Issues Encountered during Everest Simulation, Analysis of Experience Using Frameworks from MGMT 1001 - Case Study Example

Executive Summary Simulation is a virtual and physical undertaking that provide a group of five students to undertake two major activities; climbing Mount Everest as a way to evaluate their Managerial, Communication, Decision-Making and Team-work skills. The Simulation is based on some frameworks enhancing the application of studied theories through teamwork. In both simulations, obviously, each team experiences a number of challenges depending on personalities in the team and real ones in both virtual and physical rounds. The simulation begins by grouping five students, carrying out preliminary communication, organizing them and prepare for Everest. In our team, we carried the preliminaries with minor hiccups. The members in our team were ready to participate, offer constructive criticism to any team-member and contribute ideas that will help the team approach each challenge. Everest Simulation present experiences as the group has to invent ways to overcome the barriers majorly arising from team members, interaction and barriers in the actual activities. The significance of the first simulation allowed us to see how we lagged behind in team work as our score was 33%. Ultimately, in the second, I learnt that efficient communication is intertwined with effective teamwork. Table of Contents Executive Summary 1 Table of Contents 2 1.0 Introduction 3 2.0 Issues Encountered During Everest 3 2.1 Stages of Group Development 3 3.0 Analysis of the Everest experiences using frameworks from MGMT 1001 5 3.1 Leadership and Decision Making 5 3.1.1 Informal Leadership Effectiveness 5 3.1.2 Laissez-Faire Leadership Style 5 3.1.3 Democratic Leadership Style 6 3.1.4 Attribution theory and perception 7 4.0 My Learning Review 9 5.0 Conclusion 11 References 11 1.0 Introduction MGMT 1001 Course design allow for students to work together in what is referred to as Everest Simulation. The five members group undertakes virtual and physical activities compared to climbing Mount Everest. The activities and circumstances under which they are carried expose the group into various challenges, expecting them to demonstrate some perspectives and skills to overcome the challenges and achieve both personal and team’s goals and objectives. Prior understanding of theoretical frameworks; provides insights in communication, decision-making, teamwork and coordination help in reaching a desirable state of group performance. In turn, our group faced challenges in the first simulation such as lack of clear goals and roles, conflicts and ultimately poor performance. However, having analyzed the things that were unsuccessful, the second simulation was an opportunity to use various strategies and approaches to resolve the differences amongst us, engage all members, and focus on higher performance. This report provides an analysis of both simulation, comparing them with management theories for better reflection and analysis. 2.0 Issues Encountered During Everest 2.1 Stages of Group Development The preliminaries of the simulation forms the basis of teamwork and it goes without saying that we faced challenges in various stages as discussed in Tuchman & Jensen (1977). I (marathoner) had only known a friend in the team Anna (observer) while the rest were all new to each other. When we started the planning, the two of us were always present and willing to start a team. After we contacted the other three, we decided to set a time when all people will e available but in the meantime, we had to initiate online conversation to prepare for smooth running of the simulation. The team used chat and messaging application, Skype and Facebook as instant messaging service. However, sometimes getting all members online was a challenge making us to switch to face-to-face meetings after tutorials. In both simulations the stages of group development were revealed. However, in the first, there were unsuccessful attempts to smoothen the differences among us. Majorly, the leader did not give much of his opinions and allowed the group members to develop mechanisms to face each activity. There were repeated disagreements between members during discussion. The group leader failed to take charge, poor physical communication and low critical thinking led to limited understanding to how to accomplish the task. The situation was complicated by confusion as to how to approach the task. Language barrier was a challenge with Tien (environmentalist) had a strong ascent and it was sometimes difficult to understand what he tried to say. However, we organized communication by setting time to converse resulting to quality discussion. We all agreed to step in and have a shared leadership approach instead of leader having all the power (Buljac-Samardzic, Dekker-van Doorn, van Wijngaarden, & van Wijk, 2010).). Overall we noted some slight improvement in the second simulation as the team was inclined towards team goal improving from 35% to 41%. 3.0 Analysis of the Everest experiences using frameworks from MGMT 1001 3.1 Leadership and Decision Making 3.1.1 Informal Leadership Effectiveness Roles that related specifically to decision-making includes, when we had to identify the person to be in charge of information gathering or recording, relocating to the next camp and dealing with oxygen tank. Initially, the leader did not express the necessary cognitive abilities. According to DeRue, Nahrgang, Wellman, & Humphrey (2011), a leader with cognitive abilities acts like a coach and provide all with more opportunities to ask certain questions. There are difficulties we experience in reaching to some particular decision-making contexts like distributing oxygen tank and when to move from one camp to another. There were important decisions required to be made as these were key points in simulation process. Several options existed but each had possible outcomes as well as substantial uncertainty. However, we adopted informal approach of leadership and saw significant impacts in directing the team and developing team culture as argued by Yammarino, Salas, Serban, Shirreffs & Shuffler (2012). In the second simulation, shared decision-making was demonstrated through some key characteristics (1) at least three members were involved in reaching a decision (2) all members were ready to share insights and perspectives; and (3) all members took step to reach a consensus for the most preferred approach to activities. 