Everest Simulation Report

MGMT 1001 Everest Simulation Report Weighting: 30%

 

 

Student Name: Lisa VU Student ID: z5062280 Course: MGMT1001 Tutorial Time: Wednesday 12pm Tutor’s Name: O Fettahlioglu Date: 15th May 2015

Report Focus A report reflecting on the experiences of the Everest group simulation with reference to concepts and theories encountered in this course and through research

MGMT  1001  Z5062280   2  

Executive Summary This report provides a comprehensive analysis of the Everest simulation experience that requires students in randomly allocated groups, to overcome challenges and work as a team in relation to frameworks including decision-making, perception and attribution theory. Each participant is assigned a specific role, including personalised characteristics and individualised goals. Participants are confronted with the ultimate goal of maximising team goal achievements whilst avoiding rescue. However, team members are faced with a variety of consequential game mechanisms such as oxygen scarcity, fluctuating health conditions and unpredictable weather. Subsequently, team members face the predicament of either avoiding rescue, or possibly losing the opportunity to reach the summit. As the first simulation was virtually conducted, it was evident that there was restricted understanding of each group member’s personalities and roles, and essentially the game system itself. Due to no preceding relationships amongst group members, perceptions were often made which consequently lacked group cohesion and led to our ambiguous decisionmaking, identifying a interrelation between conflicts and poor group performance. However, these experiences allowed the team to search for methods to improve for the second simulation, especially within the areas of decision-making and to rectify our perceptions of each individual member. We were able to establish stronger team connections and rapport through communicating sessions during tutorials and debriefing sessions on social media via Facebook. Due to a greater familiarity with each team member’s behaviours, individual goals and improved understanding of the simulation system, this enhanced group cohesion and improved overall percentage of team goals achieved. Therefore the Everest simulation experience encapsulates a variety of management frameworks such as factors influencing decision-making, perception and attribution theory. It discusses how the different managerial theories and factors of both individuals and as a team had differing impacts on the performance outcomes, and how specific methods catered for overall improved team performance.

MGMT  1001  Z5062280   3  

Table of Contents EXECUTIVE  SUMMARY  ........................................................................................................................................  2   TABLE  OF  CONTENTS  ..........................................................................................................................................  3   INTRODUCTION  ....................................................................................................................................................  4   ISSUES  DURING  EVEREST  ..................................................................................................................................  5   ISSUE  1  ........................................................................................................................................................................................  5   ISSUE  2  ........................................................................................................................................................................................  5   ANALYSIS  OF  THE  EVEREST  EXPERIENCES  ..................................................................................................  6   EVEREST  SIMULATION  1:  VIRTUAL  ........................................................................................................................................  6   EVEREST  SIMULATION  2:  FACE-­‐TO-­‐FACE  .............................................................................................................................  8   LEARNING  REVIEW  ...........................................................................................................................................  10   CONCLUSION  .......................................................................................................................................................  12   REFERENCES  .......................................................................................................................................................  13   APPENDIX  ............................................................................................................................................................  14   EVEREST  TEAM  CONTRACT  ...........................................................................................................................  15  

MGMT  1001  Z5062280   4  

Introduction The Everest simulation was conducted in randomly allocated groups of five or six. All teams were given the opportunity to complete two attempts of the simulation, whereby participants would virtually ascend Mount Everest to maximise team goals achieved whilst being presented with numerous challenges. Each member was distributed with a role that included individualised goals that often conflicted with one another, imitating the complex dynamics of the contemporary workforce. Due to the lack of pre-existing relationships between team members, this catered uncertain decision-making conditions that influenced ambiguous decision-making through bounded rationality in the first simulation. Indeed, there were many factors that had influenced team performance, stimulating strategic changes to the consensus-based policies and minimising perceptual distortion guided by the attribution theory that improved the way the team understood respective behaviours and reasons for poor work performance. This facilitated significant improvement in the second simulation that was also coordinated by several advances such as defined team goals and effective decision-making policies, which improved group cohesion and rapport. This report critically analyses academic research that implicate the importance of concepts such as decision-making, attribution theory and perception and how strategies accompanied these frameworks to improve overall team performance.

