The Everest Simulation

Introduction

The Everest Simulation enables participants to observe group dynamics and leadership through the dramatic online scene of a Mount Everest expedition while playing one of five roles on a team of climbers. As part of the course curriculum, I was randomly assigned to be the leader and worked with four other students.

I participated in the simulation twice – first as a virtual team in separate locations, and then as a team in the same location. I experienced improvement over the two simulations, both as a team and individually, with scores of 85-87% and 85-91%, respectively.

The purpose of this report is to identify areas for self-improvement to become an exceptional team leader and member. This will be accomplished by describing my experiences during the simulations and explaining their relevance to the three key topics of leadership, groups and teams, and communication. In the following paragraphs, I will critically analyze my team’s performance and experiences based on these concepts.

Performance

Improvement in Scores and Timing Overall, both my individual and team scores improved from 85-91% and 85-87%, respectively. In addition, my team completed the second simulation in a shorter time, taking only 40 minutes as opposed to the initial two hours. Achieving a higher score in a shorter time is a strong indication that my team made significant progress.

Furthermore, our final score reflects our leadership effectiveness and efficiency in working as a team. After each simulation, I created an online shared document for team members to share their experiences through debriefing questions. This provided valuable feedback on potential improvements, both individually and as a team.

Relevance of Leadership in Performance

For the first simulation, I adopted a democratic leadership style. I encouraged member participation and input, allowing members to take part in decision-making and reach a consensus on issues such as progress to the next camp and allocation of supplies.

Democratic leadership has been found to promote employees’ willingness to voice constructive ideas, thus leading to improvements in the organization and the way it functions (Vaccaro et al., 2012). A quintessential source of leadership in organizations is the facilitation and influencing of individual and group efforts, leading to the achievement of corporate objectives (Yukl, 2012).

My democratic style led to member “buy-in” and higher team motivation, which generated a more cohesive and efficient teamwork, ultimately resulting in a good outcome. However, this came at the cost of taking a longer time to complete the simulation. This was because consensus-building is time-consuming, and members may have been confused about which direction and commands to follow (Rubin, 2013).

For the second simulation, I adopted a situational leadership approach with a mix of both democratic and individualistic styles. I continued to promote member engagement and utilized a consensus-based decision-making process for team decisions, such as the plan for advancing to the next camp.

For individual decisions, such as the allocation of medical supplies, case shots, and anticipation of conditions, I gave the team complete freedom in these tasks. I felt that transitioning from a democratic leadership style to a more individualistic approach benefited the team.

They had already demonstrated their decision-making abilities by making good and sound decisions in the first simulation, so it was reasonable to fully empower members, such as the doctor and marathon runner, to make independent decisions and anticipations within the agreed-upon boundaries of avoiding rescue (Goodnight, 2004).

The individual empowerment in some decisions resulted in higher efficiency as less time was spent reaching a consensus for such decisions. However, the empowerment members receive can be overwhelming for those who are not self-motivated and autonomous (Rubin, 2013). Fortunately, my team was generally motivated and focused, which led to a 2% improvement in score and a 66% decrease in time taken with the use of this situational leadership approach.

In hindsight, I felt that my leadership could be improved by using the contingency theories of leadership, particularly the Hersey Situational Leadership Model. Under this model, for situations such as the first simulation, where members were unable and insecure to complete a task due to unfamiliarity and inexperience, a relation (high task-low relationship) leadership style should be adopted. For the second simulation, where members were able and confident, a delegation (low task-low relationship) leadership style should be adopted.

In simulation one, we attempted to function as a practical, future team. Prior to the simulation, we had little experience as an integrated team but anticipated an extended future of working together with fellow members (Alge et al., 2003).

Communication was done via a synchronous computer-mediated chat that was provided in the simulation. In simulation two, we functioned as a physical, past team. We had experience working with each other, but did not anticipate much future interaction together (Alge et al., 2003).

Pulling from Tuckman’s Group Development Model, my team underwent the forming and storming phases prior to simulation one and proceeded to the norming phase during the simulation.

The norming phase was not completed prior to the simulation due to members’ conflicting agendas, resulting in the team lacking a common goal during the simulation, and members being unwilling to give up their individual goals to make the team function (Boss, 1995).

We improved in simulation two by undergoing a re-norming phase and drafting a team contract, setting the norms for team procedures, participation, and personal accountability. We came up with the common goal of first achieving success in team tasks and achieving the team goal before maximizing the achievement of our individual goals.

There were clear strategies that we agreed on using to resolve conflicts, encourage participation, and achieve our goal. My team was able to reach the performing phase during the simulation, which is consistent with our higher score and decreased time.

Furthermore, due to the participative nature of leadership in both simulations, there was group decision-making present. This contributed to our high performance as it helped us generate more diverse options and provide more complete information and knowledge.

