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
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.
Success in the Mount Everest Simulation was not defined as reaching the summit of a mountain, but rather in terms of strong leadership, positive team work, logical decision making, and effective communication and dispute resolution to accomplish a specific task. Based on my personal experience, I realize the importance of knowing and understanding all team members. Fluid, open communication and positive feedback are key factors. Active listening, motivating, engaging, and valuing each team member’s contributions create an effective work environment. Mistakes happen, but valuable learning comes from the mistakes and our understanding of the challenges and opportunities to overcome them. If we, as team members, learn from our mistakes and are fully committed to the success of the team, we all
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.
The Harvard Business School case Mount Everest – 1996 narrates the events of May 11, 1996, when 8 people-including the two expedition leaders— died during a climb to the tallest mountain in the world (five deaths are described in the case, three border police form India also died that day). This was dubbed the “deadliest day in the mountain’s history” (at least until April 18, 2014). The survivors and many analysts have tried to decipher what went wrong that day, find an underlying cause, and learn from the event.
A critical and reflective self-evaluation of my experiences during the Everest team simulation in the contexts of ‘attitudes, personalities & perceptions’, ‘power & conflict’ and ‘groups & teams’.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Lack of psychological safety within the team members failed to fix cognitive bias of irrationality. If members developed trust within the team, cognitive bias could have been prevented or at least minimized. The truth that climbers might make irrational decisions and find it hard to turn back when they are so closed to the summit was obvious, but teammates seeing this problem did not speak up since they did not feel that their thoughts were welcome and felt uneasy. More cognitive biases could also been prevented to lessen the complex system of the expedition. Since climbing Mt. Everest is already a high risk venture, any additional problems such as irrational decisions can cause a crisis. Using the early sign of issues with Hall’s team’s progress, it was obvious that the probability of failing the expedition was high before the team even started. Hall could have used the issues as a sign of the complex systems that exist, and could have used this knowledge to prevent any irrational decisions. The complex systems and the lack of psychological safety also contributed to the tragedy. The team members failed to communicate and trust each other, which then added more problems to the complex systems. For instance, Boukreev’s could have spoken up to his team leader, Fischer, about his concerns regarding his team members lacking experience to begin with. By speaking up, he could have prevented more chain reaction due to lack of communications and feedback within the