mount everest 1996 case study solution

Order Status
Testimonials
What Makes Us Different

Mount Everest 1996 Harvard Case Solution & Analysis

Home >> Harvard Case Study Analysis Solutions >> Mount Everest 1996

Question 1 What caused this tragedy? On May 11, 1996 a major tragedy had occurred on Everest and among the two top expedition leaders, 5 of the leaders had lost their lives. The first leader was the New Zealander, Rob Hall and he was the leader of the Adventure Consultant and the second leader was from Colorado who was Scott Fisher. He was the team leader of Mountain Madness and they also accompanied three other climbers that included the Andy Harris, Yasuko Namba and Doug Hansen. Both of the leaders were experienced climbers but the tragedy that happened is marked as the deadliest in the history of Everest. According to the analysis of the situation and based on the decision making of Hall, I think that Hall failed out to adhere to the decision for the turnaround at the 1pm time. This was very important as some of Hall’s partners such as 2 sherpas, Kasischke, Taske and Hathison decided to strictly follow the rule and they had made the u turn despite the fact that they were all so close to the summit and as a result all of them survived the expedition. Secondly, the decision of Hall to go ahead and accompany the climber Doug Hansen had caused him to lost the focus for all the other members in terms of priority. The leadership style of Hall was dissent and not tolerating therefore, nobody was able to question all the wrong decisions made by Hall. This could be seen when Hall had allowed Boukreev, the Russian guide to climb without oxygen and later he had to descend faster. In addition to this Fisher also made many mistakes such as climbing the summit without sufficient oxygen and as he was competing against Hall therefore, he disregarded many safety aspects such as allowing Lobsang to climb without oxygen. All of these factors contributed to the 1996 Mount Everest Tragedy. Mount Everest 1996 Harvard Case Solution & Analysis Question 2 What is your assessment of Hall and Fischer as leaders? Hall and Fisher both have a different leadership style. The strengths of Hall include confidence and positive attitude. He had climbed Everest around 4 times and has also guided 39 clients to the summit. He is a detailed and oriented character and a caring personality. He is also well respected by the clients and the staff. However, as a leader he is highly dependent on the clients and has to specific turnaround time. He also fails to follow his own principles during the turnaround time. On the other hand, the strengths of Scott Fisher include that he was able to climb the Everest with the minimum supply of the oxygen. He had high confidence and a positive attitude. He was charismatic and energetic. He provided his clients with more self-reliance and confidence by giving them more freedom during the acclimatization. However, he also had certain weaknesses being a leader such as he had no previous experience of climbing Everest or guiding a team. He was poor to judge the capabilities of his own clients. There was a difference in the wages of the staff members and poor management due to no clear hierarchal organization...........

This is just a sample partial work. Please place the order on the website to get your own originally done case solution.

Hire us for Originally Written Case Solution/ Analysis

Like us and get updates:.

Harvard Case Solutions

Search Case Solutions

Accounting Case Solutions
Auditing Case Studies
Business Case Studies
Economics Case Solutions
Finance Case Studies Analysis
Harvard Case Study Analysis Solutions
Human Resource Cases
Ivey Case Solutions
Management Case Studies
Marketing HBS Case Solutions
Operations Management Case Studies
Supply Chain Management Cases
Taxation Case Studies

Contact us:

Check Order Status

How Does it Work?

Why TheCaseSolutions.com?

Case questions answered:

We have uploaded two case solutions, which both answer the following questions:

Why did this tragedy on Mount Everest occur? What is the root cause of the problem?
Are tragedies such as this simply inevitable in a place like Mount Everest?
What is your evaluation of Scott Fisher and Rob Hall as leaders? Did they make some poor decisions? If so, why?
What are the lessons from this Mount Everest – 1996 case for general managers in business enterprises?

Not the questions you were looking for? Submit your own questions & get answers .

Mount Everest - 1996 Case Answers

You will receive access to two case study solutions! The second is not yet visible in the preview.

1. Why did this tragedy occur on Mount Everest? What is the root cause of the problem?

Hiking Mount Everest is a risky activity and the aim of every professional climber. It looks like the power of nature and mountains is unconquered. However, every year, the best of the best is trying to prove it wrong. They find themselves in Nepal to fight the elements and to summit the top of the world.

In my opinion, there is the only factor that generalizes all the roots of the tragedy. This is, let us say, a base of the source. At the beginning of the 1990s, the commercialization of Everest began.