MGMT  1001  Z5062280   5  

Issues during Everest Issue 1 Due to being placed in randomly allocated groups, none of the team members knew one another due to a lack of prior interaction during tutorials. This made it difficult to communicate comfortably, where it was very noticeable that each team member shrouded his or her opinions unless only approached by the leader. We decided to do a virtual simulation first, using the chat system and Skype as a way to communicate. Members restricted in voicing their input due to unfamiliarity with one another and did not want to come across as disrespectful. There was a clear gap between introverts and extroverts within the team, resulting in a lack of information sharing and discussions. As the second simulation was opened a few weeks after, the group got to know each other a lot better during tutorial sessions and outside class. By meeting faceto-face, this provided an easy-going atmosphere that allowed active discussion, interpersonal communication and information sharing. Issue 2 There were some technological glitches during the first simulation as some members had very disruptive background noise that affected the way information was delivered. Also, everyone was unfamiliar with the Everest simulation and did not research it enough to completely grasp what their role was, how to play and how to react to certain problems that arose such as falling health, and calculating the number of oxygen canisters needed. This caused several goal conflicts within the team that caused a clash in individual opinions. However, as we met physically for the second simulation, we were better prepared for the program, having documents analyzing trends and patterns as well as strategies that the team came to a consensus to. By communicating openly, equipped with a whiteboard, the team could visually analyze everyone’s opinion and there were no technological difficulties that prevented effective information sharing which correlated in better decision-making.

MGMT  1001  Z5062280   6  

Analysis of the Everest experiences Everest Simulation 1: Virtual We decided to do the first simulation virtually through the utilization of the in-built chat system and Skype. Being assigned the role of the observer, it allowed me to recognise the inconvenience of virtual modes of communication in regards to decision-making and the team’s perceptions of one another. Despite the fact that Gera (2013) argues that virtual communication technology is time-efficient and breaks down geographical barriers, it is also noted that certain challenges arise if there is no camaraderie within the team (p. 1). This was evident as all members were unfamiliar with one another, each coming from different high schools as well as having no pre-existing relationships during the tutorial sessions. As our team utilized Skype as the main communication medium, there were a variety of barriers that hindered effective interpersonal communication that correlated to poor decision-making (Francis, 2011, p.55). This was also influenced by the way we perceived one another, exhibiting the “halo effect” by generally connecting the singular significance of our assigned role as identical to our own behaviour and personality. Portraying the role of the observer, I felt particularly insignificant because of the lack of roles and qualities that the ‘observer’ had. Thus, this relationship between our personal ability to process information, given the resources, can impact the way our co-workers negatively perceive us (Lord and Smith, 1983, p.52). By having no individualised goals and information, it restricted my ability to process what was going on and to provide effective input for group decision-making, which negatively affected the way the team perceived of my behaviour. Thus this theory links to Martinko and Garner’s (1987) fundamental attribution error as “leaders are more likely to make internal as opposed to external attributions for poor member performance” (p. 240), epitomizing when the leader criticized my lack of input in the decision-making process, without taking into consideration the shortage of information I was virtually accessed to. Consequently, these perception distortions affected team cohesion in regards to decisionmaking. There was a deliberate shrouding of personal information, as our team was uncomfortable with responsively discussing issues and opinions due to our unfamiliarity with each other (Dawson-Shepherd, 1997, p.163). Furthermore, there was evidence of information overload that became overwhelming with repetitive questions being asked and constant interruptions over Skype. Alison et al. (2015) critiques that when the decision problem involves multiple participants and the clarification of team goals are lacking, these barriers hinder teams

