1

Carleton University

Sprott School of Business

Movie Case Analysis : Thirteen lives

Submitted by,

Shuvo Raj Bhatta

Carleton ID :101286817

Submitted to,

Linda Duxbury

Date of Submission:23rd December ,2022

 2

Table of contents:

Topics Page no.

Abstract 3
Answers for conflict &negotiation 3-4
Answers for culture 5-6
Answers for Decision 6-8
Answers for Problem solving 8-10
Answers for Teams 11-12
Answers for Leadership 13
APPENDICES & EXHIBITS 14-20
References 20
 3

Abstract: This report is the analysis of the movie “Thirteen Lives “, according to the
concepts from the book: Organizational Behaviour, An Experimental Approach by Joyce
S. Osland, David A. Kolb, Irwin M. Rubin & Marlene E. Turner. It is essential to look at
the appendices section of this report, where all the Exhibits are presented. Exhibits are
a vital part of this case analysis.
Answers to the questions
1. Conflict & Negotiation 
The sources of conflict between the Rescue Cave Divers and the Thai Navy Seals and
the way the solution happened:
As the boys and the coach were trapped deep in the cave, due to it being flooded with
water, the panic was revoked in the whole village as well as all of Thailand. People from
all over the world felt sad for the people stuck in the cave. The Thai government initially
responded by deploying Thai Navy Seals to protect the victims. The governor also
supported deploying Thai Navy seals at the beginning. But conflict happened between
the Thai Navy Seals and the Rescue Cave Divers, who arrived from foreign countries. 
According to the book: Organizational Behaviour – An Experimental approach, conflict
is defined as when friction occurs between parties due to differences in perceptions,
preferences, and interests. Conflict is also defined as "the process that begins when
one party perceive\'es that the other has negatively affected, or is about to negatively
affect, something that he or she cares about” In addition, different sources are also
mentioned in the books such as values, culture, interests, recognition, perceptions,
education and personalities (Osland J., Kolb A. Rubin I., Turner M., pg. 341).

Exactly, as per the definition of conflict, we saw in the movie that Thai navy seals
perceived that the Rescue Cave Divers were needed, and they are not skilled like the
seals. The Navy commander preferred his boys to dive inside the cave and was very
confident in the soldiers’ abilities. They also did not want the divers to go inside because
they did not want foreigners’ casualties. Overall, the navy seals and its commander
identified themselves as fully capable of doing the job. They thought they will be more
understanding of the victims’ situation. And the years of expertise working in the navy is
the best for this task, they assumed.
 4

On the other hand, the navy cave divers knew that the current situation was not suitable
for navy seals to solve. They have been diving in complexly structured caves for around
30 years, as they mentioned in the meeting attended by the seal commander, governor,
and other officials. Both John and Rick were keen to dive into the cave to do the best
they can do to save the trapped thirteen people.

In the beginning, according to Exhibit 1, the seal commander was in the avoidance
zone, by not letting in the volunteer rescuers. But when the commander knew, the
governor permitted them, then he allowed the rescuers to dive in, which is the middle of
the graph: compromise. Later, the governor also took time to decide who would
complete the task, until the rain stopped. But the conflict ultimately played a positive
role, the rescuers could present the governor and the army chief how difficult was it to
save the people; and presented a plan consisting of sedating the children. The plan
looked risky, but promising so finally the task was majorly completed by the rescuers,
minorly assisted by the seals.

The sources of conflict are the parents of the children trapped in the cave and the
Governor of the Province, and the way the solution happened:

As many days passed by, without seeing their children, the parents grew anxious they
thought not enough actions were taken to save their children. Sources of conflict could
be a difference in education and perceptions between the governor and the parents.
The governor was serious to save the victims, he presumably is well-educated, and was
performing his duty due diligently to the best of his abilities. But the parents were overly
concerned because many days passed by without any sign of rescue. They presumably
belong to a rank in a society where they do not have much power. So the parents felt
helpless and asked the governor for quick action. The governor gave condolences to
the parents and proceed to take action with a proper plan. In Exhibit 1, the governor
showed collaboration towards the parents of the children. 
 5

Also to mention, both conflicts were elucidated by leaning dominantly towards

integrated bargaining: it was all about proper planning to get the best outcome for
everyone, without any casualties to anyone. None of the parties worked upon self-
interest. Eventually, all of them cooperated and implemented the best actions they could
make: such as not rushing to a decision, analyzing the divers’ skills, the condition of the
people in the cave, etc.
2. Culture
Organization culture of the Thai Navy Seals:
According to Schein: organizational culture is the basic designs that a given group has
established to deal with its problem of external adaptation and internal integration, and
new members are also taught to obey those patterns. In simple terms, organizational
culture is the means through which people communicate organizational values and
norms(Osland J., Kolb A. Rubin I., Turner M., pg. 430).

