Hbr Mount Everest Case

Identify one decision-making bias covered in class that you believe may have contributed to the 1996 Everest tragedy.

Overconfidence was definitely a bias that contributed to the Everest tragedy. From the beginning, it was known to Fischer that much of his clients had not spent much time at high altitude, however he wasn’t concerned and stated that experience is overrated. Further, it was obvious that he was overconfident because instead of planning the appropriate course of action for his team, he spent a lot of time resolving issues that were coming at him. Although it was seen that he was exhausted early on during the expedition, his optimism and overconfidence led him to continue with the journey. This can also be related to planning fallacy with how Fischer underestimated how much longer the journey actually should have taken.

Another example was how Fischer didn’t give the group members any time to communicate amongst each other. Most of them met for the first time in Nepal, showing a side of optimism on Fischer’s side that all of these group members would get along. On the contrary, many of the climbers felt disconnected with the people around them and that, “…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.” There was not a strong bond with the group at all, however each was overly confident that they would be able to ascend the mountain as an individual even though this was something that needed to be done as a group.

The main problem definitely lied within Fischer’s overconfidence, as that spread to the teammates. He never expressed any doubts or concerns, which therefore lead to the group never questioning the higher authority. No one questioned the few outdated radios or the weather or even how there was no set time as to when to turn back before the ascent to the summit began. In a sense, Fischer’s...