OB Assignment – Mount Everest (1996)

Mount Everest, 8850 meters stands tall, ever captivating people to go on a quest to reach the
summit. There have been numerous attempts before and after Hillary and Tenzing’s successful
feat. But what happened on Mount Everest on May 10, 1996?
Five climbers including the two leader Robert Hall and Scott Fischer perished on that pitiful day,
but the root cause of the tragedy could never be identified which forms the base of the discussion
of this case study.

Everest has always been a tough climb, even for the expert mountaineers, so why do people still
climb the Everest? For some, it is the matter of passion combined with monetary interest, while
for some people, it is an escape from his/her mundane life, or a depressing phase, for e.g. Dr.
Beck Weathers, for whom this adventure was an escape from the depression that he used to feel
at home. For some, it is a matter of social status and recognition like Doug Hansen, who was
working in three jobs simultaneously and had come for the second time so that he can show his
children that an ordinary person like him can do extraordinary things. It is also a sense of
achievements for someone like Yasuko Namba, who had successfully climbed the 6 out of 7
summits in the world and so climbing the 7th and the toughest summit gave her a sense of
satisfaction. Similarly, everyone had their reasons like challenging and thrill and that gives them
a sense of happiness while for some it was a matter of ego satisfaction or an opportunity for
overcoming their past failures.

We would like to first look at the reasons for this tragedy based on various biases. Firstly, The
Cognitive Bias in which it is quite evident that both the leaders, Hall & Fischer were overconfident
about not just their ability but also about the ability of the clients even though most of them
were inexperienced and incompetent. Secondly, The Sunk Cost Bias which can be seen where
Rob was emotional about Doug while Doug was reluctant about turning back when he was so
close to his destination. Thirdly, The Confirmation bias, there was a hint of competition between
Hall & Fischer which led to the differences in opinions and strategies which was also one reason
as to why there were two leaders for the group. Moreover, Randomness error was also pretty
evident as despite the hint of the storm, they chose 10th may (lucky day).

Team psychological safety and Leadership style:

Considering the other factors of bonding between the climbers, Boukreev found it difficult to
develop relationships with team mates because of his fluency in English language. Also, Krakauer
identified how the group members did not have a strong bond or trust with each other. Each
individual had their own motives and ambitions which was applicable even for Hall and Fischer
as well. Moreover, the leaders should have been ready to listen to other members like Beidleman
having ample amount of experience did not express his opinions, concerns or problems.

The analysis of this case provides framework for understanding and preventing failures in an
organization. It can be understood that the leaders should pay attention and also balance
competing pressure as their words and actions shape the perception and beliefs which nurture
confidence, dissent, and commitment of the team members. In the Everest case, there was not
much discussion among the team and as a result the flawed ideas remained unchallenged and
due to which all the plans and proposals went into critical evaluations where as a leader they
should have encouraged dissension. By doing so, leaders can encourage divergent thinking while
building decision acceptance. In case of any failure, rather than looking for the root cause they
should look for the external factors impacting the situation, which in the given case are human
errors and weather conditions.

Conclusions:
Team work: There should be proper teamwork and coordination in a team taking up any task.
Leadership: There should be one leader for a group and he should have the final decision-making
power, and this was missing in this case as eventually there were two leaders with contradicting
strategies. Also, a leader should be pragmatic and should not get swayed by emotions as was
evident with Fischer’s action of accompanying every injured climber back to safety in which his
health started deteriorated.
Proper Planning & Strategy: For the proper functioning of any organization or for performing in
any situation, proper strategy is required.
Assessment of oneself: Everyone should know their ability and limits to which they can push.
There may be numerous challenging situations but if moving forward is difficult, then we need to
be able to take a step back.

Group Member PRN

Alakananda Anil Kumar 18020841149
Abhay Arora 18020841147
Harsh Modi 18020841168
Rishi Shahdeo 18020841177
Tanu Jain 18020841187
Arnish Vekaria 18020841193
Tripti Xalxo 18020841207