage, and lead a cohesive
team. This deficiency was notably evident in Fischer's case, where it became clear that he
was organizing the expedition primarily to outdo Hall, with little prior experience in team
management.

Their flawed decision-making skills underscored their poor leadership. Hall's questionable
judgment was apparent in several instances, such as his disregard for the crucial 1 pm
turnaround time requirement. His fellow climbers, including the Sherpas Taske and
Hutchinson, strictly adhered to this guideline, and survived, even when dangerously close to
the summit. Hall's deviation from this rule directly contributed to his tragic fate. Additionally,
Hall's choice to forge ahead and abandon the rest of the team to help a single member reach
the summit exemplified another poor decision. This action was made even more detrimental
by the unexpected hurricane conditions, demonstrating a lack of prioritization of safety.

Hall's leadership style further exacerbated the situation by discouraging open communication
and differing opinions among team members and leaders. His decision to allow Boukreev to
reach the summit while using additional oxygen prompted Boukrreev's hasty descent, leaving
the team without a guide during their own descent. Hall's rigid leadership approach left no
room for questioning this choice, leading to more mishaps.

When analysing Fischer's choices, it becomes evident that his lack of experience, stemming
from his rivalry with Hall, caused him to overlook critical safety measures and mission-
critical details.

In summary, the poor decision-making of both Hall and Fischer was pervasive throughout
their expedition. They failed to prioritize team selection, safety precautions, team cohesion,
effective communication, and adherence to established guidelines.

5. What are the lessons For General managers in Business Enterprises?

The Mount Everest 1996 case presents a multitude of business insights for general managers:

1. The Importance of Leadership: The commanders of the two commercial expeditions

who attempted to climb Everest in 1996 made a number of key errors. Allowing novice
climbers to ascend, pushing climbers past their limitations, and neglecting to turn back those
who were too tired or ill to continue. As a result, eight people were tragically killed. The most
important message for general managers is the need of effective leadership. They must be
willing to make challenging choices.

2. Effective communication is critical: Poor communication among leaders and team

members, as well as across expedition groups, contributed to confusion and conflict during
the Everest missions. Effective communication is equally important in the corporate sector. It
eliminates misconceptions, fosters teamwork, and guarantees that everyone is on the same
page.

3. Imperative of Risk Management: The Everest missions failed to appropriately handle the
dangers connected with mountain climbing, resulting in issues such as oxygen shortages and
climbers being lost. General managers in company must be skilled at detecting and reducing
risks. This is critical in order to prevent possible problems and catastrophes from occurring.
4. Fostering Teamwork: Climbing Everest is a team endeavour in which climbers rely on
one another not just for success but also for survival. Similarly, companies thrive on
collaboration. General managers should aggressively promote and develop a cooperative and
collaboration spirit inside their organisations.

5. Accepting Humility: The experience of climbing Everest is naturally humbling. It reminds

us of our insignificance in the big scheme of things. In the realm of business, general
managers should be modest. Respecting employees and customers and recognising their
importance is a practise that can result in beneficial consequences.

6. Invest in Training and Readiness: Just like climbers train hard and prepare, businesses
should focus on ongoing employee development and getting ready for tough situations.

In conclusion, the Mount Everest 1996 incident serves as a sobering message to corporate
executives. It emphasises the need of strong leadership, excellent communication, proactive
risk management, teamwork, and humility in attaining success and avoiding severe setbacks
in the corporate environment.