In 200 words please provide feedback based on the theory below:

In principle, the mountaineers work is simple: To win the game he has first to reach the mountains summit, said George Mallory, who took part in Britains first three attempts on Everest in the 1920s. But, further, he has to descend in safety. The tension between these two goals summiting while also surviving makes the Himalayas context especially interesting (and relevant for companies also balancing multiple goals), says Lindred Leura Greer), an associate professor of organizational behavior at Stanford Graduate School of Business. Mountaineering provides an interesting setting, and an extreme one, in which youre trying to win while also trying to mitigate loss, Greer says. This looks a lot like, say, a startup, where youre trying to maximize to become a unicorn while at the same time trying to make sure the small details dont pull you under. Given this analogue, Greer and other researchers used mountain climbing as a lens to explore longstanding assumptions about group performance. For decades, academics have suggested a straightforward link between a groups solidarity and its success: The more a group operates with a single mind, the better its execution. But this is true only under certain conditions, according to a forthcoming article in Organization Science. The paper was coauthored by Greer, Jennifer Chatman and Bernadette Doerr of Haas School of Business at the University of California, Berkeley, and Eliot Sherman of London Business School. When the goal is simply to summit a mountain, the researchers found, a collectivistic focus within the group is essential. But when circumstances turn dire and the goal shifts to mere survival, then differences within a group ought to be exploited. Balancing Collectivism and Individualism Fundamental to Greers insight is the recognition that summiting and safety are two distinct types of goals. Summiting is a conjunctive task that is, it requires cooperation and its success is determined by the weakest link. Groups must jointly decide whether to proceed to the peak. Safety, by comparison, is a disjunctive task, in which the partys most expert member is responsible for success. When survival is at stake, choosing the best route and knowing when to turn back require deference to an experienced leader, not negotiation among group members. Drawing on this distinction, Greer and her colleagues build a theory to explain when and how group unity either enhances or impairs performance. In cases where a group must tackle conjunctive tasks, a collective mentality is useful, as it reduces the diversity that members perceive in their group and, that way, increases cohesion. But this same effect can harm performance when groups face a disjunctive task. Sometimes differences, like levels of expertise, ought to be highlighted, not erased. In such cases, emphasis on cooperation and group decision-making can actually undermine the fact that one opinion deserves to be elevated above others. On the one hand, if youre trying to keep everybody together and not rock the boat, then collectivism can really help people fixate on what they have in common rather than their differences, Greer says. But this comes with a dark side when it drives people to ignore information differences they should be paying attention to. To test this theory, Greer and her colleagues looked to the Himalayas. The View from the Mountains Elizabeth Hawley was long a fixture of Nepal who interviewed almost every Himalayan expedition over the last half-century. From this work she compiled the Himalayan Database, which contains comprehensive information on 59,975 climbers who attempted ascents in 8,184 expeditions between 1950 and 2013. Greer and her colleagues used this database to study the conjunctive task of summiting alongside the disjunctive task of avoiding climber deaths.