MGMT  1001  Z5062280   7   from prompt and efficient discussions on decisions and active implementation which consequentially leads to “decision inertia” (p.1). This was evident as it took a while for the leader to gather everyone’s thoughts of either staying or moving up base camps, which led to redundant information being passed continuously. According to Gera (2013), virtual teams are “characterized by demerits like slow feedback, lack of emotions and visual contact” (p.2). Hence, the leader applied the ineffective decision-making method of bounded rationality due to these barriers. The leader was limited in processing everyone’s opinions, which lead to satisficing decisions and accepting alternatives until an acceptable threshold or ‘least worst’ option was met. Essentially, the uncertain conditions surrounding the Everest program such as the unpredictable weather forecasts and the fluctuating health statuses was particularly demonstrated through the environmentalist’s rapidly deteriorating health from strong to critical during camp 1 to 2. Due to not having sufficient understanding of dealing with falling health situations, the team was unable to virtually assist one another, which led to the implementation of a ‘minimax’ choice. As the team tried to come to a consensus of who should move up to camp 3, there was a miscommunication in which Francis (2011) describes it as “delayed responsiveness” (p.56). Thus, the physician accidently moved up to camp 3, causing severe frostbite that led to her rescue and leaving the environmentalist by himself in a critical condition with no access to medical supplies. Furthermore, Kayworth and Leidner (2002) argue that team members can interpret virtual information based on intrinsic biases (p.9). This may lead to miscommunications, misunderstandings and perceptive distortions that resulted inefficient decision-making processes, ultimately leading to poor group performance of achieving only 43% of team goals. Thus, these virtual communication errors further complicate the conflict between individual and team goals that essentially impact a team’s ability to implement decisions effectively.

MGMT  1001  Z5062280   8   Everest Simulation 2: Face-to-face For the second simulation, the group recognized the high degree of group interdependence and the mechanisms of the Everest program to purposely challenge personal and team goals, thus organising a face-to-face interaction in a study room. During the time period between both simulations, the team became more comfortable with one another due to the familiarity of interacting as a group during tutorial sessions and debriefing meetings. Sharma (2010) analyses that when leaders emphasise shared values, this allows employees to focus on organizational priorities which ultimately guides their behaviour, influencing their desire to contribute more to the team if they perceive as having values akin to their own (p.98). Likewise, face-to-face communication allows members to be persuasive and expressive through voice and body language, which minimizes any perceptive distortions from their intended meanings (Gera, 2013, p.3). These benefits were demonstrated during the second simulation, whereby the leader was perceived to exhibit high self-confidence, empathy and interpersonal skills that gave the group a sense of proficiency and empowerment (Sharma, 2010, p.98). He fostered what Gera (20130) stated as a “knowledge culture” (p.3) whereby our previous failures in the first simulation expanded our variety of potential behaviours, allowing the team to amend the previously ineffective practices, highlight mistakes, enhance skills as well as encouraged brain-storming and informed opinions. Additionally, attributions are the mechanisms through which individuals justify the actions of others. Yamakawa and Cardon (2015) hypothesized that if the individual believed internal ascriptions were the causes of previous failure, then the person will have a greater capability to achieve a desirable outcome through a greater sense of personal control (p.799). In this case, the team recognized the poor results of 43% in the first simulation were mainly due to the group’s insufficient knowledge and our inability to communicate clearly. Therefore, the team came to the session prepared with their personal goals to be written on the whiteboard, with documents opened containing the strategies the team came up with. This gave each individual member a high level of accountability, utilising knowledge from the past simulation to ensure all other members were conscious of the forthcoming challenges. By building on the foundation of the attribution theory, the team recognised that our behaviours and lack of team cohesion in the first simulation were due to internal ascriptions. Thus, this encouraged the group to pursue counterfactual thinking that allowed us to imagine different outcomes, an important entrepreneurial aptitude that has a profound impact on consequent decision-making (Yamakawa & Cardon, 2015, p.801).

