Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
This paper is a case study report on the 1982 Canadian Mount Everest Expe dition. The climbers were asked to evaluate each other on the basis of three statements reflecting (a) personal friendship, (b) mountaineering expertise, and (c) responsibility and reliability at pre, mid and post expedition dates. Following two tragic accidents six of the fifteen climbers left the expedition. There were significant differences in interpersonal evaluations between some members of the group who stayed and some members of the group who left. The group who left lowered their evaluations of the leader in particular. The leader's autocratic style was not perceived by some climbers to always be appropriate to the situation prior to the accidents. Once the group was reduced in size and personality conflicts between some who stayed and some who left were eliminated, along with several other situational factors, the leader's style changed and was seen as more appropriate to the situation and the life cycle of the group. Emotional reactions to the directives of the leader were seen as a major factor in evaluating his decisions.
Bratton et al. (Wed,) studied this question.