In May 1996, teams led by Scott Fisher and Rob Hall attempted to summit Mt. Everest, resulting in five deaths. Many have analyzed mistakes causing disastrous outcomes. This paper examines how sunk cost bias influences events.
Sunk cost bias refers to seemingly irrational decisions based on past rational choices regarding the same issue. It is a psychological trap where past successes make present choices appear rational despite the danger. The Everest case demonstrates sunk cost bias through perilous decisions resting on past triumphs.
Involving inexperienced climbers reflects sunk cost bias. Though leaders could have aborted the climb to protect novices, they proceeded based on past summits with them (Roberto & Carioggia, 2003). Canceling was rational, but prior investments prevented it.
Several issues before the attempt could have prompted abandonment, including oxygen delivery delays, porter pay disputes further slowing things, and a high-altitude tent failing to arrive (Krakauer, 1997). The sunk cost bias of having invested heavily generated the risky decision to continue, downplaying the hazards.
Using few radios also exhibited bias (Roberto & Carioggia, 2003). Despite the danger of inadequate communications, the sunk expedition costs led members to overlook the problem instead of delaying until obtaining more radios. Later radio issues could have been prevented by canceling when the shortfall was noticed.
These examples show how prior rational choices and expenses shaped reckless decisions through sunk cost bias, demonstrating how such bias can undermine organizational decision-making.
References
Krakauer, J. (1997). Into Thin Air: A Personal Account of the Mt. Everest Disaster. New York, NY: Villard.
Roberto, M. & Carioggia, G. (2003). Mount Everest-1996. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School.
