1
Analysing the case of one of the worst mountaineering accidents until this day, this case study focuses on why experts in their area failed to realise the dangers of the path they had chosen. Based on interviews with survivors and various secondary material we have developed an explanation that extrapolates to any type of organization where one finds experts that come together to solve a particular task. As with any organized endeavour, mindful organising was not translated, and synchronised to a coherent, synchronised collective mind-set. Instead normality bread complacency, warning signals were considered in isolation, and normalised, and routines were applied as if they continued to operate under normal conditions. As such, leadership is required to translate and synchronise individual mindful organising: Raising and Sharing Concerns Leaders in error-critical organisations must read and make sense of many complex situations which occur simultaneously, including those which have not previously occurred and which may have been thought unimaginable. As a result, they take nothing for granted, purposefully seeking out and assessing anomalies, errors and impending problems, even those that are subtle or hidden. Setting the Communication Agenda Having developed an information-rich environment, leaders develop a good grasp of the current ‘health’ of the system by turning data into intelligence through identifying patterns and trends. They recognise the importance of first-hand observation and so put great emphasis on safety. They often compare current events with past learning in an attempt to predict future outcomes, yet they are reluctant to oversimplify interpretations and are wary of taking information out of context. Envisioning Options and Preparing Resources Where possible, leaders create space to reflect, conceptualise and visualise the effects and consequences of their decisions first, before taking action. They know that unexpected problems will arise for which the rule book will not apply. They therefore involve others and share responsibility for the problem with people at all levels of the expedition, often distributing leadership responsibility and decision-making authority to those with the appropriate expertise and knowledge for the specific problem. Co-ordinating, Supporting and Reinforcing Performance Leaders recognise the importance of making timely interventions when problems are identified. They take responsibility and encourage others to do the same – “the buck stops everywhere”. They see plans through to completion. However, they also realise that plans may endanger people if they are followed blindly and rigidly. They worry about ‘Mindlessness’ as a consequence of automatic, habitual behaviours and repetitive tasks. They therefore encourage adaptation, improvisation and creative solutions for addressing unpredictable challenges. In 2008, in the worst single accident in the history of mountaineering, eleven out of thirty-two highly experienced mountaineers died. Three others were seriously injured when the eight international expeditions attempted to climb one of the most challenging mountains in the world – K2, the second- highest mountain on Earth. It is tempting to blame a few individuals or tactical blunders, as most scholarly work on mountaineering does (e.g. Kayes, 2004, Roberto, 2002, Burnette et al., 2011). In this case we find the opposite. We argue that the situation emerged out of how we collectively make sense of uncertainty and manages it - how mindful we as a collective are. The tragedy is of course partially associated to climbers being at the wrong place at the wrong time, but the deeper explanation is found in malfunctioning group processes and the lack of leadership that is instilling and maintaining a state of caution. Instead, in this article, we find that the expeditions were coordinated on a higher superficial level. On a lower, more detailed level we however find that the eight expeditions were not coordinated internally or externally. The discrepancy between the higher and lower order of coordination caused confusion and inability to support decisions, while the perceived “no-need” for leadership caused failure to translate and synchronise individual mind sets – Mindful Organising - to a collectiveness level or organising – Organisational Mindfulness. A Journey Into Oblivion The planned ascent The aspect of Mindfulness has received substantial attention among academics and practitioners alike, and recent attempts to further conceptualise Mindfulness led to the development of multi-level models. Based on the pioneering work by Weick (e.g. , 2000), Nideffer (e.g. Nideffer, 1976, Nideffer and Yock, 1976) and Sutcliffe and Vogus (e.g. , 2012), the aspect of Mindful Organising (the inner ring) suggests that individuals must be able to see the big picture (broad) as well as to have the capacity to concentrate on single operational issues (narrow). They should focus both on the wider system and business environment (external) as well as dealing with their own ideas and concerns (internal). Mindful Organising, at an individual level involves a nuanced assessment of the environment (Broad-External), and analysing environmental data into a ‘big picture’, a strategy (Broad-Internal). Rehearsing one’s options and readying oneself for action is encompassed in the Narrow-Internal quadrant, followed by the enactment of an action/ reaction and its performance review. Elmar Kutsch Dipl Kauf (FH) MBA PhD PgCAP APMP Deputy Director: Executive two-year MSc Programme and Project Management Markus Hällgren Professor in Management David Danyer BSc PhD Director of Research
