Mt. Everest Case Study Review
Jackie Cheng, J.P. McIntosh, Josephine Richardson, Stephen Winfree
Harding University

Abstract

The 1996 Mont Everest tragedy, no doubt-ably, has marked terror in the lives of the survivors and climbers alike. The analyses do a fantastic job of sifting through the different situations that the climbers came across on the mountain and the possible reasons for the outcomes of each situation. In retrospect, effective and ineffective leadership skills are displayed in various situations, prudent verses imprudent decisions are targeted, the trust and faith in each climber, and in oneself, is identified and the planning and timing of the hike is examined. Overall, each situation has been analyzed from different angles and suggested decisions have been implemented to help the reader in collecting a better understanding of why this climb ended up becoming so disastrous.

Introduction

The journey to Mount Everest was a tragedy and a sorrowful one at that. A journey that was expectant on great victory turned to a grave catastrophe. A reflection of what happened nearly two decades ago reveals likely flaws taken at the time. Rob Hall and Scott Fischer were the leaders of two of the largest commercial expeditions on Everest in the spring of 1996. In the years leading up to the expedition, the climbing seasons had been tame and had drawn much less experienced climbers to teams of Fischer and Halls’. Although both leaders were highly qualified, it would seem the room for error was slim, so much so that errors made may have cost the loss of life. In retrospect, could any of the decisions made have altered the final outcome. Analyzing the study from the points of leadership, communication, trust, motivation, timing, planning, and prudence, much can be gathered from events that transpired and their ultimate effects.
Leadership and Communication: Overview
Hall, the founder of Adventure Consultants, had climbed Mount Everest four times and had led 39 clients to the summit in six years by the end of 1994. He advertised “100% success” in 1995, yet failed to guide any client to the summit (Roberto & Carioggia, 2003). Scott Fischer was the leader of the Mountain Madness, ambitious and charismatic, Scott was the type of person who had a desire for recognition. Though both leaders occupied positional leadership roles, they lacked, however, strategic planning skills, teamwork, and effective communication.
Inefficient Leadership Skills
Strategic planning is one of the essential tools that a leader can use to establish his or her organization. According to Mittenthal, strategic planning is a “tool” that assists a leader in reaching a goal with maximum efficiency and impact. In order for a leader’s plan to be effective and useful, Mittenthal says the plan has to outline specific goals and steps, and provide the necessary resources to accomplish them (Mittenthal, 2002). The Mount Everest team leaders, Hall and Fischer, lacked such in their planning of the expedition. They did not have specific rules in place for their clients. An example presented in the case study was where there was no exact time for the climbers to turn back on summit day. The leaders only stated that if clients had not summited by 1:00 p.m. or 2:00 p.m., they must turn back. Since the leaders failed to set an exact time and goals, the team members who were very close to reaching the summit ignored the possible dangers of not turning back before midday.
Another scenario that depicted a failure in planning and inefficient leadership was when the teams had to stop and affix a rope to a mountaintop. Not only was this process time wasting; but also, it raises questions such as: what if they had no emergency rope to help them get to the mountaintop? And what if the rope was not affixed safely enough? The time that was wasted and inconveniences during the summit climb could have been avoided if Hall and Fischer had planned ahead of time.
Lastly, Hall and Fischer failed to acknowledge the inexperience and appalling physical condition of some of the team members, the majority of which had little climbing experience. A client of Fischer’s team had a history of becoming sick at high altitudes and most all lacked high-altitude experience (Roberto & Carioggia, 2003). Nonetheless, these issues were overlooked and the clients were allowed join the climbing expedition.
Lack of Communication and Team Work According to Youngs & Malmborg, “effective teamwork does not come easily; it requires coordination, cooperation and communication on the part of all involved” (Youngs & Malmborg, 1991 para. 1). Both Mount Everest teams failed in regard to teamwork and communication. There was no ice-breaking forum between team members, and it seems the team leaders made no efforts in establishing an “open ground” for effective communication. When individual desires are laid aside and everyone comes together as a team, the diversity in skill-sets within a team can often resolve many problems efficiently. It seems there was absence of camaraderie throughout the endeavor. Several of the climbers noted the limited trust there was among the group and wondered if they would be able to rely on their teammates in critical times. Others were concerned about the language barriers existing in the group, which might have played a major role in the lack of what trust was built (Roberto & Carioggia, 2003, p5). It appears that the teams, as individuals and as a whole, made little conscience effort of getting to know each other and building trust though. Great teamwork also requires keeping close contact with one another. In such a case of climbing Mount Everest, the only means of accomplishing this is communicating via radios. Unfortunately, radios were not available to everyone; in fact, not even some of the guides had such access. This seemed to cultivate insecurity and self-centeredness in those who did not have such access. Teamwork can be greatly enhanced merely through sound communication and a team-centered mindset.
The expedition on Mount Everest could have been much less tragic if Hall and Fischer had implemented a more specific plan and stuck to it. They could have outlined more so the risk and consequences involved in not observing the plan and rules that follow. Also, qualification measures should have been put in place in reference to those who could join in the expedition. For instance, they should have had all climbers undergo a mandatory physical exam and non-admission if inexperienced. Furthermore, the team leaders could have invested more into the tools and equipment –radios and oxygen- used on the trip especially with a price tag of $65,000 and lives in the balance.