The first commercial expeditions to Mount Everest started to offer mountain tour guides who were there to realize the dream of every climber. They deliver it all-inclusive. It includes the delivery of participants to the base camp, organization of the routes, and settlement at the camps on the way, training, acclimatization, and others.

However, summiting is still not guaranteed. Simple huh? All of that was for 65,000 USD back in 1996. In pursuit of big money, the mountain guides and the companies accept to take clients with little climbing experience. This they do even if it is clear that they would not have a single chance to summit.

Organizers start to act extremely irresponsibly towards the mountain, which takes away the lives of people year by year. In the history of Mount Everest, there have already been up to 250 deaths (only known ones).

The main reasons for tragedies are avalanches, severe weather conditions, fallings from height, health issues such as lack of oxygen, frostbite, etc.

Back to irresponsibility. During the expeditions in 1996, the climbing was not well prepared. In the preparation stage of the voyage of Mountain Madness, it was purchased an insufficient amount of oxygen equipment, which was a critical moment later.

There were also old-fashioned radio sets that weren’t working regularly, which did not allow guides to stay connected to the base camp during the climb.

Tour guides were even ignoring the precautious measures and continued the planned summiting the day when the weather was not expected to be good. They also did not follow instructions when it was agreed to start descending at 2 PM, and they did not turn back those who were running late.

Of course, hacking Mount Everest is all about natural power, weather conditions, experience, and probably some luck. However, the rules that started to be broken in pursuit of huge revenues with the commercialization of Everest appeared to be fatal back in 1996.

” We don’t need competition between people. There is competition between every person and this mountain. The last word always belongs to the mountain” – Anatoli Boukreev.

2. Are tragedies such as this simply inevitable in a place like Mount Everest?

This sort of tragedy is inevitable in a place like Everest. That’s totally true. Climbing is a dangerous activity by itself, but it becomes too risky when it comes to the summit, almost reaching 9000 meters above sea level when the human body is not supposed to function at this sort of altitude.

The smallest mistake or recklessness will cost a life. Every person deciding to summit Mount Everest realizes that it can be their last climb.

The best thing a human being can do is to maximally prepare physically and mentally, plan the schedule of acclimatization and summiting, observe the weather forecast, acquire necessary equipment, and follow regular instructions for hiking an 8000-meter peak. This gives no guarantees; however, it minimizes the risk of fatality by human mistake.

3. What is your evaluation of Scott Fisher and Rob Hall as leaders? Did they make some poor decisions? If so, why?

Rob Hall and Scott Fisher were among the first mountain guides to start the commercial guided tour to Mount Everest. Beginning in 1992, Rob Hall founded the first expedition-guiding company, Adventure Consultants.

With vast experience in climbing at a high altitude, he successfully summited Mount Everest 5 times and guided 39 clients to the top. Rob was considered the safest guide, and that’s why he was charging more than his competitor companies.

Rob seemed to be determined to his rules and always explained the process of climbing the summit. He was well-organized, experienced, and responsible.

He did a great job providing an acclimatization routing. His team of tour guides consisted of two climbers: one with more experience and the other with less. Rob did not have…

Unlock Case Solution Now!

Get instant access to this case solution with a simple, one-time payment ($24.90).

After purchase:

You'll be redirected to the full case solution.
You will receive an access link to the solution via email.

Best decision to get my homework done faster! Michael MBA student, Boston

How do I get access?

Upon purchase, you are forwarded to the full solution and also receive access via email.

Is it safe to pay?

Yes! We use Paypal and Stripe as our secure payment providers of choice.

What is Casehero?

We are the marketplace for case solutions - created by students, for students.

Mount Everest 1996 Case Study Solution Analysis

by HBR Sixty One

Mount Everest 1996 Case Study Solution Analysis. Get Mount Everest 1996 Case Study Analysis Solution. Contact us directly at buycasesolutions(at)gmail(dot)com if you want to order for Mount Everest 1996 Case Solution, Case Analysis, Case Study Solution.... More