And we see in the movie that the Thai Navy Seals have maintained an organizational
culture, as because we have seen them tackle the rescue in a methodical way that
supports their way of thinking, values, and norms. We have seen that all the time
leaders of the seal team obey the governor's advice and are ready to accept orders
from other government leaders. Internally, the Navy Seal leader commands the junior
soldiers to take the necessary actions. And the orders are obeyed by the soldiers
sincerely. The Navy Seal leaders seem to be authoritative, as they a supposed to be,
and they also cared about a solid plan to execute their task of saving the victims inside
the cave. Hence, it can be said that the Thai Navy Seals have a strong organizational
culture.

To support my claim of Thai Navy Seals having a strong organizational culture let's talk
about the movie scenes. As the thirteen people got confined in the Tham Luang cave,
the Navy Seals were the first to be deployed to help pump water out as well as dive in.
Considering the complexity of the cave’s structure, Thai Navy Seals did the best they
could and dived as far as possible in the first attempt. While in the cave they
coordinated with each other properly, proving that they prioritize teamwork, although
 6

there was one incident when the seal member should check on the other seal member
who was stuck in a cave wall and died eventually. The seal member who was swimming
with him could have checked with him every few minutes. My suggestion is that they
should have the technology for talking inside the water. However, a lack of this
technology still keeps the Thai Seal possessing a strong organizational culture. 

They were assertive in dealing with the volunteer rescuers, and governors: as we have
seen the Navy Seal leader presented their capabilities in front of the governor in the
meeting before the second attempt. The navy seal leader always believed in the skills of
his soldiers. He also worked well with volunteer rescuers while in the rescue operation,
in the later part of the movie.
Please see Exhibit 2: Schein’s model in the Appendices section.

3. Decision
The governor of the province took almost the entire part in the decision-making process
of the cave rescue operation. Overall, the incident was unexpected to the community,
the governor, and the navy seal team. So, saving the people from the cave involved
risks as it was an unstructured problem. Hence, the governor depended on his intuition
to make most of his decisions. As the volunteer cave rescuer, were informed about their
expertise in deep cave diving, the governor realized their skills eventually. His decisions
were impacted by the intuition of his career, and collaboration with navy seals and
rescue team members. As a minister asked him to solve the issue urgently, he most
likely turned more cautious about each action he was taking. The decision to divert the
water from the top of the mountain to the farmers’ field was taken by collaborating with
the farmers first. He also asked the doctors about the pros and cons of anesthetizing
the boys before permitting them to do so. Both of these decisions were non-
programmed decisions taken intuitively.

Now we will analyze the given questions according to Vroom and Yetton's decision-
making model.
 7

Overview of the model:

 This model helps to identify the best decision-making approach. 
 Leadership style and the current situation is to be considered to analyze this
model.
 This model supports individual as well as collective decision making
 The model is a flow chart that determines the most effective means of reaching a
decision
 Governor has to make the best decisions to save the boys and also minimize any
kind of casualties to the boys or even the divers. And also do not harm the
welfare of the farmers' life by diverting the water to their farm
 Speed and accuracy were required in the situation 
 Times were short as the cave was flooding, the structure of the cave was well
known to the cave divers and they were skilled in such operations. Navy seal did
not do such operations before. The doctor's decision to sedate the boys was also
given proper thought
 The welfare of everyone involved in the incident to save the boys was taken into
consideration

Types of leadership in the model :

 Autocratic A1: Taking a decision that the governor already has without requiring
further input from your team
 Autocratic A2:Governor consult the team to obtain specific information that he
needs and then take the final decision
 Consultative C1: Governor asks people involved in the operation individually, but
doesn’t bring the group together for a discussion, and takes the final decision
 Consultative C2: Meet the group in a team meeting and seek their suggestions,
but the governor still makes the final decision
 Collaborative G2: Team members take the decision; the governor not involved

From the movie we see that to decide whom to send to the cave, the governor was a C2
leader; to decide to divert the water into the farmers’ field, the governor consulted the
 8

water guy who proposed so – so this was C1 style; then he asked to get final
permission from the farmers so it was a G2 style. Finally, to anesthetize the boys the
governor analyzed the pros and cons with volunteer rescuers and doctors and permitted
them to do so it was C2 style again.