Prudence
Prudence versus Imprudence
Prudence is “the quality or fact of being prudent” (Dictionary.com, 2013), meaning it, “is wise or judicious in practical affairs; sagacious; discreet or circumspect; sober” (Dictionary.com, 2013). In the case of the study we come across several different instances where we see prudence taking place in the form of wisdom, responsibility, foresight, and common sense. On the other hand, we also see bad judgments made as well, such as ignorance, neglect, denial, and willfulness. Altogether these describe what is known as imprudence, defined as “not prudent; lacking discretion; incautious; rash” (Dictionary.com, 2013). Therefore, it is interesting to note the various situations the hikers were faced with, and in addition analyzing what could have been handled differently in respect to decent judgment.
Wisdom & Ignorance
First element of prudence and imprudence is wisdom/ignorance. In the case of Hall, it would be fair consider him a wise guide, based on his vast climbing knowledge prior leading the Everest excursion. Hall knew the reality of possible dangers when hiking, and what actions were needed when faced with certain events. A prime example of Hall’s wisdom is his creation of a turnaround time. This was implemented so that if climbers had not reached the peak by this time, they would return to camp in effort to avoid ascending in hours of darkness. Such preparation is a wise tool to implement in situations such as climbing Mount Everest (Nearfieldcommunicationtags.com, 2013). Though the turnaround time was implemented, the hikers were ignorant in their preparations by not setting an exact turnaround time and abiding by such. With Doug Hansen, Hall displays ignorance when he allows Hansen to continue hiking past the turnaround time, ultimately placing them both at the top of the mountain at 4:00 PM, much later than scheduled and which ultimately lead to Hall’s death.
Responsibility & Neglect

Secondly, another element of prudence is that of Responsibility and Neglect. Fischer does a good job in managing the lives of his clients. He seemed to feel a sense of responsibility to get his climbers up the mountain and down in one piece. In the situation where Fischer leaves his clients in order to take his friend, Dale Kruse, down the mountain because he was sick, can be looked at in two lights. In Fischer’s mind, he felt a sense of responsibility to his friend that they needed to stick together. This might have driven him to feel like it was his responsibility to take his friend down to base camp safely (White Mountain National Forest, n.d.). Such is a responsible decision to his friend, but to himself and the other clients, he seemed to display neglect for the bigger picture. Ultimately he neglected his clients by leaving them and wearing himself out to the point of being sick. His client’s lives relied on his health, and by straining himself; he jeopardized his client’s lives since they needed him healthy in order to make it through the Everest climb.

Foresight & Denial

Foresight and Denial follows as the third elements of prudence and imprudence. As stated previously, in a passage above, prudence simply means how we live matters and Imprudence simply means it doesn’t matter how we live (Kolp & Rea, 2005). When I analyze Hall I find that he tends to live by rules that he feels are necessary for his hiking success, but as the hike plays out we are able to gather that these rules are Halls ultimate weakness. Before departure Hall expressed to everyone that his word was ultimate law and that there was no room for debate (Roberto & Carioggia, 2003). Ultimately, Hall was planning ahead and realizes that while they are on the mountain they need to be able to think fast. Especially in dangerous situations it is good to listen first and ask questions later. Hall states his laws, but does not prepare his clients for their own laws. This is something that should have been most implemented throughout the climb, because he cannot hold everyone’s hand while on the mountain (Climbers, 2013). During acclimation Krakauer approaches Hall and expresses some concerns that he has about reaching the summit, but Hall displays denial in what Krakauer has to say. In fact, Hall boasts about his thirty-nine previous successes to the summit. Hall is in denial that someone else might know better than him. Hall is lacking the ability to listen to other ideas. Like a double edge sword, his rules allowed for prudent structure in his climb, but ultimately led to imprudent decisions, which did not allow necessary/helpful input.