However, the downsides of this were that it was more time-consuming, which was apparent in our first simulation, and there were pressures to conform, such as the conservative member having to stay with the team despite her opinion that she would not survive the expedition.

From this, I realized the importance and eventful nature of each phase of group development (Maples, 2008) and that a task or project should be attempted when a team is in the performing phase to achieve optimal results.

The high score achieved in simulation one despite relatively inferior leadership and group structure highlighted the fact that effective online communication within the team was the main factor in our good performance.

Our improved score and timing in simulation two was a clear indication of the effective and superior face-to-face communication over virtual communication. It is apparent that communication is important for problem resolution in an organization, and it can create a tight-knit community with a high dedication to the organization’s cause (Elving, 2005).

In simulation one, my team experienced benign disinhibition, a positive form of online disinhibition. We were more comfortable and more willing to open up by sharing information relevant to the tasks at hand (Suler, 2004).

According to Suler (2004), the online disinhibition effect resulted in the minimization of status and authority. Members were less fearful of my disapproval and therefore more outspoken in their opinions on certain decisions and tasks.

This widened the team’s knowledge and information, resulting in our good performance. In simulation two, my team communicated proficiently as a physical team. Barriers to effective communication were a major concern as they could negatively impact the performance of groups and teams in an organization (Radhaswamy, 2011).

Furthermore, studying at the University of New South Wales, with a vibrant and diverse student culture, differences in language can impede communication (Gould, 1969). My team managed to overcome these challenges and excel.

We accomplished this by providing each other feedback (Haggerman, 2002) and through active listening (Young & Post, 1993). Feedback was given in the form of asking questions for clarification and active listening was carried out by avoiding the interruption of the speaker and exhibiting affirmative head nods and facial expressions.

Fortunately, my team did not encounter any language barriers as English was the first language of all members. Even as an international student from Singapore compared to the remaining members who are locals, there were minimal differences in our cultures due to our similar ethnicity.

A high level of communication is positively related to group cohesion (Lott & Lott, 1961). My team’s effective communication in both simulations allowed for increased group cohesion, which made us an effective team (Mullen & Copper, 1994).

Communication effectiveness strongly influenced leader performance (Neufeld et al., 2010). The high level of communication also accounted for my above-average leader performance despite my poor choice of leadership style in simulation one.

In retrospect, I realized the significance of communication in effective team performance and its positive influence on both leadership performance and effective team structure. In order to become an outstanding team leader or member in the future, an improvement in communication skills is indispensable.

Experiences

Handling Conflicts and Human Error Throughout both simulations, it was inevitable that my team encountered conflicts, technical and human errors. The occurrence of these incidents, be it foreseen or unforeseen, provided valuable insights into my team’s reaction and resolution to them.

Significant incidents of note were:

1. An environmentalist suffering from an asthma attack in both simulations.
2. Allocation of O2 canisters from Camp 4 to the summit in both simulations.
3. Incorrect weather prediction in simulation two.

Task-based struggles can be resolved by sharing information with one another. Both incidents (1) and (2) were cases of task-based and relationship struggles, and they were resolved in both simulations, as observed in the conservationist avoiding deliverance and passing the O allotment task. Incident (3) was an incident of human error.

Relevance of Leadership in Experiences

Effective leadership in the form of good exercise of power will help to eliminate conflict in groups (Peterson & Harvey, 2009). Using my referent power as a leader, I was able to direct an inclusive group process. By encouraging discussion of potential options and respecting the concerns and feelings of members, I was able to resolve task-based conflicts (Peterson & Harvey, 2009).

This was apparent in the group’s sharing of information on medical symptoms and individual O consumption rate and being successful in those tasks. Furthermore, the successful inclusion of a group process helped further a climate of trust in the group.

When the conservationist experienced an asthma attack, she trusted the information we shared and our judgment, which in turn resulted in her avoiding rescue. Her trust in the team prevented the misattribution of arguments as personal attacks and minimized relationship conflict (Peterson & Harvey, 2009).

The individualistic leadership style in allowing unqualified members full authority in decision making was the root cause of why the marathon runner failed to correctly predict the weather in simulation two (Goodnight, 2004).

The marathoner’s incompatibility in decision making was not taken into consideration when I was deciding to authorize members because members’ consistency was indeterminable based solely on the results of one simulation.

Relevance of Groups and Teams in Experiences

Effective conflict management is closely attributed to high levels of group performance (Peterson & Harvey, 2009). Our effective conflict management was primarily due to our small group size (Thomas & Fink, 1963).

Compared to a larger group, we were able to be more productive with the information we shared with each other and resolve the task conflicts that arose in both simulations. I felt that this group size was ideal as it also prevents social loafing, allowing every member to remain highly motivated and committed.