MGMT  1001  Z5062280   9   Furthermore, it was within the dynamics of the program to have conflicting personal and group goals. Therefore, the leader took it in advantage as task-related conflicts can stimulate the discussions of ideas and innovative group thinking. DeChurch and Marks (2001) identified that groups who use active conflict management benefit from open discussion on different opinions and exchange information (p.7). The leader encouraged a consensus-based policy, encouraging each participant to “go around the circle” and state his or her own opinion. Each member also wrote their personal goals on the whiteboard whereby the team could visually assist one another in choosing which personal goal should be sacrificed for the benefit of maximising team points. Active discussion through asking questions and receiving feedback enhanced team performance (Vora & Markoczy, 2012, p.2377), whereby the team came to a consensus that it was better for each member to avoid rescue to achieve the 3 maximum points each instead of reaching the summit. Thus, this helped the leader integrate effective information sharing; fostering successful decision-making (Francis, 2011, p.56). Furthermore, Alison et al. (2015) recognised that shared mental models facilitate effective team decision-making, whereby all members must hold a common goal to clearly coordinate and communicate decisions (p.301). The team’s main goal was to improve our overall percentage points of over 60% that led to the group trying to achieve the bonus points. This fostered discussion in regards to analyzing the formula for the correct number of oxygen canisters needed as well as helping the physician provide the right medical supplies when needed; delivering the environmentalist the asthma puffer before his health would have fallen to critical. Therefore, face-to-face communication promoted an information sharing culture, which allowed the team to improve the decision-making process, benefitted by our improved perceptions of one another that ultimately increased our team points to 65%.

MGMT  1001  Z5062280   1 0  

Learning Review Being assigned the role of an observer, it was clear that I had the least significant role that essentially shows how job involvement can affect my level of satisfaction as part of a team. However, the group made sure that I did not feel excluded, which enabled me to learn more about how such dynamics are applicable to the contemporary workplace. I felt that my ability to openly communicate with the group was determined by the leadership style and behaviour of the leader, as well as the relationship it fosters within the culture of the team. In the first simulation, I was very quiet and avoided providing my own opinions because I did not want to give the team the perception that I tried to control or forcefully involve myself beyond the characteristics of my role. In MGMT 1001, I learnt that managers/leaders should expect that employees would look to their attitudes as models and how it can impacts their own behaviour accordingly. This was clear as when I noticed the charismatic and confident characteristics of the leader, it guided the team to encourage a knowledge culture (Sharma, 2010, p.103), which ultimately influenced me to open up and collaborate with the team. Such communication channels are paramount because it ensured participation and involvement (Vora and Markoczy, 2012, p.2337), encouraging me to also have a vote within the consensus decision-making policy as well as feel a sense of job satisfaction. Thus, I learnt that when leaders adopt a democratic style, it encourages me to involve myself within group discussions that essentially enhanced my enthusiasm and performance within the team. Furthermore, considering the complicated challenges within the design mechanisms of Everest, I also came to a comprehensive understanding of how important everyone’s role is in regards to providing their individual information and opinions. In preparation for the second simulation, it was evident that a strategic direction was needed to help guide the team in improving our overall percentage points above 60%. This facilitated into a contingency planning approach whereby we developed various alternative plans to adapt to any potential challenges (Alison et al., 2015, p.300) such as the physician leaving an extra asthma puffer and Gamow bag in case the mountaineer would experience any critical health issues. Thus, by stressing that the simulation had no universal rules or procedures, it is also through the framework of the systems theory that emphasizes the importance of teams to take in consideration the inputs from members that are essential in achieving goals. Therefore this contributed to a shift in the decision making process from bounded rationality to a consensus policy (Alison et al., 2015, p.301) which embraced the opinions from each member that benefited in offering new perspectives. I learnt as part of a team that my ability to understand the program was due to the various opinions by other members. Without them I would not have been able to thoroughly

MGMT  1001  Z5062280   1 1   understand the simulation and figure out the formula for the calculation of oxygen canisters and the relationship between HAPE and the Gamow bag. Thus, by blending both analytical and intuitive thinking approaches (Francis, 2011, p.56), this gathered a lot of relevant information and informed opinions which enabled my ability to learn and contribute more to the group based on improved understanding. By embracing a workplace design fostered for collaboration and learning, the team worked cohesively and developed a camaraderie that allowed me to learn that I could contribute more productively and actively when placed in a cooperative team.

