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
blindlyandrigidly.Theyworryabout‘Mindlessness’asaconsequenceofautomatic,habitualbehavioursand
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