Everest Case Study PDF

Preview

Summary

Necessary case study for the course. All entry level business students need to do this assignment,. ...

Description

11/19/18

Everest

The tragedy of the 1996 expedition to climb Mount Everest happened due to two reasons, one being internal and controllable and the other being external and inevitable. The first reason was the team dynamic that was caused by the faulty leadership of Rob Hall and Scott Fischer. Before the expedition began, both Hall and Fischer were overconfident in their leadership abilities and their ability to guide their clients to and from the summit safely. Hall had failed to guide clients to the summit in the past, prompting him to become desperate to prove that his previous failures were due to nature and not his guiding abilities. Fischer stated that he was certain that he would “make all of the right choices” and would be able to go on the expedition and return safely. Team members self-censored their opposing and doubting views in fear of contradicting their leaders and challenging the hierarchy, fostering a groupthink phenomenon where individuals stayed silent under the impression that the rest of the group would collectively disagree with their dissenting view. The teams were composed of a random grouping of people and each person had their own agenda, resulting in a lack of trust, communication and cohesion where it was all severely needed. Assumptions and the miscommunication regarding the availability of oxygen tanks costed Hall, Hansen and Harris their lives. The second reason for the tragedy was the volatile weather that took a turn for the worst as the climbers were trying to descend as blinding snow, extreme wind and temperatures hindered the climber’s progression. Tragedies are simply inevitable under extreme conditions in places like Mount Everest. Even high performance teams with the best leaders can suffer from tragedy, as the weather on Mount Everest can vary from safe and clear to disastrous within minutes. Climbers must have both good luck and good weather in order to be successful. While Hall and Fischer did have a few positive qualities, their overall evaluation would be negative. Fischer overestimated his abilities as he became worn out during the acclimatization phase while dealing with logistical issues and proceeded to escort Schoening and Kruse back to Base Camp in two separate instances. His actions were noble, yet they negatively affected his heath, causing him to lag behind in later stages of the expedition and preventing him from performing his “sweep” duties. Hall’s safety procedures regarding climbing past the Balcony proved to be ineffective when the ropes needed to properly be aligned for travel and group members were unable to fix the issue. His procedures were inflexible, which proved to be problematic. Bottlenecks and delays were a result of this issue, and the team lost over an hour of their time to ascend the mountain. Both Fischer and Hall stressed the importance of returning from the summit at certain time in order to avoid the darkness, but never clarified an exact time. Hall arrived at 2:30pm and Fischer arrived at 3:45pm both after their loosely set deadline of arriving between 1-2 pm. The remaining group members arrived separately at a variety of times after the intended time between 1 and 2 pm. This lack of clarity caused the team to return in the darkness and ultimately contributed to many of them losing their lives. Hall and Fischer most likely made bad leadership decisions due to their determination to live up to the high standards they set for themselves to reach the summit of Everest safely. There are multiple lessons that general managers could take away from this case. The case shows the importance of a highly cohesive, performance team, where members trust each other. Managers must foster an environment where team members feel comfortable in voicing their opinions and having open discussion to combat groupthink. Fixed procedures and plans must be instated, but they also must be flexible to sudden change. Managers must also avoid becoming overconfident, as this could lead to skewed incentives, faulty operations, and overall a hinderance of success.

11/19/18

Everest

Appendix A: Performance of a Team:  Rob Hall’s determination to prove that his failed expedition in 1995 was due to nature rather than his guiding abilities leads to a negative sense of desperation to reach the summit this time around. His determination also leads to his overconfidence and skews his judgement to turn around when needed.  Rob Hall bragged that “he could get almost any reasonably fit person to the summit and that his record seemed to support this,” which is example of his faults with overconfidence and determination.  Hall also coerced Hansen to go on the expedition although he was initially reluctant, as he felt badly that he was unable to guide Hansen to the summit in 1995. Both men died at the end of the expedition.  Scott Fischer’s overconfidence was evident in his interviews before the trip, as he said, “I believe 100 percent that I’m coming back and that he was certain that he would “make all of the right choices”.  Scott Fischer also disregarded the importance of having experienced climbers on his team as he thought that “Experience is overrated. It’s not the altitude that’s important it’s your attitude”. Team Characteristics:  Krakauer highlighted that the group was a large group composed of strangers who all seemed like decent people, but they did not have any trust in one another. He knew that, “In climbing, having confidence in your partners is no small concern.”  Many team members worried about what others thought of them, and worried about the possibility of not being accepted by their teammates. For example, Boukreev found it difficult to develop relationships with the other climbers because he did not speak English very well.  Climbers harbored doubts about one another in the beginning but remained confident in their own abilities, inhibiting cohesion.  Right before the summit bid Krakauer restates that “Each client was in it for himself or herself, pretty much” indicating that team bonds did not develop over time.  The lack of team work is evident as the group tried to descend the Mountain. Krakauer and Adams discovered that Harris made a critical error regarding the supplemental oxygen, but Harris did not trust them, and he could not be convinced that he was mistaken. Organizational Variables and Constraints:  The teams were oriented in a hierarchy where the leaders were authoritative and had the final say in every decision, which discouraged clients from voicing their opinions.  Hall himself stated that “I will tolerate no dissention up there. My word will be absolute law beyond appeal.”  Other guides, such as Beidleman tried to maintain his position and not challenge the hierarchy but he stated that, “I didn’t speak up when I should have”, at the most crucial point in the expedition as the group was climbing to the summit....