Seminar assignments - everest report PDF

Preview

Summary

Everest Report...

Description

MGMT1001

Everest Simulation Report

Exe Execut cut cutiv iv ive e Su Sum mma marry Everest is a simulator designed by Harvard Business School as an online game for students to experience organisational challenges and team dynamics. A team environment is generated as students are assigned different roles , placed in groups of five or more and undertake two virtual attempts to climb Mount Everest, with points being awarded for completing both personal and team objectives. The game allows students to understand the value of teamwork and leadership, as it requires students to make numerous decisions and overcome challenges which are dependent on the students’ abilities to communicate effectively and share unique information to their role.

The first simulation was completed poorly, with only 46% of team objectives completed. This was due to a range of factors including negative perspectives, lack of knowledge and understanding between members and poor communication, causing the team to become dysfunctional and creating a toxic environment. However, drastic improvements were made, as members changed perspectives and appointed different roles and leadership style, causing systems of communication and decision making to improve greatly. As a result, the team completed the second simulation with 96% of the goals achieved.

Ultimately, Everest served as a great learning tool which demonstrated the various concepts of teamwork in a practical manner. Its relevance to real life gives students a refreshing opportunity to gain a better understanding of effective organisational behaviours.

1

Contents Executive Summary......................................................................................................................................................1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................3 Issues Encountered During Everest .............................................................................................................................4 Analysis of the Everest Experience..............................................................................................................................5 Leadership Style .......................................................................................................................................................5 Perception ................................................................................................................................................................6 Communication ........................................................................................................................................................6 Decision making process..........................................................................................................................................7 Learning Review ...........................................................................................................................................................7 Team Roles ...............................................................................................................................................................8 Goal Orientation ......................................................................................................................................................8 Appropriate Leadership Style ..................................................................................................................................8 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................................................10 Appendix ....................................................................................................................................................................10 First Simulation Result ...........................................................................................................................................10 Second Simulation Result ......................................................................................................................................11 Team Contract for Everest 2 ..................................................................................................................................11 Bibliography ...........................................................................................................................................................14

2

Int Intro ro rodu du ductio ctio ction n Everest is a simulator designed by Harvard Business School as an online game for students to experience organisational challenges and team dynamics. A team environment is generated as students are placed in groups of five or more and undertake two virtual attempts to climb Mount Everest, with points being awarded for completing both personal and team objectives. For team Avalanche Picasso, different strategies were taken in the two simulations. An individual-focused approach was taken for the first attempt, with team members prioritising personal goals over team goals, while a more teamorientated approach was used in the second attempt, resulting in a drastic improvement in both team and personal scores over the two simulations. This improvement in results was also facilitated by an increase in communication, knowledge (from first simulation) and change in a variety of teamwork based factors, allowing for a clearer goal and increased cohesion between team members. Furthermore, conflicts and other communication problems during the first simulation were addressed through the use of team contract and effective decision making processes after analysing flaws through management theories. This report will provide a personal overview of the Everest experience, including a description of issued confronted, critical analysis of the simulations and a learning review, integrated with theories and concepts taught in MGMT 1001.

3

Issu Issues es En Enco co coun un unter ter tered ed Du During ring Ev Evere ere erest st The majority of the issues faced in the Everest experience occurred during the first simulation. This can be seen as the storming stage in a standard sequence of group development consisting of forming, storming, norming, performing and adjourning (Tuckman & Jensen 1977). Communication was the first problem the team encountered. Two members of the team (Physician and Leader) did not have strong commands in the English language, causing them to prefer speaking in Mandarin with each other and resulting in a language barrier. Other barriers also existed, including filtering and information overload. As a result, a few members became more withdrawn and the team showed a lack of both quantity and quality in communication. Another issue the team ran into was a lack in team cohesion. For the first simulation, our leader adopted a laissez-faire-style leadership, which allowed the team to make decisions based on individual circumstances. (Doucet, Poitras, & Chênevert, 2009) As a result, the team members focused more on completing personal objectives and maintaining personal health, causing members to conflict due to difference in goals and disagreement in the team’s direction. This is exemplified during the middle of the first simulation, as the photographer (myself) decided to stay in camp 2 in order to fulfil a personal objective, the environmentalist wanted to rest due to poor health while the marathoner and the leader wanted to push on ahead to camp 3. Ultimately, the self-orientated behaviours of the team members caused the creation of a dysfunctional group with little group objective completed and dissatisfaction for the members.

