Everest Tragedy 1996 - A Case Study in Leadership Lessons

Lesson 1- Pursuit of Destructive Goals

When leaders identify themselves too closely with a goal, there is a danger that

their obsession can lead to disaster. This condition is known as goalodicy. In relationships

this is the equivalent of fatal attraction! The phenomenon of pursuing a destructive goal

raises a larger issue; the difference between passion and obsession.

Passion is an intensity of feeling about doing what you are passionate about. To

say you are passionate about this or that is not being passionate. Passion is when you go

and prove you can. Passion is about doing and not merely feeling.

There is a thin line of difference between passion and obsession. Passion is intense

belief in something but at the same time being balanced and aware of one’s surroundings.

Obsession, on the other hand, is when you block out the rest of life. It is obsession or

nothing else! Passion may get you there but may not get you back. Obsession will most

certainly get you there, but it is doubtful whether you will get home.

This is an aspect of leadership in goal-setting that has not received adequate

attention. We call this the pursuit of a destructive goal.

46 year old Doug Hansen’s condition deteriorated considerably on 9 May at Camp

4. The previous year he was forced to turn back when he was just 300 metres short of the

Everest summit. He was now determined that this would never happen again. There is a

Two O’clock golden rule on Everest; climbers must turn back latest at 2 pm. This is

because the descent is tough and climbers must get back to the advanced base camp for

safety and bottled supply of oxygen.

Doug summited at 4 pm two hours beyond the turnaround time. On his way down

he collapsed and died. He is a classic example of goalodicy, a situation when a person

continues to pursue a good goal with negative consequences. During the final assault

Doug was emphatic about his life’s mission:

“I have put too much of myself into this mountain to quit now without giving it

everything I’ve got.”

Dr Beck Weathers, a pathologist from Texas, is another example of extreme

goalodicy. Suffering from bouts of depression, and an unhappy marriage, he desired to

scale Everest to find inner peace. Despite blindness he continued climbing and described

his physical condition.

“One eye was completely blurred over. I could barely see out

of the other, and I’d lost all depth perception.”

When the expedition leader Rob Hall tried sending him back, he convinced him to

allow him to continue climbing. Beck finally did scale Everest but on his descent gave up.

His survival is a miracle, possibly the only person even to have woken up from

hypothermic coma. He was given up for dead twice before he was airlifted to safety.

Although Beck Weathers survived after being left for dead, his frost bite condition paid a

heavy price: amputation of the right arm between the elbow and the wrist, four fingers and

thumb of the left hand, and an amputated nose that had to be reconstructed. Was this

price worth it?

Theodicy provides explanations in times of adversity to create an illusion of

success. Ancient literature is replete with examples where theodicies given by

philosophers try to explain the problem of evil in a just world, for example, “Why do evil

people prosper?” The karma theory explains that a person is suffering for the sins of his

last birth. I have heard people justifying poverty by saying that “people are poor because

they want to be poor.”

The phenomenon of goalodicy was palpably visible on Everest. As the weather

deteriorated the professionals ignored the amateur’s lack of experience and continued

leading them towards a narrow goal - Everest. The Everest teams created their theodicies

to remain obsessed with their narrow goals:

a. Sandy Hill Pittman, a New York socialite who became the 34^th woman to scale

Everest, and Neal Beidleman, a mountain guide, minimized their painful coughs

justifying that they were necessary discomforts in high altitude.

b. Beck Weathers, unable to see even a metre ahead due to effects of high

altitude on eye surgery, strongly believed that as he neared the summit; his

vision would improve with the warmth of the sun. He commented:

“Fortunately, I didn’t really need to see the route, because deep steps had

been kicked ahead of me.”

c. Sherpa Lopsand Janbu stated vomiting near the summit, a sign of high altitude

sickness, but justified his condition by stating that this was his body’s natural

reaction to high altitude.

Worksheet # 1

Why would anyone continue to pursue a goal, however good it may be,

despite all the evidence that its achievement is not possible? And in the

process, risk one’s life and those of others to whom one is responsible?

Goalodicy comprises six key features.

1. Narrowly defined goals like“To scale Everest.” A practical and wider goal

could have been “To climb Everest and return safely.” The problem with

narrow goals is that it produces fewer options and only one course of action.

