leadership

It was interesting to read about your opinion on who showed good and bad leadership. Hall was a good leader because he always looked out for the well-being of everyone in his team, including the Sherpas. Krakauer discussed how Hall sat everyone down and gave them an “uncommonly stern lecture about the need to show their Sherpa staff gratitude and proper respect” (p. 55). While his focus was helping everyone achieve their goals of getting to the top of the mountain, he acknowledges that everyone plays an important role in reaching that goal. According to Nahavandi, “leaders have long-term and future-oriented perspectives and provide a vision for their followers to look beyond their immediate surroundings” (p. 9).  Nahavandi stressed how leadership requires a person “with cognitive ability to remember, collect and integrate information, analyze problems, develop solutions, and evaluate alternatives” (p. 112). I believe Rob Hall had all of these characteristics, that’s why he was a good leader. He used his knowledge of climbing and his tech skills to help people climb the Seven Summits.

I agree that Ian Woodall demonstrated poor leadership skills. In one occasion, Ian Woodall proclaimed “that the South Africans would go to the top whenever they damn well pleased” (Krakauer, p. 147). After hearing Woodall, Hall “flew into a rage when he learned of Woodall’s refusal to cooperate” (Krakauer, p. 147). This demonstrated Woodall’s arrogance and how he is not a trustworthy person. Nice post about the good and bad types of leadership presented in the book.

Citation

Krakauer, J. (1997). Into thin air: a personal account of the mount everest disaster. New York, NY: Anchor Books.

Nahavandi, A. (2015). The art and science of leadership (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.