Now, please look at Exhibit 3 for the Vroom model flow chart in the appendices section.

From Exhibit 3 and its flowchart, it is confirmed that Governor was a very good decision
maker and his decisions in both situations were in alignment with Vroom and Yetton
model.

4. Problem Solving

As the movie involves a large volume of problem-solving. it was critical for the people on
the ground to be good at it. But we know that people tend to jump to a solution for a
problem, rather than analyze the problem efficiently first. To cope with this issue Kolb’s
model was invented. It is a method of solving problems methodically. (Osland J., Kolb
A. Rubin I., Turner M., pg. 294).
Kolb’s model has four stages:  
1. Situation Analysis
2. Problem Analysis
3. Solution Analysis
4. Implementation Analysis
Please see the visual representation of the model in Exhibit 4 of the appendices
section.
Now, we will discuss how the rescue cave divers, the Thai Marines, the “Water Guy “
and his team solved the problem of getting the boys out of the cave, using this model :
1. Situation Analysis: 
The cave divers were most efficient in this stage of problem-solving. For the cave
divers, diving deep cave was more of a structured problem (diving in a deep cave and
rescuing boys), so they did not have the risks of self casualties, and could reach the
 9

boys with fewer difficulties. They knew the problem in depth, and the boys could be
saved only by swimming them out of the cave, sedated. They did not focus on issues
such as pumping out the water of the cave, which would have minimal impact on saving
the thirteen lives. They knew the pros and cons of sedating the boys and swimming
them out of the cave. They also had to convince the governor about their competencies.
They prioritized sedating eventually because the situation suggested the risk of boys
dying in the water is more, un-sedated.

The Thai marines were facing a problem (diving in a deep cave and rescuing boys) that
was more unstructured for them because they hardly had any experience in deep cave
diving which was very different than sea or ocean diving, in which navy seals are
usually trained upon. In the beginning, they were more overconfident in their immediate
and analyzed the situation minimally. They did not focus much on the possibilities of
incidents that might happen during and after the rescue and directly went on solving the
problem.

The” Water guy “being an Engineer, followed a theoretical approach to solving the
problem. He considered the problem as structural and proposed diverting the water
from the hill to the farmer’s field, to stop the cave from being overflowed with water,
nevertheless, this had minimal impact on saving the boys. He did not prioritize other
actions in his plan such as sending divers; and thought his actions of doing the water
diversion will rescue the boys.

2. Problem Analysis
The cave rescuers knew the causes of the problem, they knew how difficult it was to
swim in a cave, which is complexly structured. As they were experts in such tasks, they
quickly learned the map of the cave and followed the proper method to dive into the
cave. They also realized that it would be difficult for the boys to swim through the
intense dark waters.
The Thai navy was taking initiative, however, they could not make a perfect analysis of
the issue; and thought a linear approach of diving and swimming the boys out will
 10

eventually work. , but soon they knew due to their lack of knowledge of swimming in the
cave; their solo operation without the guidance of the cave divers will possess harm the
boys.
The “water guy “mentioned that water flowing from the hill into the cave is the main
problem. Although this could be true, pinpointing this issue only was not going to save
lives. It was a monsoon season, with high rain, and diverting the water would be a time
constraint to save lives. Maybe it added a little time for the other rescuers to be in
action.

3. Solution Analysis
The cave rescuers were effective in identifying the best solutions. They analyzed the
cave and the boy’s situation by approaching them and studying the cave; then they
analyzed the feasibility of saving the boys by swimming out, sedated.

At this stage, the Thai divers identify the solution straightforwardly: swim the boys out,
but they did not consider: Whether will the boys survive the long swim through the cave.
Will they be able to maneuver through the narrow passage of the cave? Finally, though
they teamed up with the volunteer cave rescuer to save the boys. Together they worked
on a feasible solution.

The “water guy “was very poor in I situation analysis. He did have the best solution at
all; driving out the water in a different direction won’t be timely, and the boys would be
left in for several days inside the cave, with fatal consequences. So, his solution was not
feasible.

4. Implementation Analysis
Please look at the pay-off matrix in Exhibit 5. From the matrix, the fourth quadrant was
what was done in the movie and its results were fantastic – all the boys’ lives were
saved. So, the cave rescuers' plan was implemented successfully, and the navy seals
also helped them. Matrix quadrant = (high pay-off, hard to implement).
 11

The water guy implemented the matrix quadrant = (high-payoff, comparatively easy to
implement), which was not an effective execution because it was not realistic to draw a
huge amount of water flow in the limited time available to the boys.