Common Sense & Willfulness

Last, but not least, the forth elements of imprudence and prudence are Common Sense and Willfulness. Kropp, a man who decided to do a solo hike on Mount Everest, displays what it means to have common sense through action. On May 6th, during the expeditions the two teams encountered Goran Kropp, who was on his way down the mountain because he had realized that his health was deteriorating. Hall expressed that this was a smart decision and an admirable thing for Kropp to do. Hall could recognize common sense, but his willfulness attitude blinded him from being able to make such a decision (O’Neal, S., 2012). When it came time to suggest to Hansen that he should turnaround due to his health concerns and ascending in darkness, Hall allows for him to continue due to his promise to Hansen. Hall felt a sense of obligation to reclaim his great name. In this case Hall was self-motivated to get Hansen to the top in order to redeem his past failures (Climbers, 2013).

Trust
Trust in the Tragedy Ever since the tragedy of Mount Everest in 1996, many people have analyzed the possible reasons to which caused this terrible climbing disaster. Many errant human decisions were made in combination with the extreme natural challenges on Mount Everest presents, leading to the tragic failure to Hall and Fischer's climbing expeditions. A lack of team trust seemed to be one of the major reasons for the failure.
Importance of Trust
According to Kurt Dicks (2000), many evidences show that trust in leadership is critical to team effectiveness, and that trust is the basic principle in laying the foundation necessary for successful teamwork. The reason that this must be the case is because all decisions are of great importance to the team, and hence must be embraced by those in the team for success. In another words, a highly effective team is one bound by a strong relationship of trust between one another. Therefore, did Hall and Fischer's teams have a strong faith of trust between each team member and team leader? In reconsideration, quite in the opposite is inferred.
Trust in the Study Many of the clients had doubts in Hall and Fischer's leadership abilities as the climbing trip went on. In fact, there was such vulnerable trust between the clients and expedition leaders, that when dangerous situations came, they felt insecure and hopeless. Jon Krakauer (one of Hall’s 1996 Mount Everest clients) said after having survived the trek: “In this godforsaken place, I felt disconnected from the climbers around me... We were a team in name only, I'd sadly come to realize. Although in a few hours we would leave camp as a group, we would ascend as individuals, linked to one another by neither rope nor any deep sense of loyalty.” (Roberto, & Carioggia, 2003, p. 8).
Krakauer was not the only one of the expedition members who had reservations; several other climbers were also concerned in whether or not they could rely on their team members in difficult situations, such as Anatoli Boukreev (guide of Fischer's Mount Everest climbing team in 1996). He too noted difficulty in developing relationships with the other climbers and the absence of camaraderie (Roberto, & Carioggia, 2003). Unfortunately, as is many times the case, one climber's actions could affect the welfare of the entire team. As well noted the distrust and lack of team was made aware from the beginning, it seemed to foreshadow that tragic events along the way might only be inevitable. Tragically, the unimaginable did become a reality, as five climbers eventually paid the ultimate penalty, death on Everest.
Conclusion on Trust
It is easy to see the great role that a strong trusting relationship holds in a team and its negative impact on a whole team when trust is lacking. Although there is no 100% guarantee of success for a team with excellent faith in each another, a lack of faith throughout a team can certainly compromise a team, regardless of how each member might be exceptionally qualified, experienced, or any of a number of other positive characteristics, as the 1996 Mount Everest tragedy proves.
Motivation
There are many reasons that led to the substantial loss in 1996 Mount Everest climbing teams. As mentioned previously, one such reason being a lack of trust. However, the various motivations among climbers and leaders also raise many questions.
Importance and Definition
For starters, we should first understand the relationship between motivation and its influences on a team's performance. According to Tonya Peterson: motivation can encourage and stimulate individuals or project teams to achieve great accomplishments. Motivation can also create an environment that fosters teamwork towards reaching common goals. Additionally, the different levels of motivation each individual carries, can affect all aspects of project results, both positively and negatively (Peterson, 2007). This is to say, the correct motivation within a team is much more likely to bring out a positive outcome in the end, while other motivations may not, i.e. selfish, self-benefited motivations or unethical motivations. This especially holds true for team leaders, who are supposed to understand the reasons behind motivation in order to achieve success through the creation and maintenance of a motivating environment for all involved.
Climbers’ Motivation
In terms of the 1996 Mount Everest case, what were their motivations for climbing Mt. Everest? Certainly, one motivation is that of each climber's self-fulfillment. Every challenger who has never summited Everest before has an inner drive to do so. In conquering the highest mountain in the world, one receives notoriety, proves the great power and persistence of human strength, and additionally experiences the shear excitement of the achievement. However, how many other motivations were there aside from these? Will a member compromise his or her goals when their self-motivation is in conflict with others... most likely not. Meanwhile, from the aspect of the team leaders, who had successfully summited Everest before, what were their motivations in leading other climbers to the summit, were their motivations justifiable, and should they have felt confident in leading others to the summit of Everest?
