PROFESSIONAL SKILLS CERTIFICATION (UTM PSC)

PROFESSIONAL ETHICS AND INTEGRITY

GLRM0020

ASSIGNMENT 2

SECTION 1

NAME MATRIC NO

SURAYA BINTI ISMAIL A22HM0160

NORSYAKILA BINTI ALI MUKHTAR A22HM0068

SITI NORASYIRAH BINTI MD RAMLI A22HM0155

SITI AISYAH BINTI AZMAN A22HP0220

LECTURER’S NAME

PROF. TS. DR. INTAN ZAURAH BINTI MAT DARUS

Read the Leadership Lesson of Mount Everest with your group and discuss 3 ethical challenges
faced by the two leaders among the Everest climbers. In this scenario, if you are the leader,
what is the best ethical decision would you suggest and why? Discuss with your group and
write a summary of your group views (minimum 1 page, maximum 3 pages).

1. 3 ethical challenges faced by the two leaders among the Everest climbers

Rob Hall and Scott Fischer encountered their first ethical test when making choices
under pressure. A May 10, 1996 storm put them in a tough spot. They had to weigh their duty
to keep clients safe against the urge to reach Everest's peak. Their clients expected a lot after
investing big money in the climb. But going on in bad weather raised big concerns. Hall chose to
stay with Doug Hansen, a client who was struggling. This showed he cared, but it put both their
lives at risk. Fischer's health got worse so he couldn't lead well. Fischer's poor health made it
hard for him to think , but he let his team keep going. This shows the tricky balance between
keeping spirits up and being a good leader when things get tough. They didn't set firm safety
rules, like strict time limits, which made it even harder to make good choices in a place where
taking too long or pushing too hard could kill you. Still, he let his team keep going. Neither stuck
to strict turn-back times, which were key for safety. This shows how hard it is to make the right
call under pressure when you have to weigh your goals and job duties against the need to keep
people safe. The case highlights the clash between ambition, job duties, and the main task of
keeping people alive.

Additionally, Rob Hall and Scott Fischer expressed concerns about the competence of
some team members which posed ethical challenges regarding their duty to ensure that all
climbers were adequately prepared for the ascent. Hall expressed worries about the abilities of
other teams, stating, "With so many incompetent people on the mountain, I think it's pretty
unlikely that we'll get through this season without something bad happening up high". Hall's
roster featured clients with minimal high-altitude experience, a crucial element in evaluating
their capacity to cope with the harsh conditions of Everest. The lack of footing for many of
them-they had never climbed peaks in that range of altitude disposed them toward fear since they
possessed no knowledge or experience of high-altitude climbing and its consequences. Despite
these worries, both leaders moved forward with their expeditions, prompting ethical questions
regarding their duty to properly assess clients and guarantee that all team members were
equipped to face the difficulties of high-altitude climbing. This general lack of competency
remained central to the failure of this expedition, ultimately dooming many lives.

Last but not least, Scott Fischer faced significant challenges in maintaining his
leadership effectiveness due to physical fatigue and illness. Leading up to the summit bid,
Fischer was reportedly unwell and exhausted from managing the logistical complexities of the
expedition. Despite his condition, he continued leading his team, prioritizing the mission's
success over his health. This compromised his ability to make critical decisions and provide
adequate support to his clients. His determination to proceed, even while physically impaired,
posed risks not only to himself but also to the safety of his team members, highlighting the
ethical dilemma of balancing personal limitations with professional responsibilities in extreme
conditions.

2. the best ethical decision would you suggest and why

When Rob Hall and Scott Fischer were required to balance customer demands with safety
during the 1996 Mount Everest accident, they faced their first moral conundrum. Despite their
making choices under pressure . Enforcing these turnaround periods firmly, putting safety
before ambition, would have been the most moral thing to do in this case. By emphasising the
importance of safe descent over summiting, this approach would have respected the leaders' duty
to tend to their clients.

The expressed concerns about the competence of some team members constituted the
second ethical dilemma. Both leaders' acceptance of climbers with little experience at high
altitude increased the risks for the entire party. The most moral way to address this problem
would have been to implement stricter screening protocols and required training
beforehand. By doing this, they may have created a more secure and cohesive team atmosphere
by ensuring that all climbers possessed the necessary physical skills and conditioning.
 Finally, during the trip, Scott Fischer's health declined, which made it difficult for him to
continue being an effective leader when it came to handling personal constraints. By continuing
to lead despite his impaired health, he put himself and his squad in danger. The moral thing to do
would have been to assign leadership duties to a more capable team member, such Anatoli
Boukreev. This choice would have upheld the idea that the team's well-being should come before
individual goals, ensuring capable leadership in times of need.