Everest Report Mgmt1001

Tuckman in his "Stages of Development' model identified 5 stages of team formation: forming, storming, norming, performing and adjourning (CIPP, Unit 1). Based on his analysis and characteristics of each stage it becomes possible to recognise that the team has reached the stage of 'Performing'. According to Tuckman it is the final stage of development when a team is fully functioning and produces its 'best work'. The main features of the ‘Performing’ stage are (CIPP, Unit

In today’s world teamwork is being utilized by companies across the globe. Employers are seeing the value of teamwork and what can be accomplished when people put the strengths together. These teams consist of people from different cultures with different personalities. Conflict is inevitable when it comes to group dynamics. Conflict resolution is necessary to keep the group functioning efficiently. This paper will analyze group dynamics and focus on conflict resolution by way of communication.

Mount Everest, as the highest mountain in the world, is famous for the enormous challenge of reaching its summit. This analytic essay is an analysis of the management involved with the Everest Simulation created by Harvard Business School. During this 3hour simulation I was the team doctor and achieved all ten of the possible ten points available, therefore 100% of goals were achieved. This score is related to the goals I accomplish as an individual and as a team. I enjoyed the simulation and expanded upon my knowledge as it taught a profound understanding of team dynamics, the capability to accept change, a stronger ability to analyse available information and create effective communication. Our team as a whole obtained 94% of our goals.

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

After having run through the simulation, what elements of that strategy would you have changed and/or what strategy do you intend to pursue in the group simulation?

Leadership failure is rarely discussed, and yet often represents the greatest potential risk to an organization or group in an unfamiliar situation. For the Everest Simulation, I held the role of team leader, in which I was required to achieve goals relating to a combined ascent and maintaining team safety. At completion, 13 of 20 individual goals, and 65% of overall team goals were accomplished. The lower rate of success was due to several ethical and leadership related failures, resulting in a team member being evacuated on the final ascent. Although the simulation could have been more successful, the team dynamics witnessed were enlightening as to what constitutes effective leadership and ethical decision making in a high-intensity situation.

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.

Tuckman (1965) proposed that when developing teams, groups proceed through four general stages of development, namely: Forming, storming, norming and performing.

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

Tuckman proposes that groups develop via five stages; forming, storming, norming, performing and finally adjourning (Archee, Gurney, & Mohan, 2013a). The first stage, known as forming, involves clarifying the task and purpose of the group, and identifying boundaries of both the task and interpersonal behaviour (Archee et al., 2013a). For the presentation task we were randomly allocated into groups. This worried me greatly as I have struggled in the past with group members who do not contribute equally or see the task as important as other group members. To avoid this problem, the group collectively determined and agreed upon a number of ground rules. For example, we decided that all group members were expected to contribute equally to the presentation, all group members were expected to attend and contribute at all group meetings, and all group members would adhere to agreed upon deadlines. Having failed to do this in previous group assignments, this clarification stage

The Tuckman Model of Group Development has 5 stages: Forming, Storming, Norming, and Adjourning (Maples, 2008). During the first session of MOP, everyone was tasked with forming their own small project team. The very first class workshop activity involved meeting two new people and introducing one of them to the entire class. The aim of the activity was to indirectly assess who we would want to be in a team with, based on our perceptions of a person’s behaviour, values, and work ethic. Most people would want to be in a team with people similar to them on a surface level (age, gender, ethnicity) and on a deeper level (personality, attitudes, believes, values) (Liang, Shih, & Chiang, 2015). We were free to choose whoever we wanted in our team under the condition that the team we form is diverse.

Tony Blair once said, “The art of leadership is saying no, not yes. It is very easy to say yes.” Expedition Behavior stems from the overall tone set forth by the leader, however trusting all participants to model the leader’s standards is difficult. Both positive and negative expedition behavior may be present on trips. The members of the team must learn to effectively discuss concerns and celebrations as a group in order to inform the entire company of certain situations. Arguing or ignoring requests from the leader results in bad expedition behavior, whereas trusting or conferring anxieties appropriately with the leader usually develops into good expedition behavior. In the case of the climbers on Mount Everest, both examples were present in the varying climbers. Each member struggled with trials and tribulations and the end result paralleled the expedition behavior expressed throughout the tremendously burdensome and laborious journey.

These simulations have decision making games, role play games, and case studies (DeCenzo & Robbins, 2007). The advantages to using simulation is that organization can design a virtual work environment that is based on real managerial situation and has no effect on cost because poor performance. Outdoor training is centered on teamwork. This method is most effective in the wilderness, where employees are put through several challenges. Organization want to know how employees will react in stressful situations. The advantages to outdoor training is that employees are forced to build relationships, trust, and work together.

The simulation gave me an essence of how tasks that are necessary for an organization can be brought up as a change and have a greatest chance of success. I learnt that one has to convince a lot of stakeholders to accept the change.