Furthermore, the lack of effective communication and team cohesion also resulted in poor decision making. The inability to effectively transmit and receive information, misalignment of goals combined with inexperience in the simulation caused uncertainties in our decision making processes, as we were unable to discuss constructively and predict outcomes. As a result, the team failed all the bonus challenges and finishing the first simulation with 46% completion of group objectives.

4

An Analys alys alysis is of th the e Ev Ever er erest est Exp Experien erien erience ce The two simulations displayed vastly different results for both personal and team goals achieved. As shown by the results table in the appendix, there was a drastic increase in percentage of team goals achieved, more than doubling from 46% to 96%. Although my points for personal goals decreased by one, the percentage of personal goals achieved actually increased in the second simulation as a result of completing the three challenges during the second simulation. In order for the changes to occur, our team underwent a norming stage after the storm (Tuckman & Jensen 1977). This was evident as we used attribution theory to pinpoint the causes of issues through recognising the attributions of causes as either external or internal, as well as answering debrief questions and creating a team contract to establish a set of norms. (Harvey, Madison, Martinko, Crook, & Crook, 2014) Consequently, changes were made in leadership style, communication, decision making processes and perception.

Lea Leaders ders dership hip Style Leadership style is also pivotal in relation to the functioning of a team, as a successful leadership style could lead to an enjoyable and productive team environment while an unsuccessful style could hinder progress and alienate team members. (Doucet et al., 2009) As stated previously, a laissez-faire style leadership was adopted in the first simulation. This was evident as the appointed leader of the simulation took on a more passive role, allowing the members to make decisions without delegating authority. However, this style of leadership was not suitable as members were not familiar with the tasks on hand and lacked the information to make decisions that would maximise team progress. (House, 1996) As a result, the team decided to focus on individual goals as we were unable to notice the big picture. We attributed the cause of this problem to be from an internal factor, as the leader confessed that she rarely takes charge in a team environment, showing high consistency in this particular behaviour. (Harvey et al., 2014)

In the second simulation, a different style of leadership was imposed. Our team recognised that a clear and directive leader was required in order for the team to perform at the highest level. As such, an autocratic leadership was used, as the leader coordinated information and made unilateral decisions. Although studies have shown that this method would reduce members’ satisfaction levels, this downfall was negated as the change was made after a thorough evaluation and group decision making process, with each member agreeing it was the suitable choice to make and offsetting it by taking on maintenance-related roles. (Benne & Sheats, 2007) This was especially demonstrated during the oxygen allocation challenge, as the leader decided the amount of oxygen tanks each member should bring after

5

the providing the information, allowing the team to complete the challenge with great success. (Dawson‐ Shepherd, 1997)

Perc Percep ep eptio tio tion n A big factor contributing to the lack of cohesion during the first simulation is negative perception, as individuals react primarily to perceptions and not to reality. (Jussim, 1991) This was particularly evident during the start of the first simulation, as I observed that most members sat revealing defensive body language, with arms either folded or placed on thighs and sitting upright. As such, it could be deduced that the members were not at ease, which could be a reaction from an anxious or negative perception of the group. This negative perception from members spiralled, with some becoming more withdrawn from the group while others took on the role of dominator in an attempt to influence the group to accomplish personal objectives. (Benne & Sheats, 2007) As a result, there were visible dissatisfaction from the group members after the first simulation.

However, the team dynamic improved vastly during the second simulation. This was due to the fact that team members began to befriend and trust one another, allowing us to have more positive perspectives of the team and the virtual experience. As positive perceptions of the team form, we were able to share strategic information and knowledge, with each member acting as information giver and harmoniser, espousing a strong sense of companionship in the team. (Dawson‐Shepherd, 1997) Consequently, the team was able to work cohesively as a unit, minimising the amount of conflict and working at full capacity, correlating with the research that perception of team cohesiveness is an integral factor to a team’s productivity and achievements. (Jarvenpaa, Shaw, & Staples, 2004)

Com Communic munic municatio atio ation n As noted above, communication was a major concern during the first simulation, as many barriers existed and prevented effective interpersonal communication to occur. During the storming stage, some members of the team were unfamiliar with other team members, causing them to become more passive. This also occurred due the existence of the language barrier, causing the members to become more reluctant to share information regarding the simulation. Information overload was also a barrier preventing the team to function at full capacity, as multiple conversations were conducted at the same time with members trying to show dominance and take control of the group. The vast number of climbing-related jargons used also aided in the formation of this barrier.