Email us for Any Case Solution at: [email protected] Mount Everest 1996 Case Study Solution Analysis Mount Everest 1996 Case Study Solution Analysis. Our tutors are available 24/7 to assist in your academic stuff, Our Professional writers are ready to serve you in services you need. Every Case Study Solution & Analysis is prepared from scratch, top quality, plagiarism free. Authors: Michael A. Roberto, Gina M. Carioggia Get Case Study Solution and Analysis of Mount Everest 1996 in a FAIR PRICE!! Steps for Case Study Solution Analysis: 1. Introduction of Mount Everest 1996 Case Solution The Mount Everest 1996 case study is a Harvard Business Review case study, which presents a simulated practical experience to the reader allowing them to learn about real life problems in the business world. The Mount Everest 1996 case consisted of a central issue to the organization, which had to be identified, analysed and creative solutions had to be drawn to tackle the issue. This paper presents the solved Mount Everest 1996 case analysis and case solution. The method through which the analysis is done is mentioned, followed by the relevant tools used in finding the solution. The case solution first identifies the central issue to the Mount Everest 1996 case study, and the relevant stakeholders affected by this issue. This is known as the problem identification stage. After this, the relevant tools and models are used, which help in the case study analysis and case study solution. The tools used in identifying the solution consist of the SWOT Analysis, Porter Five Forces Analysis, PESTEL Analysis, VRIO analysis, Value Chain Analysis, BCG Matrix analysis, Ansoff Matrix analysis, and the Marketing Mix analysis. The solution consists of recommended strategies to overcome this central issue. It is a good idea to also propose alternative case study solutions, because if the main solution is not found feasible, then the alternative solutions could be implemented. Lastly, a good case study solution also includes an implementation plan for the recommendation strategies. This shows how through a step-by-step procedure as to how the central issue can be resolved. Email us for Any Case Solution at: [email protected] Note: This article is just a sample and not an actual case solution. If you want original case solution, please place your order on the Email. Please do check Junk/Spam folder of your E-mail for our reply, if not in Inbox.

Email us for Any Case Solution at: [email protected] 2. Problem Identification of Mount Everest 1996 Case Solution Harvard Business Review cases involve a central problem that is being faced by the organization and these problems affect a number of stakeholders. In the problem identification stage, the problem faced by Mount Everest 1996 is identified through reading of the case. This could be mentioned at the start of the reading, the middle or the end. At times in a case analysis, the problem may be clearly evident in the reading of the HBR case. At other times, finding the issue is the job of the person analysing the case. It is also important to understand what stakeholders are affected by the problem and how. The goals of the stakeholders and are the organization are also identified to ensure that the case study analysis are consistent with these. 3. Analysis of the Mount Everest 1996 HBR Case Study The objective of the case should be focused on. This is doing the Mount Everest 1996 Case Solution. This analysis can be proceeded in a step-by-step procedure to ensure that effective solutions are found. In the first step, a growth path of the company can be formulated that lays down its vision, mission and strategic aims. These can usually be developed using the company history is provided in the case. Company history is helpful in a Business Case study as it helps one understand what the scope of the solutions will be for the case study. The next step is of understanding the company; its people, their priorities and the overall culture. This can be done by using company history. It can also be done by looking at anecdotal instances of managers or employees that are usually included in an HBR case study description to give the reader a real feel of the situation. Lastly, a timeline of the issues and events in the case needs to be made. Arranging events in a timeline allows one to predict the next few events that are likely to take place. It also helps one in developing the case study solutions. The timeline also helps in understanding the continuous challenges that are being faced by the organisation. 4. SWOT analysis of Mount Everest 1996 An important tool that helps in addressing the central issue of the case and coming up with Mount Everest 1996 HBR case solution is the SWOT analysis. The SWOT analysis is a strategic management tool that lists down in the form of a matrix, an organisation's internal strengths and weaknesses, and external opportunities and threats. It helps in the strategic analysis of Mount Everest 1996 Email us for Any Case Solution at: [email protected] Note: This article is just a sample and not an actual case solution. If you want original case solution, please place your order on the Email. Please do check Junk/Spam folder of your E-mail for our reply, if not in Inbox.

