Mount Everest – 1996 Case Requirements
Read the Mount Everest – 1996 case and answer each question below.
What factors created a climate in which people felt uncomfortable expressing dissent and engaging in a candid exchange of ideas and opinions?
What causes people to ignore rules in organizations? Why do individuals find it so difficult to ignore sunk costs?
Moving beyond Everest, what factors might inhibit constructive dissent in organizations? Is dissent always appropriate? Under what conditions should leaders encourage/discourage dissent?
Solution
Mount Everest 1996 Case Study
What factors created a climate in which people felt uncomfortable expressing dissent and engaging in a candid exchange of ideas and opinions?
There exists a great difference between being in a group and being in a team. The members of the group that was ascending the mountain failed to show any form of teamwork and expressed their individuality in every decision made, an aspect that was catalyzed by overconfidence and under confidence (Roberto, 2013, p. 152). This was the main reason why people were uncomfortable expressing dissent during the Mount Everest expedition. Under confidence enhances an apprehension or anticipatory regret that is felt prior to the making of a decision among individuals. Such anticipatory regret is likely to lead to costly delays and indecision, as experienced in the Everest expedition. Over confidence also contributed to the establishment of the climate where individuals did not feel comfortable sharing their dissent. No one was willing to disconfirm the leaders’ existing views. The leaders of the expedition, such as Rob Hall, were highly autocratic, an aspect that made it impossible for individuals who were placed at the bottom of the hierarchy such as the guides to release to them bad news, or to communicate issues of concern. It is important for leaders to effectively separate assumptions from facts and to encourage other persons to vigorously test critical assumptions to root out projections that are deemed overly optimistic (Kassing, 2011, p. 238).
What causes people to ignore rules in organizations? Why do individuals find it so difficult to ignore sunk costs?
Most individuals ignore rules within organizations as such rules are established by leaders without considering securing strong buy-in within the organization. It is important for managers to enhance commitment towards a given course within the organization through providing other individuals within the organization with adequate opportunities to take part in the process of decision making, while making sure that the process is legitimate and fair, and reducing interpersonal conflict during deliberations (Rubin, Rubin, Graham, Perse, & Seibold, 2009, p. 221). When decisions are imposed on the employees without consideration of their take, they are likely to grow in reluctance towards the implementation of the decisions. When individuals are involved in the making of decisions, they feel as part of the decision as their interests are well represented in the decisions. As such, these individuals will be more inclined to uphold the decisions made. Sunk-cost bias is one of the most common issues within organizations, which is less likely to be avoided by individuals. The escalated commitment to courses of action that are deemed risky and flawed is one that could be said to be heightened by social pressure, whereby the need to belong causes individuals to continuously fund and support their previous projects with the intent of proving themselves as powerful (Kiser, 2010, p. 136).
Moving beyond Everest, what factors might inhibit constructive dissent in organizations? Is dissent always appropriate? Under what conditions should leaders encourage/discourage dissent?
One of the factors that may inhibit constructive
dissent within the organization is the type of leadership in place. Some styles
of leadership, such as autocratic leadership, inhibit employee participation in
the process of decision-making, thus reducing the chances of such employees
expressing dissent (Chelst & Canbolat, 2012, p.
339).
Poor communication within the organization and lack of team work are also
factors of great importance in encouraging or discouraging dissent within the
organization. It is only when and environment of openness and trust is created
within teams that individuals will be able to criticize the contributions of
other members of the teams including their leaders in order to facilitate the
establishment of effective decisions. At times dissent may be inappropriate,
especially if it does not involve providing a solution to a problem within the
organization. Some employees may take advantage of the opportunity they are
provided with to criticize the contributions of others and direct their efforts
towards frustrating the efforts put in by other persons towards the betterment
of the organization in order to discredit them (Lewis, 2011,
p. 78).
Dissent should be encouraged during major decision making in the organization, whereby
all the members of the organization should be involved in finding the ultimate
decision. On the other hand, they should be discouraged in cases where they
promote hate and interpersonal conflict within the organization.
References
Chelst, K., & Canbolat, Y. B. (2012). Value-Added Decision Making for Managers. Boca Raton: CRC Press.
Kassing, J. (2011). Dissent in Organizations. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Kiser, R. (2010). Beyond Right and Wrong: The Power of Effective Decision Making for Attorneys and Clients. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Lewis, L. K. (2011). Organizational Change: Creating Change Through Strategic Communication. West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.
Roberto, M. A. (2013). Why Great Leaders Don’t Take Yes for an Answer: Managing for Conflict and Consensus (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education Inc.
Rubin, R. B., Rubin, A. M., Graham, E., Perse, E. M., & Seibold, D. (2009). Communication Research Measures II: A Sourcebook. New York: Routledge.