In the late 1960s, Ford wanted to sell a small fuel-efficient car - the Ford

Pinto. The CEO, Lee Iacocca set the challenging goal of “under 2000 pounds

and under $2000.” The goal was so narrow that the management omitted to

have a safe fuel tank. Design wise, the Pinto could ignite on impact; leaving

behind a trail of 53 deaths and many injuries.

2. Public expectations can force people to continue moving towards a

destructive goal. There were ambitious clients like Sandy Hill Pittman, and

those like Weathers and Hansen who had failed an earlier attempt on

Everest. Their inability to scale Everest would be perceived as a failure.

Conversely, past successes can lead to over-confidence. Rob Hall was one

of the best climbers in the world and was so confident that he ignored the 2

O’clock Golden Rule.

3. The dream of an idealized future was a hugely romantic notion of life of

what the world would like after conquering Everest.

4. Everest would give them asense of destiny, the victory of good over evil,

and cleansing of the inner self. The goal becomes the seekers identity. To

abandon the goal is to abandon oneself. Gamblers, investors, and other high

stake players continue to throw good money at bad goals despite a string of

failures.

5. In a crisis, groups can become dysfunctional when emotions take over

rational thinking leading to bad decisions. Let me give two examples:

“Risky-shift”: Groups are known to make riskier decisions than

individuals.

“Group-think”: Groups tend to form consensus too quickly, thus

limiting critical thinking. The fear of rejection keeps them together.

When faced by an external threat, the group goes into a huddle

because of the fear of rejection or failure.

6. Complete dependence on a leader or leaders for key decisions. This is

played out time and time again. When teams break down or are not formed in

the first instance, as on Everest, individuals turn to the leader for guidance

and directions. The leaders are seen as confident, successful, experienced

and optimistic like Fischer and Rob Hall. The leader replaces the team as

well as the individual, and this is a very dangerous situation. In turn, the

leader also relegates the individual to complete dependence by encouraging

members to rely on them. The relationship between Rob Hall and Beck

Weathers bears testimony. At 27,500 feet Beck Weathers waits for Rob

despite the weather packing up, and does not descend, thereby risking his

life.

History offers examples of extreme goalodicy - Napoleon and Hitler’s drive to

Moscow despite severe winter conditions. There are several potential explanations for this

deathly phenomenon. First, leaders affected by this malady exhibit an obsession

achievement for the sake of achievement. Such leaders are fiercely ambitious and

independent, and, therefore, are not team players. They are prone to high risk-taking and

are determined as well as assertive. They maintain their calm even under severe stress

and are unlikely to panic.

A good leader ensures that the team is not too dependent on him to achieve the

goal. Dependence stifles initiative, limits learning, and prevents collaboration within team

members. Rob Hall took away the authority from his client climbers of taking the decision

on when to turnaround. He said he only would give the decision to turnaround.

Worksheet # 2

What processes should be in place to allow individuals and even groups to

abandon earlier commitments? Beck Weathers, a victim of this leadership malaise,

summed up the necessity:

“It’s easy to over pursue goals. It’s easy to become obsessed with goals.”

First, in a complex situation where there are many variables, leaders must avoid

defining goals narrowly. Goals must be clear and broad. To“summit a mountain” is not

enough. In the Everest tragedy, reaching the summit was not enough. Returning safely

was equally important. Writing in the Outside Online in 1997, Jim Williams was explicit:

“You’re not paid to summit Everest. You’re paid to get people to the summit of Everest and

return them safely.”

Goals and objectives are not the same. The time frames and effects they produce

are different. Goals are general and broad while objectives are narrow and specific as

shown below:

a. Goal: “I want to achieve success in the field of genetic research and do what

no other person has done.”

b. Objective: “I want to complete this thesis by the end of this month.”

Second, goals and objectives should be reviewed periodically because goals

can change due to change in ground conditions.

Third, trust has to be at the foundation of all endeavours. Rob Hall was a poor

example of a leader in so far as trust was concerned. He said to his team members,

“Maybe I’ll get unpopular, but somebody has to be unpopular sometimes.” Trust can be

built up provided leaders minimize power differences and communicate humility.

Fourth, team members should look out for warning signs of goalodicy amongst

leaders. In particular there are four indicators: when leaders define narrow goals that limit

the complexities involved; when leaders say that failure is not an option; when leaders

offer an idealized future where all problems will go away; and when achieving the goal will

mean achieving one’s destiny.

Finally, given the uncertainty and chaos in life, plans seldom go according to whatis

planned. So, leaders should keep Plan B ready. Contingency planning helps to react

when faced with unexpected situations.