Finally, a table in Exhibit 6 shows the ranking of each rescuer following Kolb’s model.
We see the rescuer team had a high ranking in following Kolb’s model.
5. Teams 
In a team, each member needs to portray the behavior in alignment with the group’s
goals. The way each member of the volunteer team portrayed such behavior is outlined
below ( Osland J., Kolb A. Rubin I., Turner M., pg. 260) as asked in case question five :

1. Initiation 
John was the best initiator of action and took the next steps among all the members of
this group: John, Rick, Harry, Jason, and Chris. Chris also took initiative to wherever
required to assist in the rescue. Rick was a bit arrogant in any situation and pessimistic
in proceeding with the rescue. Jason also took initiative wherever required. The doctor
took initiation to anesthetize after some push from John and Rick, but he flew to
Thailand upon getting the call from John and Rick.

2. Seeking information or opinions

All of them discussed information and shared opinions about the cave condition,
sedation, food for boys, etc. They were also in connection with the other teams such as
the navy and the main decision maker – the governor. They always kept their eyes open
about the all other people working on this project.

3. Giving information or opinions

This group shared the required information with the team and also the navy team. Rick
gave information about the difficulties of diving through the narrow passage to the navy
seals and also to the governor. They also shared opinions about the risks and benefits
of driving out the boys in an unconscious state.
 12

4. Clarifying & elaborating 

The teams clarified why another method such as diverting the water and sending the
seals is not as effective as they seem. They mentioned to each other and the seals and
governor that diving into the cave require different skill set. They also clarified that
driving the boys out in an awake state poses more risk than in a sleep state. As they
clarified with each other and other involved people, their plan eventually turned into
success.
5. Summarizing
We have seen in the movie the group was reflecting on where their rescue operations is
heading, and that’s why they worked step by step: dived in and gained experience and
consoled the boys, sent them food, worked with the governor, and decided on the
situation that sedation is necessary to dive out the boys. All those were possible
because they took the time to summarize the situation every day and take the next best
steps. They could have just dived with some oxygen cylinders and swam the boys out,
which would have had abnormal casualties, but smartly they did not do it.

6. Consensus testing
All members, especially John added good work tension into the team; and kept the
team motivated.

7. Reality testing
While other teams were rushing to save the boys or thinking about waiting till the
monsoon season ends, this volunteer team knew neither of these plans is realistic.
Actions such as pumping out the water and sending seals who never trained in the cave
were criticized by Rick, and finally implemented a realistic plan which resulted in saving
the thirteen boys.

8. Orientation
There was a tendency in the group not to call doctors and take the chance of swimming
out the boys with medicine. Nevertheless, after proper orientation, they took the chance
to call the doctor into their team and executed the mission successfully.
 13

Overall, the volunteer rescue team was very committed to their decisions and handled
this large task well. 
Rick was straightforward in many ways, such as criticizing the things we mentioned
above. Without him criticizing the unnecessary actions, the task may have failed. He
proved himself a team player, and thus an asset, throughout this mission of saving the
thirteen lives.

6. Leadership
Leaders are the ones who direct, gain commitments and motivate and influence a group
to complete an objective.

First, we will compare the behavior styles of leadership for the governor and the coach.
Please look at Exhibit 7, explanation included.

From the explanation in Exhibit 7, we see that the coach portrayed more human
relations behavior traits; whereas the governor was slightly leaning toward democratic
behavior traits.

Now, we will explain the leadership based on this particular situation using Fiedler’s
Contingency model. This model is also appropriate to the incidents in the movie. 
Both the governor and coach had to be relationship-oriented because their decisions
would affect the boys' lives and also their image in the village ( that’s what they were
thinking .) The task was more for the governor and it was moderate for him compared to
the coach because his wise decision could technically save the boys; the coach on the
other hand was in an unfavorable situation – stuck in the cave. Both of them had good
relations with their subordinates. Governor had a more structured problem to be solved
that could lead to the success of the rescue operations; whereas the coach did not have
much to do! Both of them were strong leaders.
 14

Conclusion: Based on theories and exhibits, all the answers to the case questions
have been computed. The finding is very interesting, as we see how the concepts relate
so closely to an incident that happened. It was a fascinating analysis indeed!

Appendices:

Exhibit 1: Thomas’s Five Conflict Handling modes

The reason for their conflict can be described by the concept of distributive and
integrated bargain. Distributive bargaining is the classic win-lose approach; and
integrated bargain is the win-win approach ; details shown in Exhibit 1.

