Mount Everest 1996 Case Analysis

By: GROUP 6 Ashish Mittal Gaurav Dani Piyush Shroff Prateek Jha Pronit Kakati Sanmeet Singh

2011071 2011078 2011098 2011100 2011101 2011107

Summary The Case emphasizes on two commercial mountaineering companies, Adventure Consultants and Mountain Madness Rob Hall and Scott Fischer, led these companies, and each had impressive experience on Everest Team Compositions: - 2 guides, 8 clients and a Lead Sherpa(leading Sherpa) The first step towards their expedition was Journey to the Base Camp Problem of logistics Delivery of teams Oxygen Conflict with Nepali porters

Polluted air, unsanitary living conditions The next step was getting acclimatized with the ascent conditions

Summary (Cont.) The Acclimatization exercises exposed the problems of some of the climbers Pete Schoening had breathing difficulties; Fischer escorted him to camp II, thus getting exhausted Hansen suffered Frostbites and frozen larynx Ascent Begins Base Camp to Camp II Fischer escorted Kruse to base camp Hansens Problem persisted Camp II to Camp III Boukreev worried about the deteriorating weather conditions, but hesitated to express his feelings Most of the Climbers were exhausted due to the challenging task of ascent Camp IV Teams experienced Harsh weather conditions Fischers clients appeared to be in good spirits, whereas Halls clients were worried about Hansens deteriorating physical condition

Summary(Cont.) Summit Day Four Halls Clients decided to turn back Rest encountered rope affixing problem, resulting in bottleneck Jangbu was unable to reach the balcony, thus delayed affixation of the rope Fischers health prevented him from performing the Sweep Duties Fischer also could not communicate with the front pack Harris made critical error; Krakauer could not convince Harris By 2:00 p.m. as most of Fischers client did not arrive at the summit, Beidleman was worried but did not express his apprehensions Descent Weather worsened Boukreev descended quickly Hall remained with ailing Hansen

Team Effectiveness model Composition Ability of Members Some of the members were inexperienced in both the teams Allocating Roles Roles were specifically allocated to every member of the team Work Design Autonomy It was not present in either of the teams Skill Variety Highly present, as every member of the team was skillful in their own rights Process Common Purpose Successful expedition Team Efficacy Members had confidence in themselves, but as a team they lacked the same

Team Effectiveness model(Contd.) (In)Adequate Resources Problem of logistics(Fischer) Radio problems Halls team had all its resources in check Leadership & Structure Hall - systematic, caring and organized Fischer - disorganized and hurried Climate of Trust Perceived lack of trust among the members of the team

Q.1 Why did the tragedy occur? What is the root cause of this disaster? Leadership and decision making flaws Too much on logistics/less time to acclimatize. Communication gap Hensen was allowed to continue pertaining to his previous relationship with Hall.(Hint: Bad Health)

Group behaviour The growth of group dynamics stopped at the forming stage. Boukreev and Beidleman suffered from group think The rigid Guide-Client relationship prevented clients from making any contribution

Q.2 Are such tragedies inevitable in places like Mt Everest? Yes, such tragedies are inevitable as weather plays an important role. However, such incidences could have been avoided by: Granular level planning and control Correct & measured decision making Active Group Dynamics.

Q.3 What is the learning for a manager?

Team members - should be trained or have minimal expertise Resource planning prepare for contingency situations and effective utilization of resources Team building process Training would also help developing trust within the team and make team go through various stages of group development. Identify critical tasks take diligent action. Responsible delegation of work. Establish proper communication channels within the team.

Thank you