Lesson 2- Team Work

As late as 05 May, just five days before the final assault, there was no such thing as

a team. Jon Krakauer lamented in his tent:

“In this godforsaken place I felt disconnected from the climbers around

me...We were a team in name only, I’d sadly come to realize. Although

in a few hours we would leave camp as a group, we would

ascend as individuals, linked to one another by neither rope, nor any

deep sense of loyalty. Each client was in it for himself or herself, pretty much.”

In difficult situations only teams win. Teams require being cohesive and

trustworthy. The two expeditions were nowhere near this readiness level. Krakauer

commented candidly:

“In climbing, having confidence in your partners is no small concern. One climber’s

actions can affect the welfare of the entire team…But trust in one’s partners is a

luxury denied those who sign on as clients on a guided ascent.”

Krakauer’s feelings are reinforced by Beck Weathers. Beck noted:

“…it sometimes seemed as though half the population at Base Camp was clinically

delusional.”

The two expeditions lacked the characteristics that define what a team is. Nobody

trusted the other person, and the members barely knew each other. There was no

common bond and the climbers had not practiced as a team before. They were heavily

dependent upon their two leaders. As a result, when both the leaders were unwell and

later were killed, the teams disintegrated immediately.

Worksheet # 3

Teams never discussed issues and errors and even some of the guides were

uncomfortable expressing dissenting views. Why was team-effort lacking?

Team work is the foundation. We need to differentiate between a group and a team.

Teams emerge when individuals share a common fate, a common goal. For example,

climbers needed each other in the final hours of the assent. On the other hand, groups

may not be a team. For example, passengers travelling in a plane are a group, not a team.

However, if the plane is hijacked and the passengers collaborate, they become a team,

united by the hazard of their situation.

Achieving a difficult and risky mission like scaling Everest is a team effort. Team

work involves discussing mistakes openly, exchanging information rapidly, questioning

prevailing views and assumptions, and providing close support to each other. The primary

reason for this lack of team effort was because trust and mutual support were missing.

Each one was seeking personal glory. There were other reasons too:

a. All climbers had been indoctrinated not to question the judgment of their guides.

What the guides did not know was not worth knowing. Such was the exalted

position and power distance of the guides.

b. In turn, even the guides were unable to speak their minds to the leaders Rob

Hall and Scot Fischer. For example, Neil Biedleman, a guide on the Mountain

Madness expedition, felt uncomfortable telling Fischer and other team members

to turn around at 2 pm. Krakauer argued that Beidleman “was quite conscious of

his place in the expedition pecking order.” As an individual, Beidleman seemed

junior and submissive. He is on record to say:

“I was definitely considered the third guide…so I tried not to be too pushy. As a

consequence, I didn’t always speak up when maybe I should have.”

c. Rob Hall, who was the expedition leader for Adventure Consultants, was

autocratic, and was therefore distanced from his team. He made his position

clear right in the beginning:

“I will tolerate no dissension up there. My word will be absolute law, beyond

appeal. If you don’t like a particular decision, I will be happy to discuss it with

you afterword, not while we’re up on the mountain.”

d. Fischer was no less an autocrat. Despite noticing his deteriorating health, no

one in the team could muster the courage to advise him against proceeding

towards Everest.

e. Krakauer described his team as “a group of complete strangers.” He admitted

that they were “a team in name only.”

Team spirit was lacking. Each climber was on his or her own mission. Even the

climbers were concerned whether they could rely on each other during difficult times. They

even fretted about the possibility of not being accepted by their team-mates. Cohesion

was lacking well before the climb started. So was trust.

“In climbing, having confidence in your partners is no small concern. One

climber’s actions action can affect the welfare of the entire team… But trust in

one’s partners is a luxury denied those who sign on as clients on a guided

ascent.”

Krakauer

Lesson 3- Crisis Decision-Making

With rising interdependence, demands for accountability, unstable climate patterns,

and growing power of the media, society is becoming increasingly crisis-prone. The real

test of a leader is in a crisis.

A crisis is characterized by:

1. Surprise and psychological dislocation leading to mental blocks.

2. Uncertainty and lack of accurate information to base decisions on.

3. A rushing sense of urgency as there is a finite time for response.

4. Threat to the basic values of the organization.

In crisis-situations particularly, leaders should be careful of four serious

impediments in decision-making: over-confidence, the recency effect, stress, and

delayed decision-making.