Our group adopted an accommodating conflict management style in simulation one, where we resolved conflicts by putting another’s needs and concerns above our own (Somech et al., 2009). In simulation two, we used a conciliatory approach, resolving conflicts by each member waiving some of their individual goals to achieve a higher team score.

Upon contemplation, I feel that a collaboration-oriented manner of struggle direction should be adopted for both simulations, whereby members seek an advantageous solution for all parties. This will not only improve squad marks but also enhance single tonss.

Owing to the fact that a individualistic leading manner for single determinations was adopted in simulation two, it meant that group determination making did not take place during these determinations. As such, less complete information and cognition was provided, and an ill-informed and inaccurate determination was made in the marathoner’s anticipation of conditions.

It is hence built-in to be able to correctly discern if future undertakings require group or single determination making. Individual determination making results in faster and more efficient determinations, but it comes at a cost of being inaccurate.

Relevance of Communication in Experiences

In both simulations, an all-channel signifier of communication web was used, allowing a smooth and free flow of communication among members. This allowed for a fast and relatively accurate exchange of information for the squad to decide task-conflicts.

Team members were more motivated and committed as a result of high satisfaction derived through the use of this communication web (Guetzkow & Simon, 1955). A downside to this communication web was the prevalence of information overload due to the fast-paced nature of this web.

This was apparent in the marathon runner being overloaded with the conditions information we shared with him. The amount of information he had to work with exceeded his processing capacity, and as a result, the squad failed the conditions challenge in simulation two.

While an all-channel signifier of communication is fast, reasonably accurate, and provides high member satisfaction, it is important to manage information properly to avoid overload.

Conclusion

Leadership, Groups and Teams, and Communication have proven to be polar factors in the successful completion of both simulations. Based on the information and critical analyses made, it was very clear that the assorted attacks our squad took in relation to various management theories influenced the work process of the simulations.

There is no individual fixed expression to become an exceeding squad leader and member. Through this exercise, I have gained insights on the different manners of leading, communication, and group and squad construction, as well as their applications in the future to become an exceeding squad leader and member. Finally, this will equip me with the necessary skillset to achieve more effective and efficient squad performance.

Mentions:

1. Alge, B. J., Wiethoff, C., & Klein, H. J. (2003). When does the medium matter? Knowledge-building experiences and opportunities in decision-making teams. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 91, 26-37.
2. Boss, R. W. (1995). Remark: The Challenge of Building Effective Work Groups. Journal of Management Inquiry, 4(2), 172-175.
3. Elving, W. (2005). The Role of Communication in Organizational Change. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 10(2), 129-138.
4. Goodnight, R. (2004). Individualistic leadership. The Economic Journal, 98(392), 755-771.
5. Gould, J. (1969). Barriers to Effective Communication. Journal of Business Communication, 6(2), 53-58.
6. Guetzkow, H., & Simon, H. A. (1955). The Impact of Certain Communication Nets upon Organization and Performance in Task-Oriented Groups. Management Science, 1(3/4), 233-250.
7. Haggerman, L. (2002). Strong, Efficient Leadership Minimizes Employee Problems. Springfield Business Journal, 9(15), 23.
8. Lott, A. J., & Lott, B. E. (1961). Group Cohesiveness, Communication Level, and Conformity. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 62(2), 408-412.
9. Maples, M. F. (2008). Group Development: Extending Tuckman’s Theory. The Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 13(1), 17-23.
10. Mullen, B., & Copper, C. (1994). The Relation Between Group Cohesiveness and Performance: An Integration. Psychological Bulletin, 115(2), 210-227.
11. Neufeld, D. J., Wan, Z., & Fang, Y. (2010). Distant Leadership, Communication Effectiveness, Group Decision and Negotiation, 19(3), 227-246.
12. Peterson, R. S., & Harvey, S. (2009). Leadership and conflict: Using power to manage conflict in groups for better rather than worse. Power and Interdependence in Organizations, pp. 281-298.
13. Radhaswamy, P. A. Z. A. (2011). The Importance of Communication. IVP Journal of Soft Skills, 5(4), 52-56.
14. Rubin, E. N. (2013). Measuring Your Leadership Style to Achieve Organizational Objectives. Global Business and Organizational Excellence, 32(6), 55-66.
15. Somech, A., Desivilya, H. S., & Lidogoster, H. (2009). Team Conflict Management and Team Effectiveness: The Effectiveness of Task Interdependence and Team Identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(3), 359-378.
16. Suler, J. (2004). The Online Disinhibition Effect. Cyber Psychology & Behavior, 7(3), 321-326.
17. Thomas, E. J., & Fink, C. F. (1963). Effects of Group Size. Psychological Bulletin, 60(4), 371.
18. Vaccaro, I. G., Jansen, J. J. P., Van Den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. (2012).