Essay on Mgmt 1001 Everest Simulation

In this Everest Simulation, I played the role as the physician in our team, a renowned medical professor and physician in the world. Although the physician has some mountain climbing experience before, but 8,000 meters is still an unprecedented challenge for him. The reason professor decided to take part in this Everest climbing trip was to take effort to a part of the professional research. So that, for the personal aspect, personal safety was more important than reach the summit. However, during this trip, the physician was the only person who has the ability to take care and give professional medical help to the group members. Actually, due to the unprofessional analysis of the assumed plateau situation and lack of the knowledge of medical

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

In order to continue climbing Everest, many aspects of climbing need to be improved before more people endanger their lives to try and reach the roof of the world. The guides have some areas that need the most reform. During the ascension of Everest the guides made a plethora mistakes that seemed insignificant but only aided in disaster. The guides first mistake is allowing “any bloody idiot [with enough determination] up” Everest (Krakauer 153). By allowing “any bloody idiot” with no climbing experience to try and climb the most challenging mountain in the world, the guides are almost inviting trouble. Having inexperienced climbers decreases the trust a climbing team has in one another, causing an individual approach to climbing the mountain and more reliance on the guides. While this approach appears fine, this fault is seen in addition to another in Scott Fischer’s expedition Mountain Madness. Due to the carefree manner in which the expedition was run, “clients [moved] up and down the mountain independently during the acclimation period, [Fischer] had to make a number of hurried, unplanned excursions between Base Camp and the upper camps when several clients experienced problems and needed to be escorted down,” (154). Two problems present in the Mountain Madness expedition were seen before the summit push: the allowance of inexperienced climbers and an unplanned climbing regime. A third problem that aided disaster was the difference in opinion in regards to the responsibilities of a guide on Everest. One guide “went down alone many hours ahead of the clients” and went “without supplemental oxygen” (318). These three major issues: allowing anyone up the mountain, not having a plan to climb Everest and differences in opinion. All contributed to the disaster on Everest in

Learning how to work effectively in a group situation is key to success in many professions as well as in social situations. Groups vary from each other based on the individuals that make up each group, all of us belong to various groups at one time or another. The roles that we fulfill vary from group to

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?

I started simulation by testing all the possible outcomes from challenge 1 to 5 and used the best scenario from one simulation to the other step by step and drew the conclusion at the very end.

Furthermore, research suggests that conflict in the decision making process promotes creativity amongst group members (Nemeth 1986), higher levels of commitment and satisfaction from group members (Peterson 1999), and group members become more knowledgeable about the interests of their co workers (Peterson 2007). In comparison to the first simulation, this result was evident in the second attempt. On the other hand, the decision making process was time consuming. Luckily, there were no time constraints, however, towards the end of the task, group members including myself, became tiresome and overworked. Eventually, I began to lose control of my group and those with the most useful information provided to them during the simulation began to

My answers were not decisive which reflect my weak critical thinking skill. For example, when it comes to medication administration, in instances where things are not clear, it should always be referred to the doctor which in this case I belatedly remembered. Nurses should also make sure that they knew how to use all the equipment that is used in the nursing care. In a medical emergency situation, every second counts. In the simulation, epinephrine administration was delayed since the nurse did not know how to use the automatic injection. Over-all the simulation had a significant impact to my learning process.

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.

While in storming stage all the team members shared opinions and ideas of what to do during the simulation. Furthermore due to the limited amount of time given and clash of timetable for some of our team members, we had to rush through the first Everest simulation which resulted many decisions made thoughtlessly. For the first Everest simulation, two hour was allocated for it to be completed. Furthermore many important decisions such as allocating oxygen tanks and whether to proceed to next camp were made without much discussion. On the other hand it was observed that the marathoner in our group was the follower as she conformed with the fast moving pace of the simulation when she actually needed more time to forecast the weather of whether to proceed to next camp or not.

1. Relying on the book chapter for perception and decision making, describe the role of the perception biases, “shortcuts”, and errors that the climbers — as individuals and as a group— made during the 1996 expedition to Mount Everest. Describe at least 5. How these biases, “shortcuts,” and errors did contribute to the tragedy?

My assessment of the performance of our team (ACC-Baldwin) in Phase One is that we performed decently in terms of strategy, but we have a lot of room for improvement in terms of implementation of strategy in the simulation exercise.

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.

The simulation taught me the benefits of outsourcing, the advantages of an ambitious target scope, the relation between SL and TM and the importance of communication.