First, overconfidence impairs decision-making and judgment. Both Hall and Scott

Fischer were victims of overconfidence. They had every reason to be confident. Both had

climbed several dangerous peaks, and Hall had scaled Everest at least four times in the

past and guided 39 clients. The two were accustomed to making bold and elaborate

statements during the climb that demonstrated classic symptoms of overconfidence bias.

Fisher bragged openly:

“We’ve got the Big E figured out; we’ve got it totally wired. These days, I’m

telling you, we’ve built a yellow brick road to the summit.”

Rob Hall was no less of a braggart. He openly claimed that, “he could get any

reasonably fit person to the summit.” When Krakauer expressed serious doubts, he

received a shut-up call from Rob:

“It’s worked 39 times so far, pal, and a few of the blokes who summited with me

were nearly as pathetic as you.”

Second, in decision-making the recency effect plays a dominant role. Leaders are

prone to be influenced by events and information that are most recent and easily available.

We give greater weightage in decision-making to what is latest. If 30 texts are being

received every one hour, number 29 and 30 assume outsize importance, regardless of

their quality and validity.

“What starts driving decisions is the urgent rather than the important.”

Eric Kessler, at Lubin School of Business

At Everest, the recency bias impaired the judgment of even the most experienced

and world’s best climbers.

a. There had been remarkably good weather at Everest in recent years, and it was,

therefore, only natural to believe that climbers were unlikely to face violent

storms.

b. Rob Hall, one of the greatest high altitude climbers, had experienced good

weather season after season. There was no reason why May 1996 would be

different.

There is a third factor that affects decision-making - stress conditions. Prolonged

exposure to extreme environment or stress, or both, causes cognitive deterioration. The

phenomenon is quite clear:

a. Narrowing in one’s focus of attention and loss of concentration.

b. Leaders tend to be cautious.

c. Alternatives are often not explored.

d. Inability to perceive new information.

At Everest, as climbers gained in altitude, their decision-making capability dropped

appreciably. This is most common at heights above 20,000 feet, where lack of oxygen has

devastating effects - you cannot eat, drink, or sleep. The only things that keep you alive

are grit, determination, and hope.

Fourth, in a crisis situation it is common to find leaders getting a mental block. This

delays decision-making and numbs the decision centres in the brain. A crisis demands

rapid decision-making. Although this invariably involves risk; but risk-taking is better than

status quo. A wrong decision is better than no decision. It is better to decide and make

mistakes, because wrong decisions can always be reversed. Those who cannot decide

will seldom be able to exercise choices when the time comes.

Intuitive Decision-Making

The Everest tragedy clearly brings out the paramount need for leaders to be

intuitive in decision making. Intuitive decision-making is a skill leaders require the most,

especially under extreme conditions. Most of what we learn about decision-making in

business schools is an analytical model based on a process involving four steps:

a. Indentifying and finding the problem.

b. Generating alternating solutions to the problem

c. Evaluating each option or solution.

d. Deciding on the best course of action.

This system has been developed by scientists, and is, therefore, reductionist.

Scientists reduce the human phenomenon to a lower sub-human level

- they

compartmentalize and rationalize. There are no emotions attached. This category of

thinkers believes that love is nothing but sublimated sex!

One significant breakthrough in neuroscience has revolutionized traditional beliefs

in thinking. Neuroscientists now accept that emotions play a decisive role in decision-

making. Antonio Domasio has conducted path-breaking research on persons whose

emotion-centres in the brain have been damaged, For example, such individuals can

rationally argue the merits and demerits of all the restaurants in the neighbourhood, but

they cannot recommend or decide which one to select. Because selection and decision

requires the interplay of emotions. It is now widely accepted by the scientific community

that, decision-making involves both logic and emotions.

The debate between intuition and rationality has bought to the fore that, there are

two families or systems of mental processes. These are given at Figure 1 below:

 System 1: Intuitive, uncontrolled, and associative.

 System 2: Rational and process-based.

