Mount Everest Case

One of the most important qualities that an elite climber must have is leadership. The elite climbers and guides must be able to meet a number of new people that are strangers to each other and build some sense of a team. Krakauer does not have a strong background in leading groups or building comradery, which is key for a climb like Everest. Krakauer says himself, “In climbing, having confidence in your partners is no small concern” (40). He also mentions how the actions of one climber can “affect the welfare of the entire team” (40). The type of group he climbed with on

| “The top 10 features of an effective team are: * clear purpose; * open communication; * constructive conflict; * effective problem-solving and decision making; * defined roles, responsibilities and accountability; * strong relationships; * systems and procedures; * experimentation and creativity; * measurement and self-assessment; * shared leadership.” For a team to be effective, they need to have clear

In order to continue climbing Everest, many aspects of climbing need to be improved before more people endanger their lives to try and reach the roof of the world. The guides have some areas that need the most reform. During the ascension of Everest the guides made a plethora mistakes that seemed insignificant but only aided in disaster. The guides first mistake is allowing “any bloody idiot [with enough determination] up” Everest (Krakauer 153). By allowing “any bloody idiot” with no climbing experience to try and climb the most challenging mountain in the world, the guides are almost inviting trouble. Having inexperienced climbers decreases the trust a climbing team has in one another, causing an individual approach to climbing the mountain and more reliance on the guides. While this approach appears fine, this fault is seen in addition to another in Scott Fischer’s expedition Mountain Madness. Due to the carefree manner in which the expedition was run, “clients [moved] up and down the mountain independently during the acclimation period, [Fischer] had to make a number of hurried, unplanned excursions between Base Camp and the upper camps when several clients experienced problems and needed to be escorted down,” (154). Two problems present in the Mountain Madness expedition were seen before the summit push: the allowance of inexperienced climbers and an unplanned climbing regime. A third problem that aided disaster was the difference in opinion in regards to the responsibilities of a guide on Everest. One guide “went down alone many hours ahead of the clients” and went “without supplemental oxygen” (318). These three major issues: allowing anyone up the mountain, not having a plan to climb Everest and differences in opinion. All contributed to the disaster on Everest in

This report provides an analysis of the following: the experience in the two Everest teamwork simulations, the results of the two sets of simulation and the communication structure and experience in the two Everest simulations. Method of analysis includes incorporating theories and concept in the course and discussing about the observation during the simulations. There are many concepts and theories which are discussed in this report such as the grouping modeling elements, communication structure, the effects of conforming and the benefits of conflicts and the benefits of effective communication. The report ends with a recommendation that the report could be improved if there is a comparison of the results of two teams

And they got one climber off, and they crashed attempting to rescue the second man” (Helicopter Rescues Increasing on Everest 7). It is a rescuer’s job to know the risks for saving a climber but if the climber is a professional, they shouldn’t be easily be making mistakes. When there are rescuers who come pick you up fast when you can’t complete the climb, it is like having a safety net behind you. But where is the safety net behind the rescuers? There isn’t one, once they make a mistake, there won’t be someone to save them, so there shouldn’t be rescuers saving climbers when they are risking their own lives but also the

Success in the Mount Everest Simulation was not defined as reaching the summit of a mountain, but rather in terms of strong leadership, positive team work, logical decision making, and effective communication and dispute resolution to accomplish a specific task. Based on my personal experience, I realize the importance of knowing and understanding all team members. Fluid, open communication and positive feedback are key factors. Active listening, motivating, engaging, and valuing each team member’s contributions create an effective work environment. Mistakes happen, but valuable learning comes from the mistakes and our understanding of the challenges and opportunities to overcome them. If we, as team members, learn from our mistakes and are fully committed to the success of the team, we all

The future of Mount Everest looks bright once again now that there will be people who will care for and maintain this beautiful giant. The Swachh Mount Everest Mission, as seen at Explorers Web (http://www.explorersweb.com/everest_k2/), is determined to ensure that the future of Mount Everest looks

The features of effective team performance is set up through positive leadership, this is something which is developed and nurtured. An effective team will work together, be focused and all the time supporting each other along the way to achieve and reach goals. For a team to be effective, each team member needs to be clear on their roles and responsibilities relating to their job. Team performance will be more effective if there is respect for the leader/manager and each other. They must have a good understanding towards their job role and responsibility.