3.1.2 Laissez-Faire Leadership Style As traits theories purport on leadership, drive, desire to lead, knowledge of the role, extroversion, self-confidence, cognitive ability and integrity are major attributes of an effective leader (DeRue, Nahrgang, Wellman, & Humphrey, 2011). However, our group leader was not as active in suggestion nor was any attempt seen in pulling together ideas to leverage their holistic benefits. At first, we roughly depended on what members perceived as good and in most cases without reasoning or analysis of the suggestions. In turn, we had conflicts as the whole undertaking was just like bits of personal goals where a member brought forth some criterion like on the later camps when people were in critical condition. However, in the second simulation, we resolved this conflict through letting everyone speak their opinions and make a final judgment. Usually the process was conducted by the leader with the whole teams consent. 3.1.3 Democratic Leadership Style We had to adopt a democratic leadership style in our second simulation. All members participated relatively equally in decision making process. However, the leader guided the process and discussions or intervened when necessary such as when we had conflict (Yammarino, Salas, Serban, Shirreffs & Shuffler (2012). By far, rational models of decision-making emphasis on use of cognition, reasoning as well as critical thinking processes (Woiceshyn, 2011). To some extent we replicated the method in the group and ultimately, the group focus become much more important that personal goals. Before we embarked on the second, we offered positive criticism to group members and the leader on their part towards the failure in the first. Our ability to identify and recognize patterns enhanced our decision making. As Randall, Resick & DeChurch (2011) observes, over time, teams build experience and allow them to pick workable options more quickly. We noted the limitation of the first intuitive processes as personal objectives were more manifest which at the end diminished the joy among all members except for the person who suggested for an activity. Changes were noted as in the second camp, out photographer had suggested we remain but we deliberated and we all agreed that it was for our good we move on to camp three. Rational decision making allows gathering all information from team and environment and considering them (Woiceshyn, 2011). 3.1.4 Attribution theory and perception Perception Process People select, organize, interpret and respond to information (Ware, 2012). In turn, the information processed is manifested as feeling or action. In our team, contrast effects appeared as a distortion in the simulation as one of the group member Tien ranked lower in communication characteristic. According to Teufel, Fletcher, & Davis (2010) the accuracy and quality of people’s perceptions impact greatly on their responses. In our case, it was sometime hard for the team to give Klein attention as people found it hard to grasp the point he was deriving. Major point that came in the team that showed differing perception were past role played by each member, what skills we developed as a team, total performance, the role of the leader and future improvement areas. Information interpretation differs. As Ware (2012) points out, people may interpret a similar situation or information differently. Majorly, selective perception was a major distortion that affected our group where a member justified their own ideas based on a small niche of output. The tendency to single out some aspects of a situation consistent with one’s values and attitudes can be overcome by perception checking with others to counter the adverse impact in the team (Teufel, Fletcher, & Davis, 2010). However, projection was inexistence as our group leader did not assign his personal attributes to other members. He demonstrated high degree of empathy and self-awareness. In the second simulation, members were able to balance and control information as each idea was systematically discussed comparing it with simulation objectives. Members were also attentive at idea selection stage. Attribution Theory Attribution theory aided in perceptual interpretation as it allowed the group to focus on how we attempted to understand the causes of events in first simulation. Secondly, it helped us to assess responsibility for such outcomes and evaluate the personal qualities of those involved in such activities (Malle, 2011). The reason we were able to register some improvements in the second simulation is that, we used some of the factors towards attribution. First we looked at consistency of each member’s behavior across the forming, storming and performing situation of simulation one to mark some distinctive (Petri & Govern, 2012). For instance our group leader was noted as being shy and confused of his role and power. As a leader, he did not speak much and did not take charge. In turn, a bit of power play involved I and Kathy (physician) spoke more compared to others and conducting discussions. I and Kathy consistently had conflicts and disagreements as each held different opinions. We focused on consensus where shared leadership was the only solution that could help our team faces the challenges of poor leadership, disagreement between a small portion of the group and lack of participation by other members. From then on, we aimed that all members should respond to every issue and we adopt similar ideas. We were able to make individual response across time which allowed us to know the mechanisms that we would use on each. For instance, Tien was always slow but we had to restate what he meant and ask him to confirm whether what we have understood is what he meant. Our photographer was always late for meetings and a little bit lazy and we used to motivate him to be up for the next challenge. There was more quality discussion and reduced confusion on how to approach the tasks. For instance, as I was unable to predict the weather for the day, the rest of the group would help to analyze some signs. Personal goals also reduced to resurface. For instance, when it was for the idea that I would not reach the summit due to lack of oxygen, the team members could hardly think of getting a helicopter but focused on everyone reaching the summit. Some of the effective techniques we applied helped us mange perceptions and attributions. Most of us developed self-awareness. We sought wide range of ideas and took differing information from task requirements and group members. Everyone strived to see each situation in the eyes of the others. We had a higher level of awareness of various schemas, perceptual distortions and impression management (Malle, 2011). 