Introduction
The 1996 Everest disaster was about mountain climbers who did not come back from their trip to the peak of Everest. There were various expeditions that had a tragic ending, including professional climbers, such as Scott Fischer, who was leading a group of 11 amateur climbers, and Rob Hall, with his highly experienced group (History). The case of the 1996 Everest disaster shows the influential nature of leadership decisions on a larger group of people.
Main body
News accounts of the events in 1996 challenged the leadership abilities of Rob Hall and Scott Fischer. They were condemned for following their cognitive biases and having some interpersonal conflicts (Newlands). A leader’s actions in a stressful situation are critical as they determine the future outcomes of an operation. Therefore, an individual who is leading a team should act as a third party and be cold-minded in his decisions. The most evident bias that was mentioned by journalists is overconfidence bias (Newlands). This bias is common among high-achieving individuals who are prone to succeed in their actions. Hall was a leading man for more than 30 people prior to his last expedition, and he has reached the peak of Everest several times. For him, such an expedition was an ordinary thing, and he could never imagine that something would go wrong. Hall was blinded by his confidence, causing the emergence of an overconfidence bias. It is crucial to understand that leaders must avoid such biases in order to ensure the safety of their team, particularly in cases that may cause a threat to the lives of people.
Post-disaster media highlights how leaders could mitigate the situation and prevent the loss of people. Journalists and experts agreed that if both Hall and Fischer relied on their experience rather than on existing information and evidence, they would have saved their groups. Yet, they were again trapped by a cognitive bias called the recency effect. This effect develops from approaching what is evidence and making decisions solely on existing information (High-Stake Decision Making). There was an incorrect assumption by both Hall and Fischer that the weather would be calm and convenient to climb. Due to this, the groups were misled to follow their leaders without any doubt. Hall and Fischer relied heavily on what they saw instead of researching for additional information and evidence. As such, leaders should be careful with their knowledge and always look for updated information when deciding what to do.
Hall and Fischer were convinced that they were well-resourced. Both leaders were restricted by time and thought that they would return by 1 pm to the base camps. Yet, they did not consider other circumstances that awaited them during their climb. The leadership error here was that Hall and Fischer were concerned about their results more than the actual case (Rajasekaran). Moreover, the context of the situation was not considered. They were in a wild nature that was unpredictable. As such, Hall and Fischer needed to behave as true leaders and consider each climb as a new experience and be careful as much as possible.
One more aspect taken from the news after the Everest disaster in 1996 is that leaders had interpersonal conflicts within their teams. Here, the ability to conflict management between team members is critical for an effective leader. However, the leaders of fatal expeditions were not ready to mitigate conflicts and keep the groups calm during their journey. This played a crucial role in disturbing the process of climbing the mountain smoothly. Leaders should be highly concerned about what is going on inside their teams and how to make people cooperate even if they are placed in an extreme situation. Aside from conflict management, Hall and Fischer were not able to preserve groups together and work under a common goal of survival (Sherwood et al.). It is understandable that the mountain climbers were afraid and needed some support from their leaders. Here, news media accounts portrayed Fischer as the one who was concerned only about the commercial side of climbing to the peak rather than caring about people (High-Stakes Decision Making). He neglected people’s attitudes and did not consider how they were doing during their trip. This attitude Fischer was a serious mistake that cost people’s life.
Conclusion
To conclude, the Everest disaster in 1996 was a tragic loss of people’s life. The case demonstrates the importance and impact of leadership skills on the destiny of people. Hall and Fischer were professionals in climbing the mountain who had several successful experiences with the peak of Everest before. For them, climbing was an ordinary activity that created several cognitive biases in making their decisions in a stressful situation. News frequently addressed how the overconfidence of leaders was a crucial mistake in controlling the climbing process. In addition, recency effects and poor conflict management were influential factors affecting the outcomes of the trips. These two expeditions of Hall and Fischer showed that leaders should be aware of cognitive biases in their leadership and be sure to avoid them when making decisions.
Works Cited
History.com Editors. “Eight Climbers Die on Mt. Everest.” HISTORY, 2020, Web.
“High-Stakes Decision Making: The Lessons of Mount Everest.” HBS Working Knowledge, 2002, Web.
Rajasekaran, Mag. “Leadership Lessons from 1996 Mt. Everest Disaster.” Linkedin, 2018, Web.
Newlands, Murray. “What the 1996 Everest Disaster Teaches About Leadership.” Entrepreneur, 2016, Web.
Sherwood, Cynthia Mcfadden And Roxanna. “1996 Everest Disaster Survivor Retraces Climb to Make Peace with the Mountain.” ABC News, 2012, Web.