Fischer’s Motivation As mentioned in the case study, besides guiding his climbers to fulfill other climbers' dreams, Fischer's larger motivations were the profits and most importantly fame that came in doing so. In spite of Fischer’s leadership prowess and vast experience in extreme mountain climbing, it still seems questionable some of the clients he allowed on his climb. It seems Fischer, in order to make more lucrative commercial benefits, accepted poorly qualified clients to join his team. In some cases he convinced individuals to join his team by offering price discounts, among other things. Additionally, he attempted to fame his name and rapidly grow his company’s reputation through guiding less experienced climbers, such as journalist Sandy Pittman (Roberto, & Carioggia, 2003). All of which seem to be questionable motivations in leading his team to climb Mount Everest in 1996.
Conclusion on Motivation Therefore, in order for teams to perform well, trust is important in building strong relationships between team members. Also, the correct motivations of team leaders and team members alike play a pivotal role in group success or failure. There is no guarantee in avoiding failure with the right motivations, yet with the correct motivations, there is definitely a higher chance to achieve team objectives successfully. In reference to the 1996 Mount Everest case study, if Fischer had more honorable motivations in leading his team and planned more cautiously, deaths on Everest might have been avoided including his own.
Planning and Timing With such an expedition as in case study, a great amount of effort was put into planning and timing, and yet in retrospect, was it enough? If there had been more or better effort in planning, could the tragic events that occurred in the spring of 1996 been avoided? Or, was the misfortune that took place merely an act of mother nature imposing her will in such a way that no decision, one-way-or-another, would’ve altered what ensued?
The Trip
Timing
I think that few would argue the timing in the year of the trip. It seemed for the most part, universally evident to both teams, that such timing in which the trip took place would be most sensible, due to the “strong jet stream in April and the monsoon season later in the spring” (Roberto & Carioggia, 2003, p. 7). Additionally, both teams had to plan appropriate time for clients to acclimate to the scarcity of oxygen at high altitudes. This is especially noteworthy considering the majority of the clients had either, no or very limited, high altitude climbing experience. It would appear that at least the scheduling of acclimatization in the beginning was timely.
Planning
While both teams, Mountain Madness and Adventure Consultants had successfully guided clients to the top of Everest before, it seemed that there were numerous oversights by the leaders of both parties. For instance, Pete Schoening had breathing difficulties, requiring the use of bottled oxygen, which Fischer had not contemplated for. Additionally, there were many unexpected issues which arose for Fischer’s, Mountain Madness, such as: a delayed delivery of oxygen, an issue with a charter flight containing a high altitude tent, an unforeseen issue with Nepali porters demanding higher wages, and inclement weather which slowed the progress of yaks carrying supplies to Base Camp. All of these concerns Fischer had to deal with in order for the trip to be successful, yet putting a visual image together of Scott Fischer… confident, cocky, ambitious... it seems that Scott Fischer could also have been labeled a micromanager. In some ways it might have come with the territory of being a leader on such an expedition, yet the strain of resolving the many matters that arose, personally, took a toll on Fischer. One of Scott’s guides, Anatoli Boukreev, noted midway through the expedition “Scott appeared tired… it was my impression that he was worn out from the logistical problems with which he had been dealing” (Roberto & Carioggia, 2003, p. 7). Might have delegating some of the upfront issues that arose to Sherpa’s and guides, have lessened the burden on him and in the end, saved his own life?
The Ascent
Timing
Even with all of the setbacks and issues, both expeditions completed their acclimatization process and returned to Base Camp in late April, a week before the final ascent (Roberto & Carioggia, 2003, p. 7). In their bid to the summit of Everest, it seems that there was little note taken of the weather conditions, specifically the weather which might be approaching. Additionally, there were many instances discussed to which the health of the clients and guides alike, was in question. And yet, no one brought such issues to the surface and took into account that it might be better to wait a little longer, before preceding to the worlds’ summit. Lastly, it seems that although it was very evident that there were numerous other expeditions attempting to summit at a similar time, there might be some delays accordingly which might factor in to Hall’s “2-O’clock turnaround” time.
Planning
In regard to planning in the summit bid, many things seemed simply assumed. The study mentions that Hall and Fischer had planned to send several Sherpa’s to affix ropes on the path to the summit, but decided it was unnecessary in hearing that another group had already done so (Roberto & Carioggia, 2003, p. 11). Such gives the impression that Hall and Fischer were inexperienced managers, failing to, in the often-used maxim of Ronald Reagan, “Trust but verify” (Watson, 2011). There doesn’t seem to be any logical reason why Hall and Fischer did not have the Sherpas move ahead to confirm that the ropes had been laid and properly so. Additionally, little can be reasoned by the lack of radios, not to mention obsolete, on an expedition with a ballpark price tag of $65,000.
The Descent
Timing
Throughout the expedition, much emphasis had been put on Hall’s strict “2-o’clock” rule. Yet when 2-o’clock came summit day, Hall seemed to make no mention of it. It would look like that Hall had become more concerned with successfully leading his friend/client Doug Hansen to the summit, after failing to do so the year before, than leading his team safely.
Planning
As mentioned previously, it seemed that on summit day relationships in the teams, or lack thereof, of became supremely evident as teams separated for various reasons. Many separated for health reasons, and began climbing independently of the team, leaving Fischer’s placement of radios of little use. With the delays that occurred that day, “many clients opted to collect their third canister of oxygen from the South Summit on the way to the top, contrary to earlier plans” (Roberto & Carioggia, 2003, p. 12). It is hard to understand why additional oxygen had not been accounted for. Quality plans would have appropriated for some unaccounted instances such as this. In the end, it seems that little, if any, planning was given to the idea of anything but “the plan” transpiring. Quite simply in retrospect, there seemed to be no Plan B.

