Thin Air by Jon Krakauer - Case Study Example

Thin Air by Jon Krakauer In the book “Thin Air” as authored by Jon Krakauer are scenarios and experiences which reflect a case of decision making and mistakes which led to adverse consequences and loss of human life. This book is about a disaster on Mount Everest. The experiences of the disasters which emanated from the mountain climbing experience as postulated by Jon Krakauer arose from the fact that a group of mountaineers underwent one of the worst climbing season at Mount Everest. The implications of decision making and persuasion of a group by a mountain climbing leader led to the death of nine people within a single day as a bad storm walloped up on Mount Everest (Krakauer, 2009). From the narration of Jon Krakauer, it is revealed that during this mountain climbing experience, three more lives were lost before a month elapsed. This mountaineering experience at Everest took place in the spring of the year 1996. In decision making, information or knowledge is one of the most crucial elements of a leader of a group. This is because if there is lack of knowledge, making of choices is not likely to be informed. For example the climbers in the case study had no knowledge that anything was likely to go wrong as they started their commercial expedition for the Everest Summit at the South Col. It is lack of any knowledge of what was ahead that persuasion was achieved and the group made a decision to go ahead with the expedition. Nonetheless, leaders of a group are obliged to make members aware of the risks which are associated with the decisions that they make (Robert, 2001). This is demonstrated in the case where it is said that all members of the mountaineering expedition were conscious of the possible trouble that they would face but they did not realize that it would lead to loss of lives and make it the worst mountaineering expedition at Mount Everest (Krakauer, 2009). It has been argued that persuasion is one of the most important element that leaders use to make decisions in a group scenario (Robert, 2001). Rob Hall was the guide of the climbing expedition and due to the fact that he was experiences, the group of climbers was persuaded as they considered themselves that they were under the leadership of an expert. Experience makes leaders capable of making the right decisions and the success they attain inn decision making is attributed to the faith that members of a group have for such leaders and their persuasion appeal (Robert, 2001). The decision making of the climbing guide for the team was a fixed and strict turnaround timing which Hall put at 1 pm. It is notable that during the climbing experience most climbers did not adhere to the turnaround time as posted by the guide. This is seen by the fact that some climbers turned around at 3 pm (Krakauer, 2009). In this sense it can be argued that the guide of the climbing expedition was not able to successfully persuade the group of the importance that was attached t adherence to the turnaround time and the possible consequences that would emanated from decisions of failing to turnaround when expected. The decision Hall had for the group for the 1 pm turnaround proved to be very costly for the whole group. This is because of the fact that at this time the air at the mountain is very thin (Krakauer, 2009). It is in light of this sentiment that it is argued that the decision that was made by the leader of the group was not sufficiently informed. And if it was informed it s evident that the leader was ready to take risks associated to decision making. Nonetheless the ability of the leader in convincing the group to the 1 pm turnaround demonstrates how persuasion for a group would lead to decisions that are likely to lead to negative implications late on. Charisma and eloquence are usually attributed to the ability of leaders to make persuasive decisions that make members of a group convinced to follow suit to what is decided by the leader. In light of the case study, it can be argued that it is the charisma of the leader which led to the fact that the group was persuaded to agree to the decisions that were made. However it is evident that regardless of the persuasiveness of the leader to the turnaround, most of the climbers made their turnaround at two hour later. This means that the persuasiveness of a leader would convince group members but this alone does not mean that they are likely to adhere to the decisions. The psychological aspects of persuasion reveal that a group of people are more likely to be persuaded by a leader who is more similar to themselves unlike one who is different from them (Robert, 2001). This fact can be used to understand the ability of the leader and guide of the Mount Everest expedition to convince persuade fellow climbers. The climbers were persuaded to adhere to the decisions of the leader because he was part of the team and the possible risks that they would face could also befall him. In this sense the leader of the climbing expedition was alike to the other climbers. As a result, the decisions that the leader made were agreed upon by the group members regardless of the risks that they posed to the members of the climbing team. The dangers of the high altitude at Mount Everest were very real to the members of the climbing group. But it is evident that they complied with the guide of their leader just because of the persuading element of similarity or sharing one thing in common. It can be translated that the climbers would not have listened to a guide who for example was directing them on phone from a distance. The social heuristics that were achieved during the mount climbing expedition at Everest can also be described by psychological concepts of persuasion and decision making within a group. It is postulated that people are not only likely to be persuaded by a leader who is similar to them but also to a leader who likes them or who implies that he or she does like the group (Robert, 2001). It is in this sense of thought that the social heuristics during the Everest expedition can be linked to the ability of the leader in social interaction and appeal. This was translated to by the climbers that the leader liked them. As a result there was a component of trust that the group developed by the guide and as a result they complied with the decisions that were reached. The social heuristics as a process of group decision making can also be reflected within the case study to reveal that the group members had a good social relationship. This enabled them to reach group decision speedily. Additionally, the judgments that were made by the climbers was quick and efficient especially in making decisions when they were befell by the reality of the mountain and the inherent risks. The climbing expedition at Everest was motivated by the desire to reach at the summit without wasting much time. This can be attributed to the costly decisions that were making within the social heurists of the climbers. They did not want to waste a lot of time making decisions about thee climbing because they wanted to reach the summit of the mountain as soon as possible. It is argued that leaders of a group are mandated to play the role of ensuring that members of a group take time to make decisions because speedy decision making is likely to be erroneous and as a result leading t negative consequences (Robert, 2001). It is further said that social heuristics in group decision making is likely to lead into biases in decision making. The climbers for example may have made decisions that they felt would favor individual survival and well being during the storm that led to the demise of some climbers. The social heurists as a process of group decisions masking can therefore be attributed to the costly decisions that were made by the team of Mount Everest climbers. The errors in group decision making and the related biases can be attributed to the loss of lives during the expeditions in addition to the realities of climbing the mountain. In the light of the above arguments and reflections from the case study it is conclusive that decision making is a very important element in any endeavor. This is because the decisions that are made especially in a group setting can lead to negative implications when they affected by the biases of social heuristics. The decisions that leaders make within a group are persuasive if such leaders demonstrate social abilities of buying the faith of the members of a group. Therefore erroneous decisions that emanate from a leader may be persuasive to the group leading to negative implications. Moreover, the psychological aspects have been used to explain why people tend to be easily convinced. These aspects include the fact that a leaders is among the team and thus like the rest of them. It is in this regard that leaders who work with those that they lead are able to make convincing and persuasive decisions for the team. References Krakauer, J. (2009). Into thin air: A personal account of the Mount Everest disaster. New York: Anchor Books. Robert, C. (2001).Harnessing the Science of Persuasion. (Cover story). Harvard Business Review, 79 (9), 72-79 Read More