Email us for Any Case Solution at: [email protected] Once this listing has been done, a clearer picture can be developed in regards to how strategies will be formed to address the main problem. For example, strengths will be used as an advantage in solving the issue. Therefore, the SWOT analysis is a helpful tool in coming up with the Mount Everest 1996 Case Study answers. One does not need to remain restricted to using the traditional SWOT analysis, but the advanced TOWS matrix or weighted average SWOT analysis can also be used. 5. Porter Five Forces Analysis for Mount Everest 1996 Another helpful tool in finding the case solutions is of Porter's Five Forces analysis. This is also a strategic tool that is used to analyse the competitive environment of the industry in which Mount Everest 1996 operates in. Analysis of the industry is important as businesses do not work in isolation in real life, but are affected by the business environment of the industry that they operate in. Harvard Business case studies represent real-life situations, and therefore, an analysis of the industry's competitive environment needs to be carried out to come up with more holistic case study solutions. In Porter's Five Forces analysis, the industry is analysed along 5 dimensions. • These are the threats that the industry faces due to new entrants. • It includes the threat of substitute products. • It includes the bargaining power of buyers in the industry. • It includes the bargaining power of suppliers in an industry. • Lastly, the overall rivalry or competition within the industry is analysed This tool helps one understand the relative powers of the major players in the industry and its overall competitive dynamics. Actionable and practical solutions can then be developed by keeping these factors into perspective. 6. PESTEL Analysis of Mount Everest 1996 Another helpful tool that should be used in finding the case study solutions is the PESTEL analysis. This also looks at the external business environment of the organisation helps in finding case study Analysis to real-life business issues as in HBR cases. • The PESTEL analysis particularly looks at the macro environmental factors that affect the industry. These are the political, environmental, social, technological, environmental and legal (regulatory) factors affecting the industry. • Factors within each of these 6 should be listed down, and analysis should be made as to how these affect the organisation under question. Email us for Any Case Solution at: [email protected] Note: This article is just a sample and not an actual case solution. If you want original case solution, please place your order on the Email. Please do check Junk/Spam folder of your E-mail for our reply, if not in Inbox.

Email us for Any Case Solution at: [email protected] 7. VRIO Analysis of Mount Everest 1996 This is an analysis carried out to know about the internal strengths and capabilities of Mount Everest 1996 . Under the VRIO analysis, the following steps are carried out: • The internal resources of Mount Everest 1996 are listed down. • Each of these resources are assessed in terms of the value it brings to the organization. • Each resource is assessed in terms of how rare it is. A rare resource is one that is not commonly used by competitors. • Each resource is assessed whether it could be imitated by competition easily or not. • Lastly, each resource is assessed in terms of whether the organization can use it to an advantage or not. • The analysis done on the 4 dimensions; Value, Rareness, Imitability, and Organization. If a resource is high on all of these 4, then it brings long-term competitive advantage. If a resource is high on Value, Rareness, and Imitability, then it brings an unused competitive advantage. If a resource is high on Value and Rareness, then it only brings temporary competitive advantage. If a resource is only valuable, then it’s a competitive parity. If it’s none, then it can be regarded as a competitive disadvantage. 8. Value Chain Analysis of Mount Everest 1996 The Value chain analysis of Mount Everest 1996 helps in identifying the activities of an organization, and how these add value in terms of cost reduction and differentiation. This tool is used in the case study analysis as follows: • The firm’s primary and support activities are listed down. • Identifying the importance of these activities in the cost of the product and the differentiation they produce. • Lastly, differentiation or cost reduction strategies are to be used for each of these activities to increase the overall value provided by these activities. Recognizing value creating activities and enhancing the value that they create allow Mount Everest 1996 to increase its competitive advantage. 9. BCG Matrix of Mount Everest 1996 The BCG Matrix is an important tool in deciding whether an organization should invest or divest in its strategic business units. The matrix involves placing the strategic business units of a business in one of four categories; question marks, stars, dogs and cash cows. The placement in these categories depends on the Email us for Any Case Solution at: [email protected] Note: This article is just a sample and not an actual case solution. If you want original case solution, please place your order on the Email. Please do check Junk/Spam folder of your E-mail for our reply, if not in Inbox.