The Harvard Business School case Mount Everest – 1996 narrates the events of May 11, 1996, when 8 people-including the two expedition leaders— died during a climb to the tallest mountain in the world (five deaths are described in the case, three border police form India also died that day). This was dubbed the “deadliest day in the mountain’s history” (at least until April 18, 2014). The survivors and many analysts have tried to decipher what went wrong that day, find an underlying cause, and learn from the event.

Leadership failure is rarely discussed, and yet often represents the greatest potential risk to an organization or group in an unfamiliar situation. For the Everest Simulation, I held the role of team leader, in which I was required to achieve goals relating to a combined ascent and maintaining team safety. At completion, 13 of 20 individual goals, and 65% of overall team goals were accomplished. The lower rate of success was due to several ethical and leadership related failures, resulting in a team member being evacuated on the final ascent. Although the simulation could have been more successful, the team dynamics witnessed were enlightening as to what constitutes effective leadership and ethical decision making in a high-intensity situation.

The features of effective team performance is set up through positive leadership, this is something which is developed and nurtured. An effective team will work together, be focused and all the time supporting each other along the way to achieve and reach goals. For a team to be effective, each team member needs to be clear on their roles and responsibilities relating to their job. Team performance will be more effective if there is respect for the leader/manager and an understanding towards their job role and responsibility. The leader/manager should also be aware of the skills or weakness within the team and be able to provide support were necessary and also utilise their strengths. Training and support will enable staff to improve

The Everest simulation allows participants to explore varying forms of communication, leadership and different attributes of teams to determine what alternative best suit the given situation. The simulation entails decision making processes, which must be effectively executed in order to maximise team efficiency and attain set goals. The simulation involves ascending towards the summit of Mount Everest along with other team members, each with predefined roles. The interdependent nature of the task requires members to work in collaboration to achieve goals and later evaluate the outcome and the shortcomings that may have hindered success. This report explores communication, leadership and groups and teams as themes for examining the outcomes of the task, as well as determining what implications this experience holds for future teamwork based activities.

Being responsible is a huge factor in guiding a mountain climbing team. There are a lot people on each team, and some are more experienced then others, so it takes a lot of coordination and cooperation from everyone. Rob Hall, because of his experience, knew he was responsible for making sure that everyone on his team was prepared for the summit of Everest. With that knowledge Rob Hall utilized his organization skills and "he'd fine-tuned a remarkably effective acclimatization plan" (p.74) that would enable all members of the team to adapt to the scarcity of oxygen in the atmosphere. Along with making sure he had an arrangement for how to acclimatize his team he also managed to consult "with the leaders of all the expeditions planning to climb Everest in the spring," and they agreed on which team "would be responsible for establishing and maintaining a route through the icefall" (p.80). Rob Hall had a very heavy load that he was responsible for as a guide in 1996 and he demonstrated how reliable he was in the way he took care of business using his ability to plan ahead and stay organized.

The case of Mt. Everest focuses on two commercial expeditions, Adventure Consultants and Mountain Madness, and the tragic event on May 10, 1996. These two commercial expeditions were lead by Rob Hall and Scott Fischer, and were consisted of 20 members. Both leaders were experienced climbers, but due to several factors, the expedition resulted into five deaths including Hall and Fischer. The event has thought managers to evaluate the importance of leadership together with its internal and external factors that managers should consider to survive in the high risk business world.

Both teams had members with a wide range of experience. There is no evidence that either expedition leader spent any time on evaluating the teams created to understand the ability of team members or how they would perform within the context of the task they were undertaking. Further complicating this was the fact that the teams did not make the best use of their expert Sherpas. Sherpas are the locals of Khumbu, a region of Nepal. They live in the mountains and are intimately aware of the conditions the teams would be facing, and arguably have more expertise than any other members of the