Brief Summary of Issues
The level of Mount Everest from the sea is about 8,850 feet. This is also termed as the tallest mountain on the planet. The mountain has taken the lives of 148 people until 1996. There were two groups known as Mountain Madness and Adventure Consultants led by Scott Fischer and Rob Hall respectively that joined aspiring to reach the summit. There was high risks involves in the journey that can turn the joys in tragedy (Amer, 2015). This case elaborates the issues of Mount Everest in the spring of 1996. The main issue in this case was that the climbers totally ignored the possible and potential problems and difficulties in climbing. The strange thing in the case was that the experienced and skilled leaders of the climbers …show more content…
The leaders did not consider taking opinion from their subordinates and making centralized decisions to continue the climbing in the bad weather. There were not strong grounds on which the decision was made by the leaders without involving of the subordinates and take viewpoints of the members of teams. The leadership did not focus on the circumstances and efficiency of decision making. However, they were just focus and pay attention on summit climbing from one level to another for the sake of the publicity. They made haste in order to achieve their goals by putting the lives of others in danger. This is a common observation that leadership styles or traits will change according to the situation and condition. Stick to a single style of leadership often gives bad outcomes. The same thing was in the case of Everest. The important variables like temperature and weather conditions were ignored in Everest event in 1996. However, the situational power of the leaders did not help them because it failed at every level during climbing. Since 1996, numerous individuals have attempted to examine the choice of Fischer and Hall. The occasion is one of the rancorous level headed discussions among the survivors and the master climbers
The level of Mount Everest from the sea is about 8,850 feet. This is also termed as the tallest mountain on the planet. The mountain has taken the lives of 148 people until 1996. There were two groups known as Mountain Madness and Adventure Consultants led by Scott Fischer and Rob Hall respectively that joined aspiring to reach the summit. There was high risks involves in the journey that can turn the joys in tragedy (Amer, 2015). This case elaborates the issues of Mount Everest in the spring of 1996. The main issue in this case was that the climbers totally ignored the possible and potential problems and difficulties in climbing. The strange thing in the case was that the experienced and skilled leaders of the climbers …show more content…
The leaders did not consider taking opinion from their subordinates and making centralized decisions to continue the climbing in the bad weather. There were not strong grounds on which the decision was made by the leaders without involving of the subordinates and take viewpoints of the members of teams. The leadership did not focus on the circumstances and efficiency of decision making. However, they were just focus and pay attention on summit climbing from one level to another for the sake of the publicity. They made haste in order to achieve their goals by putting the lives of others in danger. This is a common observation that leadership styles or traits will change according to the situation and condition. Stick to a single style of leadership often gives bad outcomes. The same thing was in the case of Everest. The important variables like temperature and weather conditions were ignored in Everest event in 1996. However, the situational power of the leaders did not help them because it failed at every level during climbing. Since 1996, numerous individuals have attempted to examine the choice of Fischer and Hall. The occasion is one of the rancorous level headed discussions among the survivors and the master climbers