Email us for Any Case Solution at: [email protected] relative market share of the organization and the market growth of these strategic business units. The steps to be followed in this analysis is as follows: • Identify the relative market share of each strategic business unit. • Identify the market growth of each strategic business unit. • Place these strategic business units in one of four categories. Question Marks are those strategic business units with high market share and low market growth rate. Stars are those strategic business units with high market share and high market growth rate. Cash Cows are those strategic business units with high market share and low market growth rate. Dogs are those strategic business units with low market share and low growth rate. • Relevant strategies should be implemented for each strategic business unit depending on its position in the matrix. The strategies identified from the Mount Everest 1996 BCG matrix and included in the case pdf. These are either to further develop the product, penetrate the market, develop the market, diversification, investing or divesting. 10. Ansoff Matrix of Mount Everest 1996 Ansoff Matrix is an important strategic tool to come up with future strategies for Mount Everest 1996 in the case solution. It helps decide whether an organization should pursue future expansion in new markets and products or should it focus on existing markets and products. • The organization can penetrate into existing markets with its existing products. This is known as market penetration strategy. • The organization can develop new products for the existing market. This is known as product development strategy. • The organization can enter new markets with its existing products. This is known as market development strategy. • The organization can enter into new markets with new products. This is known as a diversification strategy. The choice of strategy depends on the analysis of the previous tools used and the level of risk the organization is willing to take. 11. Marketing Mix of Mount Everest 1996 Mount Everest 1996 needs to bring out certain responses from the market that it targets. To do so, it will need to use the marketing mix, which serves as a tool in helping bring out responses from the market. The 4 elements of the marketing mix are Product, Price, Place and Promotions. The following steps are required to carry out a marketing mix analysis and include this in the case study analysis. • Analyse the company’s products and devise strategies to improve the product offering of the company. Email us for Any Case Solution at: [email protected] Note: This article is just a sample and not an actual case solution. If you want original case solution, please place your order on the Email. Please do check Junk/Spam folder of your E-mail for our reply, if not in Inbox.

Email us for Any Case Solution at: [email protected] • Analyse the company’s price points and devise strategies that could be based on competition, value or cost. • Analyse the company’s promotion mix. This includes the advertisement, public relations, personal selling, sales promotion, and direct marketing. Strategies will be devised which makes use of a few or all of these elements. • Analyse the company’s distribution and reach. Strategies can be devised to improve the availability of the company’s products. 12. Mount Everest 1996 Strategy The strategies devised and included in the Mount Everest 1996 case memo should have a strategy. A strategy is a strategy that involves firms seeking uncontested market spaces, which makes the competition of the company irrelevant. It involves coming up with new and unique products or ideas through innovation. This gives the organization a competitive advantage over other firms, unlike a red ocean strategy. 13. Competitors analysis of Mount Everest 1996 The PESTEL analysis discussed previously looked at the macro environmental factors affecting business, but not the microenvironmental factors. One of the microenvironmental factors are competitors, which are addressed by a competitor analysis. The Competitors analysis of Mount Everest 1996 looks at the direct and indirect competitors within the industry that it operates in. • This involves a detailed analysis of their actions and how these would affect the future strategies of Mount Everest 1996 . • It involves looking at the current market share of the company and its competitors. • It should compare the marketing mix elements of competitors, their supply chain, human resources, financial strength etc. • It also should look at the potential opportunities and threats that these competitors pose on the company. 14. Organisation of the Analysis into Mount Everest 1996 Case Study Solution Once various tools have been used to analyse the case, the findings of this analysis need to be incorporated into practical and actionable solutions. These solutions will also be the Mount Everest 1996 case answers. These are usually in the form of strategies that the organisation can adopt. The following step-by-step procedure can be used to organise the Harvard Business case solution and recommendations: Email us for Any Case Solution at: [email protected] Note: This article is just a sample and not an actual case solution. If you want original case solution, please place your order on the Email. Please do check Junk/Spam folder of your E-mail for our reply, if not in Inbox.