MGMT  1001  Z5062280   1 2  

Conclusion The Everest simulation acts as a model that imitates an organizational environment, allowing participants to experience the dynamics of the contemporary workforce. Various challenges throughout the program were designed to highlight the interdependence between individuals and team relationships, emphasizing on the importance of effective decision-making skills and how certain perceptions and attributes impact it. Reflecting upon my personal and team’s experiences, it was made evident the various key attributes that contributed to the improvement from the first simulation to the second simulation. It was found that face-to-face interaction fosters a knowledge culture that encourages active discussion and more input from each member in comparison to virtual simulations that hindered these benefits. Furthermore, the team became more trusting of each other over time that developed camaraderie between members, joined with the effective consensus-based decision-making policy that improved overall group performance. Although the team was faced with various issues, we developed an understanding of the significance of effective communication and how such strategies interplayed with improving our ability to make decisions and attribute our perceptions of one another and our behaviours. Thus, this report discussed the main issues and improvements that influenced performance and how certain frameworks covered in MGMT1001 were displayed throughout the Everest simulation.

Word Count: 2742

MGMT  1001  Z5062280   1 3  

References Alison, L., Power, N., Heuvel, C., Humann, M., Palasinksi, M., & Crego, J. (2015). Decision inertia: Deciding between least worst outcomes in emergency response to disasters. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology. 88(2), 295-321. doi:10.1111/joop.12108 Dawson-Shepherd, A. (1997). Communication in organisations operating internationally. Journal of Communication Management. 2(2), 158-166. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/eb023456 DeChurch, L.A., & Marks, M.A. (2001). Maximizing the benefits of task conflict: the role of conflict management. The International Journal of Conflict Management. 12(1), 4-22. Francis, S. (2011). The most insidious operational risk: lack of effective information sharing. The Journal of Operational Risk. 6(1), 55-68. Retrieved from http:///www.thejournalofoperationalrisk.com Gera, S. (2013). Virtual teams versus face to face teams: A review of literature. Journal of Business and Management. 11(2), 2319-7668.Retrieved from http://www.isorjournals.org Kayworth, T.R., & Leidner, D.E. (2002). Leadership effectiveness in global virtual teams. Journal of management Information Systems. 18(3), 7-40. Lord, R.G., & Smith, J.E. (1983). Theoretical, information processing, and situational factors affecting attribution theory models of organizational behaviour. The Academy of Management Review, 8(1), 50-60. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/257167 Martinko, M.J., Gardner, W.L. (1987). The Leader/Member Attribution Process. The Academy of Management, 12(2), 25-249. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/258532 Sharma, S.K. (2010). Examining the relationship between organisational culture and leadership style. Journal of the Indian Academy of Applied Psychology. 36(1), 97-105. Vora, D., & Markoczy, L. (2012). Group learning and performance: the role of communication and faultlines. The International Journal of Human Resource Management. 23(11), 2364-2392. Yamakawa, Y., & Cardon, M.S. (2015). Casual ascriptions and perceived learning from entrepreneurial failure. Small Business Economics. 44(4), 797-820. doi: 10.1007/s11187-014-9623-z