6

Team sheet was once again integral in eliminating such barriers. The team first provided feedback and reflected on the conflicts in an open and honest communication. This allowed us to break down the negative and dysfunctional perception of the team and begin to understand and trust other members more, coinciding with the theory that an understanding of the team and its goals is fundamental to the team’s success. (Peters & Keith, 2004) Then, we agreed upon a wheel communication network, where members communicate directly to the team leader, allowing for maximum speed and accuracy in the flow of information. (Peters & Keith, 2004) Consequently, team members were able to coordinate with each other constructively and effectively, creating a healthy group dynamic and a culture that encouraged sharing of information.

Deci Decisio sio sion nm making aking p process rocess All the flaws stated in group structure, leadership style and communication in the first simulation also contributed and led to poor decision making processes. The laissez-faire leadership style along with an open discussion structure with minor dissent encouraged members to participate and voice our thoughts. (De Dreu & West, 2001) However, without an efficient communication system and also due to the fact that the problems were unstructured, members made decisions in an uncertain condition, as not enough information were available to predict outcomes. This was prevalent in the weather prediction challenge in Round 3, as members gave incorrect estimations of the weather because no one knew the weather conditions of the previous days, leading to the lack of point gained from the challenge. This time, we also attributed the cause of flaws to external factors, as there was a high consensus with members all exhibiting similar behaviours. Although this could be an example of a self-serving bias or a fundamental attribution error, we moved on assuming that no bias or error exist as we were unable to disprove them. Then, we perceived that a better decision making process could be established by forming a heuristic, as it added clarity and aligned our objective in maximising the team goal and allowed us to perform better under uncertainty. (Tversky & Kahneman, 1974)As a result, there were little ambiguity and information loss in the second simulation, allowing for faster and more accurate decisions made with minimal conflict.

Lear Learning ning Re Revie vie view w The Everest experience has been largely beneficial, aiding in my personal, social and professional development. The most crucial elements I learnt from the simulations were the importance of constructive team roles, clear goals and appropriate leadership style.

7

Tea Team mR Role ole oless Prior to the completion of Everest simulations, I was a reserved person and preferred to speak as little as possible. This was evident in my multiple attempts at the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, as I was recorded as an introvert in every single attempt of the test. As such, I would always contribute little in group discussions. Upon the completion of the Everest simulation, I have learnt that for any group to work at maximum capacity, it is vital for every member to contribute positively, either in fulfilling a maintenancebased role or task-related role. (Benne & Sheats, 2007) During the first simulation, I took on the dysfunctional role of a dominator as in attempt to step out of my comfort zone. At the time, I thought that by being more vocal and creating slight conflict, it would stimulate discussions and encourage innovations. (De Dreu & West, 2001) However, the lack of clear communication rendered it inefficient, as the group became dysfunctional and made little progress. During the second simulation, I took on a more supportive role, being the evaluator and the gatekeeper. (Benne & Sheats, 2007) Although I spoke less in comparison to the first simulation, I felt that I had more positive impacts on the team, as I made use of my analytical and observational skills, inviting more withdrawn members into discussions as well as asking questions to help the team think in retrospective.

Goal O Orien rien rientati tati tation on In all honesty, I was working with a selfish mindset during the first simulation, prioritising my own objectives over the team objectives. This was evident when I was reluctant to travel to higher camps in order to obtain my personal points as a cameraman. As a result, the team dynamic worsened and conflict arose. This result was also paralleled by similar studies in team orientation. (Watson, Johnson, & Merritt, 1998) After an open discussion with team members, we took on a team orientated approach in the second simulation. Although this meant that I had to sacrifice personal objectives for the sake of reaching the summit, the percentages of both personal and team goals achieved were increased. In addition, there were unified commitment as well as mutual trust, creating a far more enjoyable and harmonious working environment. Thus, I have learnt that having a clear goal and a goal-orientated mindset would not only enhance the experience of working in a team, but it also has the potential of increasing both personal and team accomplishments. (Watson et al., 1998)

App Appropriat ropriat ropriate e Le Lead ad aders ers ership hip St Style yle Leaders are vital to a team’s success, as they can empower a team to be more efficient and united. However, completing the simulations have taught me that the style of leadership required is contingent on both environmental and subordinate factors. (House, 1996) Conditions in the two simulations were vastly different, as we were more inexperienced with the tasks and had limited information. As such, I 8

learnt that a laissez-faire leadership style was not appropriate as it led to withdrawals and personality clashes. However, a directive leadership would be more effective in this scenario, as directive leaders can more effectively relay information between team members and allow discussions to occur, leading to higher team performance and satisfaction. (Larson, Foster-Fishman, & Franz, 1998) Though I ...