[ MOUNT EVEREST CASE]

Case study analysis

Mount Everest: Facts
● World’s highest mountain (8,848 m) located in the Himalaya on the border of Nepal

and China (Tibet).

● Most common dangers: altitude sickness, weather and avalanches

● Ascended 7,646 times and 282 people have died on Mt. Everest

● First official ascent in 1953 by Edmund Hillary and Tenzing Norgay

● Nepal: ‘Goddess of the Sky’

● Tibet: ‘Mother Goddess of the Universe’

2
 Case: The 1996 disaster on Mount Everest
In the spring of 1996 some very unusual events occurred on the
Mount Everest:

❖ 15 individuals lost their lives

❖ Too many people reaching the summit in the same week
leading to bottlenecks
❖ Including Rob Hall and Scott Fisher, two of the world’s most
experienced high-altitude climbers
❖ Rob Hall and several others died during the descent
❖ Others barely managed to survive after wandering for many
hours in the dark braving sub-zero temperatures.

What happened that day on

Mount Everest?

3
Background information on the team
expeditions

Adventure consultants Mountain Madness

led by Robert Hall led by Scott Fisher

2 guides with experience 2 guides with experience

7 Sherpas (helpers) 8 Sherpas (helpers)

8 clients (half of them experienced) 8 clients (half of them experienced)

Main motive: prove that previous failure of the 1995 Main motive: achieve the same as Robert Hall and
ascent was due to weather conditions and not outperform him.
guiding abilities.

4
Analysis of the Personalities of the team
leaders - Rob Hall
● Overconfident: “I can get almost any reasonably fit
person to the summit”

● Willing to prove himself: fear to fail again

after previous year turn-ad

● Feels responsible for the clients that

already attempted to summit with him
but didn’t succeed

5
Analysis of the Personalities of the team
leaders - Scott Fischer
● Determined: attempted 4 times to
summit without supplementary oxygen
until he succeeded

● Had a reputation to uphold

● Ambitious, charismatic, aspires to be

respected among his peers

6
 A team? Only in name
❖ Unease between team members
❖ Climbers felt disconnected with each other
❖ Concerns about whether they can rely on each other
❖ Stuck in the role of guide-client and don’t feel comfortable to question the
leader’s decisions
Main Problems
❖ Overconfidence of Leaders
❖ Lack of experience and physical skill in
clients
❖ Lack of rules and not abiding the established
rules (don’t follow time frame, don’t abide the
turn-around-time, ropes not fixed)
❖ Poor teamwork and communication
❖ Unexpected weather conditions
Better leadership leads to a better team
❖ Balance the need for strong buy-in against the dangers of over-commitment
➢ Awareness of the sunk cost trap is not sufficient
➢ Must foster commitment by letting the group participate in a fair decision-making
➢ The most challenging key to success: the ability to “cut your losses”
➢ Do not be afraid to ask the tough questions

❖ The entire team needs to accept,support and commit to the final decision

➢ Insufficient debate amongst team members can lead to a diminishment of the critical
evaluation proposals should undergo
 What could the team have done better?

1. Pre-screening of clients

Set basic requirements for participants:

❖ some experience in climbing high mountains

❖ good health status
❖ willing to work as a team
❖ willing to carry the challenges

10
 What could the team have done better?
2. Provide team building activities and
workshop before climbing peaks

They worried whether they can rely on other team

members

❖ Ice-breaking games
❖ Situational Judgement test
❖ Assess own ability
❖ Develop confidence
❖ Develop mutual trust

11
 What could the team have done better?

3. Leaders should strike a balance between

overconfidence and insufficient confidence
Both leaders did not identify their weaknesses

❖ They insisted on climbing even when they were exhausted

❖ They did not prepare supplemental oxygen
-> need for Self-evaluation

Leading style is too directive

❖ They should be more open for discussion and comments from peers
❖ Take the final decision after evaluation of everyone’s opinion
-> Democratic leadership is more preferred

12
 What could the team have done better?

4. Enhance communications and equipment

Insufficient radio and supplemental oxygen made it very difficult to properly

communicate e.g.: There were only 2 old radios on the Mountain Madness
team

❖ Invest in proper radio equipment

❖ Look for sponsors
❖ Prepare for supplemental Oxygen

13
 What could the team have done better?

5. Establish indissoluble Rules and Protocols

Both Hall and Fisher didn’t respect the golden rule: the 2pm turnaround-time,
After this time, they both agreed it would get extremely dangerous. However,
the earliest team arrived at the top after 2.

❖ Create specific rules and protocols for specific situations

❖ Always abide by rules no matter what
❖ Try to stick to the original plan but Implement a plan B just in
case

14
 Q&A
Boukreev (one of the climbers): “I acknowledge that both teams made critical
errors during the climb. However, to cite a specific cause would be to promote
an omniscience that only Gods, drunks, politicians, and dramatic writers can
claim.”