Email us for Any Case Solution at: [email protected] • The first step of the solution is to come up with a corporate level strategy for the organisation. This part consists of solutions that address issues faced by the organisation on a strategic level. This could include suggestions, changes or recommendations to the company's vision, mission and its strategic objectives. It can include recommendations on how the organisation can work towards achieving these strategic objectives. Furthermore, it needs to be explained how the stated recommendations will help in solving the main issue mentioned in the case and where the company will stand in the future as a result of these. • The second step of the solution is to come up with a business level strategy. The HBR case studies may present issues faced by a part of the organisation. For example, the issues may be stated for marketing and the role of a marketing manager needs to be assumed. So, recommendations and suggestions need to address the strategy of the marketing department in this case. Therefore, the strategic objectives of this business unit (Marketing) will be laid down in the solutions and recommendations will be made as to how to achieve these objectives. Similar would be the case for any other business unit or department such as human resources, finance, IT etc. The important thing to note here is that the business level strategy needs to be aligned with the overall corporate strategy of the organisation. For example, if one suggests the organisation to focus on differentiation for competitive advantage as a corporate level strategy, then it can't be recommended for the Mount Everest 1996 Case Study Solution that the business unit should focus on costs. • The third step is not compulsory but depends from case to case. In some HBR case studies, one may be required to analyse an issue at a department. This issue may be analysed for a manager or employee as well. In these cases, recommendations need to be made for these people. The solution may state that objectives that these people need to achieve and how these objectives would be achieved. The case study analysis and solution, and Mount Everest 1996 case answers should be written down in the Mount Everest 1996 case memo, clearly identifying which part shows what. The Mount Everest 1996 case should be in a professional format, presenting points clearly that are well understood by the reader. 15. Alternate solution to the Mount Everest 1996 HBR case study It is important to have more than one solution to the case study. This is the alternate solution that would be implemented if the original proposed solution is found infeasible or impossible due to a change in circumstances. The alternate solution for Email us for Any Case Solution at: [email protected] Note: This article is just a sample and not an actual case solution. If you want original case solution, please place your order on the Email. Please do check Junk/Spam folder of your E-mail for our reply, if not in Inbox.

Email us for Any Case Solution at: [email protected] Mount Everest 1996 is presented in the same way as the original solution, where it consists of a corporate level strategy, business level strategy and other recommendations. 16. Implementation of Mount Everest 1996 Case Solution The case study does not end at just providing recommendations to the issues at hand. One is also required to provide how these recommendations would be implemented. This is shown through a proper implementation framework. A detailed implementation framework helps in distinguishing between an average and an above average case study answer. A good implementation framework shows the proposed plan and how the organisations' resources would be used to achieve the objectives. It also lays down the changes needed to be made as well as the assumptions in the process. • A proper implementation framework shows that one has clearly understood the case study and the main issue within it. • It shows that one has been clarified with the HBR fundamentals on the topic. • It shows that the details provided in the case have been properly analysed. • It shows that one has developed an ability to prioritise recommendations and how these could be successfully implemented. • The implementation framework also helps by removing out any recommendations that are not practical or actionable as these could not be implemented. Therefore, the implementation framework ensures that the solution to the Mount Everest 1996 Harvard case is complete and properly answered. 17. Recommendations and Action Plan for Mount Everest 1996 case analysis For Mount Everest 1996, based on the SWOT Analysis, Porter Five Forces Analysis, PESTEL Analysis, VRIO analysis, Value Chain Analysis, BCG Matrix analysis, Ansoff Matrix analysis, and the Marketing Mix analysis, the recommendations and action plan are as follows: • Mount Everest 1996 should focus on making use of its strengths identified from the VRIO analysis to make the most of the opportunities identified from the PESTEL. • Mount Everest 1996 should enhance the value creating activities within its value chain. • Mount Everest 1996 should invest in its stars and cash cows, while getting rid of the dogs identified from the BCG Matrix analysis. Email us for Any Case Solution at: [email protected] Note: This article is just a sample and not an actual case solution. If you want original case solution, please place your order on the Email. Please do check Junk/Spam folder of your E-mail for our reply, if not in Inbox.

Email us for Any Case Solution at: [email protected] • To achieve its overall corporate and business level objectives, it should make use of the marketing mix tools to obtain desired results from its target market. Email us for Any Case Solution at: [email protected] Note: This article is just a sample and not an actual case solution. If you want original case solution, please place your order on the Email. Please do check Junk/Spam folder of your E-mail for our reply, if not in Inbox.

Related publications
Add to favorites

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

We're Hiring!
Help Center

Mount Everest Case Study Analysis (from "High-Stakes Decision Making: The Lessons of Mount Everest" case)

Mount Everest case demonstrates just how important leadership is for a group that works towards a common goal. This case doesn’t only provide information that can be applied to studying extreme sports team dynamics. It rather suggests that the “right” leadership must be present to ensure the success of any common venue. The leaders of the two expeditions presented in the case, Hall and Fischer, underestimated the importance of maintaining a strong team culture within a group of people who were driven by self-interest, which lead to the subsequent failure of both expeditions. If Hall and Fischer dedicated more effort towards building trust among the team members and communicated their beliefs more clearly, the result wouldn’t have been so unfortunate. Otherwise, the expeditions had a low chance of success from its beginning.