4.0 My Learning Review After the first simulation, we had to analyze our personality to understand how we can leverage our positive differences and contribute to team success. Through the use of Myers-Briggs personality, I noted that I am an extravert type (Harrington & Loffredo, 2010). In turn, I learn best through talking as well as interacting with others. As Kathy is also an extrovert, no wonder we collided a lot in the first simulation. However, we promote the other team members to interact with the physical world, and highly processed and made sense of new situations and information. I had no challenges at forming and storming stage being able to express confidence in face-to-face situations. That way, we helped the likes of Kelvin, the leader and Tien the environmentalist who were not able to lead effectively. Increased awareness will help me to use the strengths and make them more sustainable. For instance, when in new group I will get involved and strive to talk but also control myself not to dominate. Additional, I will ensure turn taking when speaking in order to be in better position to understand others and create psychologically safe team environment. Teamwork success depend on existing communication, role and goal clarity and productive conflict resolution processes (Zwikael & Unger-Aviram, 2010). Communication was a major success factor in the team as we started very well using diverse modes like face-to-face and online modes. In turn, it provided an opportunity for us to familiarize to each other and develop the necessary psychological safety. However, in the first simulation, the members inappropriately treated Lien as he had no ability to explain to the group what he experienced. Communication promotes progress as group has real understanding to move forward in action, creating and managing relationship and support. According to Kouzes & Posner (2010), leadership can be learned and teamwork is an important tool that influences leadership change and adaptation. It is a fact that all of us were involved in one action or another. As group members gained understanding of significant others and the roles before them, they gain understanding into that world. In our group, members learnt new values and mostly people like Kelvin adopted some skills like self-confidence to assume the roles he was assigned. Teamwork influence individuals to think, interact, make decisions and act and such repeated patters can develop long-lasting skills of leadership (Fletcher, 2012). I noted that teamwork is inseparably linked to leadership and will use team situations to re-adapt myself to become a better leader. In future situations, I will ensure to give the necessary leadership, suggest actions, suggestions and personal evaluation to help people identify, initiate and adopt leadership skills. 5.0 Conclusion Leadership, teamwork, communication and decision-making are major pillars for group success. Every step in the simulation depended on decision reached by the group members. In turn, it required all the members to assume some level of necessary skills required to promote the best output for every stage in the simulation process. Shared decision-making is an ideal model in teamwork and for approaching activities and facing new encounters. The increased and interest in having shared decision-making derived from a number of factors like learned failure, identifying each members strength and promoting self-awareness to overcome some weaknesses that affected the team’s output in the first simulation. Additionally, the success of the second simulation was related to having the right information for every activity, assigning roles to members according to their abilities and acknowledging that each member had a right and need to be priory informed before consenting to an idea. References Buljac-Samardzic, M., Dekker-van Doorn, C. M., van Wijngaarden, J. D., & van Wijk, K. P. (2010). Interventions to improve team effectiveness: a systematic review. Health Policy, 94(3), 183-195. DeRue, D. S., Nahrgang, J. D., Wellman, N. E. D., & Humphrey, S. E. (2011). Trait and behavioral theories of leadership: An integration and meta‐analytic test of their relative validity. Personnel Psychology, 64(1), 7-52. Fletcher, A. (2012). Meaningful student involvement. Retrieved on December,1, 2012. Harrington, R., & Loffredo, D. A. (2010). MBTI personality type and other factors that relate to preference for online versus face-to-face instruction. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(1), 89-95. Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2010). The truth about leadership. Malle, B. F. (2011). 6 Time to Give Up the Dogmas of Attribution: An Alternative Theory of Behavior Explanation. Advances in experimental social psychology, 44(1), 297-311. Petri, H., & Govern, J. (2012). Motivation: Theory, research, and application. Cengage Learning. Randall, K. R., Resick, C. J., & DeChurch, L. A. (2011). Building team adaptive capacity: the roles of sensegiving and team composition. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(3), 525. Teufel, C., Fletcher, P. C., & Davis, G. (2010). Seeing other minds: attributed mental states influence perception. Trends in cognitive sciences, 14(8), 376-382. Tuckman, B. W., & Jensen, M. A. C. (1977). Stages of small-group development revisited. Group & Organization Management, 2(4), 419-427. Ware, C. (2012). Information visualization: perception for design. Elsevier. Woiceshyn, J. (2011). A model for ethical decision making in business: Reasoning, intuition, and rational moral principles. Journal of business ethics,104(3), 311-323. Yammarino, F. J., Salas, E., Serban, A., Shirreffs, K., & Shuffler, M. L. (2012). Collectivistic leadership approaches: Putting the “we” in leadership science and practice. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 5(4), 382-402. Zwikael, O., & Unger-Aviram, E. (2010). HRM in project groups: The effect of project duration on team development effectiveness. International Journal of Project Management, 28(5), 413-421. Read More