System 1

System 2

Intuition

Reasoning

Fast

Slow

Automatic

Controlled

Effortless

Effortful

Experience

Reason

Figure 1: Systems of Mental Processes

The Everest tragedy of 1996 unfolded itself under extreme conditions, and these

conditions are quite common in life. They are quite common in professions like the military,

medical emergencies, fire fighting services, or in situations characterized by the following

conditions that demand speed in decision-making;

 Uncertainty

 Lack of accurate information

 Too much or exaggerated information

 Rapidly changing environment

 Stress and fatigue

 No time for rational process

Under any one of these conditions, only intuition helps. In the words of Carl Jung:

“Intuition is perception via the unconscious,” that is to say, sense perception and not

rational judgment. Intuition is a pattern-recognition process where we match existing

patterns with past patterns, and then take a quick call on what actions to take. Pattern

recognition is based on experience, domain knowledge, education, and perception. In fact,

most of our critical decisions are based on intuition - relationships, marriage, career,

business, politics, and even conflict. As is evident, intuitive decision-making is made

without facts or where reliable date is not available.

In his well known book Sources of Power, Garry Klein narrates one of the incidents

he came across in his research on intuition. The nurse returned home one day and on

seeing her father-in-law, remarked, “I don’t like the way you look.” He replied, “Well, you

don’t look so great yourself.” “No, I really don’t like the way you look,” she continued. “We

are going to the hospital.” He grudgingly agreed to go the next day, but the nurse insisted

they go immediately. An examination showed that there was a major blockage in the aorta.

Intuitive decision-makers do not follow the deliberate process of problem definition,

followed by option generation and then leading to option evaluation. This is System 2

thinking. Rather experience enables them to read a situation and match the new pattern

with old ones. Experience also enables them to select an appropriate reaction.

Intuitive decision-makers prefer to act first, rather than being paralyzed until the

best course of action is arrived at. Given the power of intuition, the decision-maker

invariably arrives at the first workable option. A workable option in time is infinitely better

than an excellent option that comes too late. The power of intuition enables the individualto

trawl through several courses of action in order to get the first one.

How does one develop intuitive thinking?

You need a lot of expert experience under different conditions that can take years

of practice. Experience helps in pattern recognition. For self-mastery of any skill and for it

to become automatic and effortless, for example, a skill like a chess champion, or a fire

fighter, or a soldier in battle, it will take about 10,000 hours of continuous practice. But

practice alone is insufficient; you need constant repetition and continuous feedback. If

feedback is delayed or unspecific, learning will be retarded.

You need to be a risk-taker.

You have to be passionate about what you do to be intuitive. Your passions are

your signature strengths, strengths that are unique and being practiced every day. You

are then mentally involved and emotionally committed.

A person can’t be intuitive if she is thinking of the past, and worried about the

future. The mind has to be present in the now. Mindfulness, and the ability to concentrate

on what one is doing without being distracted, is a prerequisite for intuitive thinking.

Mindfulness and meditation help us to focus the mind and listen to the inner voice.

Intuition arises when we think in concepts. In my study of Field Marshal Rommel’s

military life, I learnt that in a meeting engagement between two adversaries, victory goes

to the side that shoots first. By doing so, you seize the initiative. I have applied this

principle successfully in several crises situations.

And finally, think positive. Negativity is the antidote to intuition.

Lesson 4- Inadequate Preparations

In my early military career, military history had taught me that, if the preparations

are good, the battle will be easy. 80 percent success in battle depends on the level of

preparations - logistics, training, rehearsals, mental conditioning, and correct positioning

of forces.

After reaching Base Camp, serious concerns were raised about the physiological,

psychological, and technical readiness of the climbers. Lack of team work, cohesion and

mutual trust made matters worse. Boukreev, the experienced Russian guide, expressed

serious reservations about the abilities and readiness of the clients.

“About the team’s overall level of readiness and ability I had concerns…

[particularly] the people who had no high-altitude assault experience… Our practice

in training and developing climbers was to build their experience and confidence

over a long time, starting with lower level mountains and graduating them to

8000ers when they were prepared. Here, I understood, as had been the situation

on the other commercial expeditions, I had been hired to prepare the mountain for

the people instead of the other way around.”

Krakauer, author of a famous book In Thin Air, and a part of the expedition, expressed his

unease.

“I wasn’t sure what to make my (our) follow clients. In outlook and experience they

were nothing like hard-core climbers with whom I usually went into the mountains,

but they seemed like nice decent folks… For the most part I attributed my growing

unease to the fact that I’d never climbed as a member of such a large group - a

group of complete strangers, no less.”

Recalling his feelings when he arrived at Base Camp, Krakauer, noted:

“When it can time for each of us to assess our own abilities and weigh them against

the formidable challenge of the world’s highest mountain, it sometimes seemed as

though half the population at Base Camp was clinically delusional.”

Learning Questions