1
1

Mount Everest-1996

2
2
Executive Summary
Background The case study describes a team ascending Mount Everest led by Scott Fischer and Rob Hall. The primary concept behind the case study is to distinguish qualities in the team’s plan, action, and most importantly leadership. The clients and the leaders in the report show lack of readiness to ascend the mountain. Fischer along with Hall led many people to their deaths because of bad leadership skills. The report outlines how the two leaders failed to communicate with their team. The expedition team needed a better action plan with clear and concise steps to follow in order to keep everyone alive. The breakdown and analysis of the case is reported here.
Results Scott Fischer and Rob Hall were not prepared to be leaders. Their skills were lacking and they were only doing things for themselves. Fischer and Hall were clearly acting in the pre-conventional stage of development. They did not value any objections to ideas or procedures. The two leaders acted in a high power distance setting, neither were comfortable allowing inexperienced individuals have a voice. They failed to keep in mind they were running a business. Their actions were the primary reason many climbers lost their lives. The report outlines the communication errors and expresses potential solutions that could have saved lives.
Conclusion Communication is a primary factor in the business environment. Leaders need to communicate their business plans to everyone affected by them. They also need to consider that people have different skillsets and ways of thinking. This diversity can bring new innovation to a business. Fischer and Hall needed to talk with their team and be more assertive leaders. Every member should have the same goal in mind. Unfortunately, Fischer and Hall were bad leaders with blind followers. This is another ethical dilemma the case study outlines. Should we just accept what an authority figure tells us? Looking at the facts from the case study, many lives could have been saved if one person spoke their opinions.

3
3
Identifying the Problem
The main issue in this case study was that Scott Fischer and Rob Hall lacked communication. An effective leader needs to be able to accept criticism and face problems with an open mind. The two men on more than one occasion in the case study demanded cooperation without question. This type of leadership is perilous to organizations, companies, and in this case people. Hall explained to his group, “I will tolerate no dissension up there. My word will be absolute law, beyond appeal. If you don’t like a particular decision…I’d be happy to discuss it with you afterward, but not while we’re up on the hill.” (Carioggia, Roberto, 2003, p. 7). This was the root of the team’s lack of communication throughout the entire case.
The Communication Gap Widened
The team knowingly watched their leaders make bad decisions and continued to follow them blindly. This was partly because they did not want to criticize their leaders and that they had the understanding that their opinion was irrelevant. One of the guides on the expedition, Anatoli Boukreev claimed, “I wanted very much for my feelings to be heard, but it had become increasingly clear to me that Scott Fischer did not look upon my advice in the same way as he did Rob Halls.” (Carioggia, Roberto, 2003, p. 9). This statement reflects the theory of groupthink (Fugate, Kinicki, 2012, p. 244), a behavior that occurs when conformity results in irrational or dysfunctional decisions. The team increased in self-determination because of this communication gap.

Collapse of Ethical Decisions4
4

The team’s communication problems led to bad ethical decision making. Fischer developed a “two O’Clock Rule” that was supposed to act as a milestone. Hall was adamant about this rule, “lectured us repeatedly about the importance of having a predetermined turnaround time…and abiding by it no matter how close we were to the top.” (Carioggia, Roberto, 2003, p. 8). A milestone is an event, in this case time, that acts as a significant factor during a project. Climbing up Everest was the project, and 2:00 p.m. was the milestone to turn around if they were yet to reach the top. Not one team turned around, which resulted in every group reaching the summit after 2:00 p.m. This also resulted in many deaths that should have been avoided.
Analysis – What Should Have Been Done Differently
When a communication problem has been established there are many ways to make corrections. One of the improvements that Fischer and Hall needed to make was following a Code of Ethics. When leading people up a mountain every individual’s needs and opinions should be addressed. The leaders did not take into consideration the diversity of physical fitness among their peers. The case states, “As Fischer evaluated his team, he acknowledged that several clients had not spent much time at high altitude.” (Carioggia, Roberto, 2003, p. 4). This is a fundamental ethical error that was overlooked every step up Mount Everest. Fischer, Hall, and the guides should have taken breaks at pre-determined points to make sure everyone was breathing normally.