Conclusion In review of the many events that occurred on Everest in May of 1996, many ill-advised decisions and plans were made which eventually led to the dire events that took place. It is hard to say that if there had been better leadership or enhanced communication throughout such events would still not have occurred. It is also difficult to say that in such times and places, that we ourselves would not make similar choices. In the end, it is most critically important to understand one has to be wise in the decisions that he or she makes, and additionally understand the importance of such decisions in respect to one’s self and likewise those around. With all of that said, it is interesting to note that both organizations Adventure Consultants and Mountain Madness still exist, both of which still have guided expeditions on Mount Everest. Even with the founders of both companies passing, it speaks of the perseverance and continual progressivism that organizations must have in due course. Even with such failures in the past, both organizations have matured and learned from prior faults, as tragic as they may be, and were both included in “The Best Adventure Travel Companies on Earth” by National Geographic Adventure Magazine in 2009. (National Geographic, 2009)

References
Climbers. (2013) Seven survival rules. Retrieved from http://www.mounteverest.net/expguide/survivalrules.htm
Dirks, K. (2000). Trust in Leadership and Team Performance: Evidence from NCAA Basketball. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 1004-1012.
Kolp, A., & Rea, P. (2005). Leading with integrity (1st ed.). Mason, OH: Atomic Dog.
O’Neal, S. (2012). The Sportsman’s Guide. Hiking Basics: Safety and Common Sense. Retrieved from:http://www.sportsmansguide.com/Outdoors/Subject/SubjectRead.aspx?sid=26&aid=143882&type=T
Mittenthal, R. Ten Keys to Successful Strategic Planning for Nonprofit and Foundation Leaders (2002). http://www.tccgrp.com/pdfs/per_brief_tenkeys.pdf
National Geographic. (2009) The Aventure Ratings: The World's First Authoritative Rating of Adventure Tour Operators http://adventure.nationalgeographic.com/adventure/searchoutfitter
Nearfieldcommuicationtags.com. (2013). Hiking safety: everything you need to know to stay safe on trails. Retrieved from http://www.nearfieldcommunicationtags.com/hiking-safety.html
Peterson, T. (2007). Motivation: How to Increase Project Team Performance. Kohl's Corporation. Project Management Journal. Vol. 38, No. 4, 60-69.
Prudence. (2013). Dictionary.com Unabridged. Retrieved from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/prudence
Roberto, M. A., & Carioggia, G. M. (2003). Mount Everest-1996. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing.
Watson, W.D. (2011). Trust, but Verify: Reagan, Gorbachev, and the INF
Treaty. The Hilltop Review, 5(1), 22-39.
White Mountain National forest. (n.d.). Hiker responsibility code. Retrieved from http://hikesafe.com/index.php?page=hiker-responsibility-code
Wisdom. (2013). Dictionary.com Unabridged. Retrieved from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/wisdom
Youngs, A. & Malmborg, E. Teamwork: An Innovative Approach. May 1991 http://textfiles.com/law/teamworkp06.law