Mount Everest-1996

Mount Everest-1996

Name

Institution

Why did this tragedy occur? What is the root cause of the disaster? Create a fishbone diagram to analyze possible root causes. Include an actual diagram.

As the group continued to climb the summit at 5: 30 am, Krakauer and Ang Dorje, realized that the ropes were missing for the remaining 500 meters climb. They wasted a lot of time affixing the rope so that they could reach the summit while they ran out of oxygen canisters. Since time was wasted in affixing the remaining ropes, the storm braving-sub zero temperatures caused death of the mountain climbers. The cause of the tragedy was the mistake by the Montenegrin expedition who wasted all the ropes up to 400 meters, wasting Hall’s and Fischer’s team a lot of time to finish climbing the remaining 8,500 meters up to the summit (Roberto & Carioggia, 2003).

What is your evaluation of Fischer and Hall as leaders? What were their strengths and weaknesses as leaders?

He was revealed authoritative type of leadership. He stuck to his goals no matter whether others were suffering or not. One of the strengths of Hall was a goal oriented person. He maintained his agility to finish up the expedition, without worrying about the dangers ahead. However, he was poor at capacity building and independent-minded; the team led by him complained of fatigue and illnesses at the first summit, yet he did not give them attention (Roberto & Carioggia, 2003).

Fischer used participatory type of leadership; he screened the interest and needs of everybody before starting the expedition and would not leave those injured behind. One of his strengths was team building; he put the needs of everyone first before his. However, he had a vulnerable at the expense of his life. For example, he risked climbing the Everest summit without using the supplementary oxygen (Roberto & Carioggia, 2003).

What is the culture of the group? How would you evaluate their interpersonal processes using concepts from the book?

Initially, the Fischer group expressed a clan culture in which everyone participated to assist where possible when they were climbing a mountain. On the other hand, the Hall’s group developed from competing culture in which people that joined the expedition was ambitious to satisfy their own needs. However, the two engaged into a competent culture when they scrambled for the supplement oxygen during the tragedy. The group suffered from tension whereby everyone was worried that something would go wrong; causing panic and their deterioration of health. During the tragedy, the groups had dynamic interpersonal relationship as team members struggled to get back to safety at the lower summit (Roberto & Carioggia, 2003).

Pick three of the group members and individually describe their motivation to be part of the group using theories from the book. You should have three answers, pick members that have different motivations.

During the tragedy, Boukreev character revealed that the incidence was a result of human error. He descended quickly to get warm at camp IV and when questioned, preferred to stay at the camp while monitoring the clients’ situation. He refused to help Fischer, who was dying from the cold temperatures. The theory of human error depicts that the deaths could have been avoided, such as in the case of Boukreev (Roberto & Carioggia, 2003).

Krakauer proved justified the competing theory by recognizing that mistakes could be done, and the natural factors were inevitable. Scholar of the competing theory argued that climbing Everest Mountain was always the risked, and not just, as a result, of the human factors.

Lastly, Harris showed attributes during the incidence ascertains the competing theory by desperately trying to rescue Hall, he climbed up the summit despite the cold temperatures. He focused on saving those who were suffering from the cold blazing weather (Roberto & Carioggia, 2003).

Pick two of the decisions made in this case and individually describe what kind of the decision process was used. You should have two answers

Fischer made strategic decisions from the beginning of the expedition. He noted that the confidence of the one individual could affect the welfare of the whole group; therefore, he planned carefully, considering the conditions and needs of his entire team before climbing the mountain. On the other hand, the two teams engaged in tactical decisions whereby they needed to make hard choices in the face of the dangerous cold weather. As a result of limited time, they had to make quick response decision to save the lives of those who were dying (Roberto & Carioggia, 2003).

What kind of lessons can be learned from this case for general managers in business? Create an organizational scenario that might benefit from this knowledge.

Most of the organizations lack teamwork and proactive decision making process. According to the Everest incidence, failure of the members to help one another whilst saving their own individual lives cost others to die. The managers in organizations should engage the employees in the implementation of projects which improve the overall performance of the business.

References

Roberto, M.A., Carioggia, G.M. (2003). Mount Everest. New York, NY: Harvard University Press