Exhibit 2: The Schein’s model

Schein’s model Thai Navy Seals connection to the model

 Artifacts that are visible or tangible In the movie: we see that Thai Seals
 15

(e.g., organizational stories, performing religious rituals in temple.

buildings, rituals and ceremonies, They prayed to the Shrine with devotion,
stories, language): as because it is a great part of their
culture.

They also showed Thai cultural way of

bowing to others accordingly.

They spoke Thai Language, which was a

convenience to communicate with the
victims.

Their Uniform itself portray unity ,

actions , presence of saviours

 Espoused values, such as They are ready to receive orders from

strategies, goals, and philosophies their superiors and follow them with
(e.g., the company mission) discipline.

They like to follow plans , learned the

map of the cave , and took advise from
the volunteer cave rescuers.

They are confident in the ability as all

military personnel must have , as they
were never scared and dived in based on
their sole skill of diving in the open water.
This courage was necessary at all times

They want to save the people of their own

 16

country , which shows a commitment to

the goodness of the Thai nation

They worked well with the volunteer cave

rescuers

 Assumptions, which are At the beginning, the leader and some

unconscious, taken-for-granted other members of the Navy Seal team
beliefs, perceptions, thoughts, and thought the volunteer cave rescuers can
feelings (e.g., it's more important not complete the task ; and they are
to save face than correct a better than them ; because they went
problem) through formal navy seal training .

They thought that they can rescue the

victims; but reality was different which
they realized later : as the cave has a
complex structure and its incredibly
difficult to dive in there when it flooded

They thought that risking the life of

foreign volunteers in the cave is not a
good action

They were arrogant in approaching the

task ; which is actually good to face
difficult task like this

Exhibit 3: Vroom and Yetton Model

 17

Questi 1.Is the 2.Do I 3.Is the 4.Is 5.If I were 6.Do 7.Is
ons outcome have problem acceptance to make subordina conflict
critical?  sufficien structured?  of the the tes share among
Are there t Are the decision by decision the subordin
technical informat alternative subordinat by organizati ates
or ion to courses of es critical myself, is onal goals likely in
rational make a action and to its it to be obtaining
grounds quality methods implement reasonabl obtained the
for decision for their ation y certain in solving preferred
selecting evaluation that it this solution?
amongst known? would be problem?
options?  accepted
Is there a by
quality subordina
requirem tes?
ent?

Divert YES NO NO YES NO YES YES

Water
SEDA YES NO NO NO NO YES YES
TE
boys

The answers to the above questions to be followed to interpret the flowchart below:
 18

If we follow the answers to the questions, we see that it is G2 leadership style for
diverting the water and C2 sedating the boys.

Exhibit 4: Kolb’s Model for Problem Solving

 19

Exhibit 5: Pay-off matrix

MATRIX Easy to implement Hard to implement

Low pay-off (very high chance boys of (do not sedate the boys and
casualties for the boys, wait probably they may lose life while
for the rain to stop) being drawn out , cave rescuers and
seal team does this job through the
dark cave )
High pay-off (boys lives saved, water (boys drawn out of cave sedated,
diverted which is relatively cave rescuers and seal team does
easy compared to swimming this job through the dark cave with
the boys out of cave but not proper plan )
realistic in the siutaation)

Exhibit 6 : How well each type of rescuers followed the Kolb’s model ? Ranking 1 the
best and 3 the worst

Analysis Volunteer rescuer Navy Seal Water guy

Situation 1 1 1
Problem 1 3 2
Solution 2 2 3
Implementation 1 3 3
Overall ranking 5 9 9
score

Exhibit 7 : Theoretical representation of the behavior of the leaders : governor and

coach

Governor Coach
Consideration Governor also portrayed Coach portrayed high
high consideration for the consideration because we
 20

rescuers as well as for the see he was empathising

boys. He gave careful with the boys helping them
thought on making sure to calm with meditation;
the divers are safe as well also volunteered to dive
as the boys. out the last because he
was very careful about the
boys’ wellbeing.
Structure Governor calculated the Coach followed a
process of whom to send moderate structure; by
to the cave ; and the assigning task such as
uncertainties associated mediation which was more
with getting the boys out spiritual task; and he did
with sedation ; or even not have any means of
waiting for the rain to stop ; following a methodical way
or neglecting the rescuers to get out of the cave
and depending on the seal
team. He also gave some
thought to the water
guy .So he calculated his
move.

References :

Osland, J., Kolb, D. A., & Rubin, I. M. (2001). Organizational behavior: An experimental
approach. Prentice Hall.
21