An Evaluation Of The Two Everest Teamwork Exercises And The Experiences And Results That Flight Completing The Simulation

Our team’s major goal when completing this simulation was to ensure we scored as many points as possible not only individually but collectively. The enticement to get every member to the summit was alluring; however as a team we decided it was better to stop and contemplate each stage in order to maximise points. As the simulation was a highly structured task this made the concept of an individual leading and managing the team ultimately redundant. Each group member contributed towards being team leader as the group worked cooperatively and cohesively throughout. This issue corresponds to the theory of leadership and in particular substitutes for leadership. A team working as one making informed

Students enrolled in MGTS1301 participated in a three-hour Mount Everest Simulation which involved a team of five people. Each team consisted of a team leader, physician, photographer, environmentalist and marathoner with a common goal of reaching the summit and avoiding rescue. On our team, I was the team leader and completed 40% of my personal goals while our team achieved 44%. After the simulation, I realised I lacked in developing managerial efficiency such as strategic thinking and decision making which led to poor task-structure related to task clarity and the means of leading my team as we progressed through the simulation.

The Everest simulation used the dramatic context of a Mount Everest expedition as related to management concepts exploring the role of leadership, effective communication, and team work to achieve success. The simulation required students to work in cohesive teams consisting of five members, where each individual was assigned a specific role and a goal. The roles included the team leader, physician, environmentalist, photographer, and marathoner. Some goals were contradictory in order to assess how the team reacted to complex and sometimes conflicting situations. Before the actual simulation started, the group discussed the general approach and how to deal with

In considering potential leadership issues throughout the simulation, it is apparent that there was some inflexibility in shaping leadership style contingent to the situation. This was illustrated within the simulation, where as the leader, there was an initial focus on a task-oriented leadership style to ensure that team-members goals were properly considered. However, as the simulation progressed, and it became apparent that some group members were reluctant to contribute, I failed to implement a more relationship-oriented leadership strategy, creating an environment where members felt they could not contribute. It is apparent that an inability to contingently shape leadership

Faced with an unfamiliar problem, Coach P, of the West Point Crew team, had a JV boat that was consistently outperforming the Varsity team on different measures. Upon preliminary analysis, it appears that the problem is simple: the selection of the varsity team was flawed and many of the athletes were misjudged and subsequently misplaced. However, the coach analyzed this possible flaw through seat races and even decided to demote varsity rowers to the JV team and JV rowers to the varsity team; the unlikely outcome was that the JV boat would win by even more, meaning that the demoted rower actually made the JV boat faster. This unlikely outcome revealed a deeper flaw within the Varsity team’s attitudes and motivations that sharply contrasted with those of the Junior Varsity team.

This report discusses the Everest simulation in relation to important management concepts. Particularly the report explores the role of leadership, communication and team work in task success, where success is defined in terms of task accomplishment, team member satisfaction and dispute resolution. Moreover, the requirement to eliminate communication barriers through changing mediums, cohesive and coherent team work and democratic leadership styles is explored throughout the report.

The Everest simulation was a unique experience. Before the actual simulation started, my team discussed the approach we would take and how we will deal with situations wherein the personal goals collided with the team goals. We shared our character profile information with each other and began the exercise with excitement and a firm resolve to do our best.

This fable was a great way to promote the importance of a team and its functions. This book had many highlights throughout the context and I would highly recommend it to leaders of a corporation or of that of a team like setting. This book offered many great implications of the model and how to use it in many diverse settings when trying to build and manage successful teams.

This report provides an analysis of the following: the experience in the two Everest teamwork simulations, the results of the two sets of simulation and the communication structure and experience in the two Everest simulations. Method of analysis includes incorporating theories and concept in the course and discussing about the observation during the simulations. There are many concepts and theories which are discussed in this report such as the grouping modeling elements, communication structure, the effects of conforming and the benefits of conflicts and the benefits of effective communication. The report ends with a recommendation that the report could be improved if there is a comparison of the results of two teams

Janney, R. & Snell, M.E. (2010). Collaborative teaming: chapter 1 an overview of collaborative teaming. Baltimore, MD, Paul H. Brooks Publishing. Chapter one is a basic overview of collaborative teaming.

If given the opportunity to re-do the simulation, our top priorities would be to manage the allotted time more efficiently in order to improve decision quality, provide resolution certitude and ensure that each team member is adequately informed and prepared prior to meeting. During the simulation, we were given a finite timeline in which to analyze and input decisions; however, we failed to create a sense of urgency within our group, which encumbered the decision-making process and consequently, led to rushed decisions as time ran out. A team member should have been appointed as a designated timekeeper for time monitoring purposes.

Work Team development is a dynamic and often difficult process. Most teams find themselves in a continuos state of change and development. Eventhough, most teams never reach full stability, there is a general pattern that describes how most teams evolve. There are five stages of team development, the first stage is forming. In this stage there is a great deal of uncertainty about the teams purpose, structure and leadership. Members are testing the the waters to determine what types of behaviors are acceptable. This stage is complete when members began to think of themselves as part of the team. The second stage is called storming. In this stage there is much intragroup conflict.Team members accept the existence of the team, but there is resistance to the control that the team imposes on individuality. Conflict can arise from numerous sources within the team setting but generally falls into three categories:communication, factors, structural factors and personal factors (Varney, 1989/Townsley). In addition, there is conflict over who will control the team.

This balance is often observed difficult to achieve, especially within the solution teams. This is mainly attributed to the team formation stages as described by the Bruce Tuckman’s model (1965). According to Tuckman, the team formation goes through the forming, storming, norming and performing stages in progression. In the forming stage, there is a high dependence on leader for guidance and direction. In the storming stage, team members vie for position as they attempt to

The Everest simulation allows participants to explore varying forms of communication, leadership and different attributes of teams to determine what alternative best suit the given situation. The simulation entails decision making processes, which must be effectively executed in order to maximise team efficiency and attain set goals. The simulation involves ascending towards the summit of Mount Everest along with other team members, each with predefined roles. The interdependent nature of the task requires members to work in collaboration to achieve goals and later evaluate the outcome and the shortcomings that may have hindered success. This report explores communication, leadership and groups and teams as themes for examining the outcomes of the task, as well as determining what implications this experience holds for future teamwork based activities.

The Everest simulation, a team of five (or six if an observer is present) with diferrent roles, communicate and work together to produce decisions to climb to the peak of mount Everest, while trying to accomplish their own respective goals as well as the team’s goals. Our team of six, named The Rock Stars, are required to finish two sessions of the simulation, one of which we have to complete as a virtual team, meaning that each members must do the simulation at the same while being in diferrent locations, and the other as a standard face to face team. This report will analyze and discuss the issues that the team faced during the two simulations, and how those issues reflects to business theories, such as Tuckman’s theory of group development, McGrath’s theory of team effectiveness, and Kirkman & Malthieu’s argument about teams. This report will also use Neubert’s empirical research about informal leaders to analyze the leadership structure that is present in the team, and wether informal leaders are present, and lastly, this report will contain my personal reflections and the things I have learned throughout the simulations as a team member.