5
5
Strengthening Group Cohesiveness
Social loafing was another communication problem that occurred. This is a theory that concerns members of a group exerting less effort to achieve a goal than when they work alone. The group cohesiveness needs to be productive, which can be accomplished by being compassionate to all members. Leaders would build trust and dedication to the group by stopping and evaluating every client. This type of assertive communication would reinforce the idea of working together for a desired reward. The team would have watched each other’s backs and raised concerns when a member was having difficulties.
Hofstedes Values – Power Distance One of Hofstedes Values that was observed in the case study was a high level of power distance. This concept is the idea that a person of higher status is granted higher degree of power. Fischer and Hall created a hierarchy of power which made the guides and clients nervous to offer opinions. The case study expressed, “Beidleman explains: “I was definitely considered the third guide, so I tried not to be too pushy. As a consequence, I didn’t always speak up when I should have.” (Carioggia, Roberto, 2003, p. 12). The entire team should have had a voice when it came to decisions. The best way this error could have been corrected would have been to ask clients how they felt about actions. Receiving input from each climber would have helped the leaders understand their points of view.
Effective and Efficient Business Practices
Businesses need to have a grasp on being effective while being efficient. Fischer and Hall’s expedition business was struggling to be either because of communication. Hall could have been more effective by allowing objections and motivating his team. Fischer could have been more efficient by handling problems more resourcefully. He fatigued himself dealing with logistic problems in the early stages of the ascent. This resulted in an impaired physical condition and a lack of acclimatization to the weather (Carioggia, Roberto, 2003). A business needs these two fundamentals to be productive and neither leader was utilizing them properly.
6
6

Action Plan for Being Successful

Objective | Action Steps | People Responsible | Timeframe | Procedures | Criteria for Success | Find Clients | 1.) Create Awareness Group about participating in Everest Expedition | Rob HallScott Fischer | 1 – 3 Months | * Create flyers * Talk to community * Conduct interviews | * Create a plan outlining success rate and experience of team leaders | Prepare for trip | 1.) Pack essentials2.) Take Time Off | Entire expedition | 1-2 days | * Call work * Make checklist for packing items | * Prepare to not be with families for an extensive amount of time | Journey to Base Camp | 1.) Hike 3-4 hours each day2.) Acclimate to altitude | Entire Expedition * Especially those with little high altitude experience | 1-3 days | * Hike everyday * Reach Base Camp within expected timeframe | * No injuries * 7
7
Hike at least 3 hours each day | Base Camp Acclimation | 1.) Watch climbers perform exercises | All climbersFischer, Hall | 1 month | * Acclimate with the team | * 90% climbers pass exercises | Base Camp to Camp II | 1.) Start ascent | All Climbers | 1-3 days | * Head toward Camp | * Check on all members during the climb * Turnaround those who can’t proceed | Camp II to Camp III | 1.) Perform Sweep duties while climbing | All ClimbersFischer, Hall | 1-3 days | * Assist team with climb | * Ask opinions and access every climber * Turnaround those who can’t proceed | Camp III checkup | 1.) Assist all climbers and prepare for next ascend | Fischer , Hall | 1 day | * Do a routine check on physical fitness complications * Plan ahead oxygen tanks, radio communication, sweep duties | * Ask if climbers wish to proceed 8
8
and turnaround those who can’t | Camp III to Camp IV | 1.) Start climb up to next camp | All members | 1-3 days | * Assist team in climbing | * All climbers arrive | Camp IV to Summit | 1.) Extra precaution while climbing | All membersFischer, Hall | 1 day | * Help all members to summit | * All climbers arrive | Summit to Camp IV | 1.) help with descend from summit | All membersFischer, Hall | 1 day | * Extra communication * All members descend successfully | * No fatalities * Every climber safe descend back to Camp IV | Descend back to Base Camp | 1.) descend with team after hard work | All members | 6-10 days | * Keep morale high * Ask for opinions for improvement on future expeditions | * No fatalities * All climbers safely back to Base Camp |

9
9
Works Cited

Carioggia, Gina, M. & Roberto, Michael, A.. (Rev. 2003, January 6). Mount Everst—1996. Harvard, Case, (Business School).

Fugate, M. & Kinicki, A. (2012) organizational behavior. The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.