MGMT  1001  Z5062280   1 4  

Appendix Role: OBSERVER Simulation 1

Simulation 2

MGMT  1001  Z5062280   1 5  

Everest Team Contract Team Name: Neverest

Name

Role

Contact

1

Laurentiu Unguroiu

Leader

O430176563

2

Charlotte Owen

Mountaineer

0423979605

3

Joanna Cheng

Physician

0420246323

4

Lisa Vu

Observer

0433402911

5

Adam Soetrisno

Environmentalist

0468709880

6

Lucas Lim

Photographer

0413978018

Team Procedures 1. Day, time, and location of team members for Everest 2: The second Everest simulation will be completed on the 8th of May between 3-7pm. The team will meet at the main library in room 412. This room is sound-proof to allow for active discussion and it has whiteboards for recording information. The meeting will begin at 3:15pm sharp. 2. Preferred method of communication before and during Everest 2 (i.e., e-mail, mobile, chat function, face-to-face in a specified location). A. Before the climb Prior to the climb, the group will liaise through the Facebook chat group. Significant files will be uploaded to the Google Drive. B. During the climb (Note: Everest 2 has to be conducted face-to-face in a specified location during the exercise) Everest simulation 2 will be completed face-to-face which will allow for both written and verbal communication. Furthermore, the team will be able to interpret a range of non-verbal signals from members. C. After the climb Following the climb, the team will complete a quick debrief in person. Further collaboration can occur in the following tutorial (Wednesday 13/05 12-1pm). Most communication will continue through the established Facebook chat. Files will be uploaded to a Facebook group to ensure all members have easy access to information.

MGMT  1001  Z5062280   1 6   3. Team goal for Everest 2: •

• • • •

Achieve a goal completion percentage ranging between 60-70%. Higher attainments would be desirable, but we feel that this is a reasonable aim to set based on our last performance. Aim to have no team members rescued Aim to prioritize the group goals over individual goals Develop better communication skills Get to know each other better

4. Decision-making policy (By consensus? By majority vote? By team leader?): Each member of the team will be given the opportunity to present his or her individual information and opinions. Following this, the possible decisions will be presented and voted upon with opposing sides being granted a final opportunity to argue their case. Votes to decide will be decided by majority vote if consensus cannot be achieved. In case of a stalemate between sides, the leader will make the final decision. Team Participation 1. How will we resolve conflict? In case of a conflict, each side of the conflict will be able to present their opinions and back their cases with relevant information. Everyone will be asked to present an opinion on the conflict and alternatives available. Following this, the decision will be put to a vote that will be decided by the majority vote. Once again, in case of a stalemate, the leader will step in to make an arbitrary decision. 2. Strategies for encouraging/including ideas and debate from all team members : One major issue that occurred in simulation 1 was the prevalence of Group think. To avoid this, the leader will not present their opinion until all others in the group have done so. Each member of the group will be required to report aspects of their information for each round and during this period will be able to propose their decision for the direction/action of the group. In a way this forces participation by all group members. However, with an open atmosphere we believe it should be a positive addition to our methods of functioning. Decisions will be determined by goals. The group will evaluate the goals, see which goals overlap and this will provide justification to possible decisions being made. The attitude we wish to adopt is one of openness. There is no such thing as a bad idea, is one of the mantras we hope to utilize in this simulation in hopes that this encourages a wider range of discussion and possible actions. 3. Strategies for achieving our goal: To reach our overall goal (60-70% of goal completion) we will need to have individual goals in the forefront of our minds (goal clarity). To ensure this occurs, each member of the group will write up all their goals on the board in our meeting room. Constantly having the goal present will avoid a previous issue, which was that we did not know what everyone had to achieve.

MGMT  1001  Z5062280   1 7   Goals will be the drivers for discussion from which we will aim to make rational decisions that incorporate the opinions of all team members. As a team, we seek to be open to all ideas and will strive to achieve the highest goal attainment possible. 4. Preferences for leadership (team leader only, shared leadership): •

The leadership style of our group will avoid laissez-faire style as this style tends to result in the lowest level of productivity and is typically effective when employees are skilled and motivated. Instead, the team will adopt democratic leadership style to encourage all team members to share ideas and participate in the decision making process. As a result, the team hopes that everyone will feel more engaged.

Personal Accountability 1. Expected individual attendance, punctuality, and participation at Everest 2: • •

Each member of the team is expected to arrive on time to the simulation and be prepared to undertake the exercise. Each team member must be committed to the simulation without external distractions or the need to attend other commitments.

2. What are the consequences for lack of engagement in Everest 2? Lack of engagement in Everest 2 will result in a lack of information being passed on. As a result, the team will be hindered in achieving the set goals and we may fail to perform as planned.