Everest Simulation

Working with a team, working for a team and working as a team are very different concepts. This distinction is the biggest lesson I learned from the simulation. A team may refer to a group of people but each member has a specific role to play. The idea of parts joining together to form a whole are analogous to the individual personalities, strengths and weaknesses each one brings to complete the team. In our group, the leader blended in with the roles of the other members. She would have been more influential if she had assumed her position more aggressively, by explaining the overall strategy, giving concrete instructions etc. She did a good job of listening to everyone’s comments but did not make her own opinions very clear. Being a leader is immense responsibility because the expectations from a leader supersede those of the other members. Thus I would imagine the leader to be working with the team, the other members for the team and a synergy of their efforts are working as a team. I always understood the importance of comprehensive and clear communication but I became more conscious about the importance of functional roles and reporting relationships in a team through the simulation. I was under the impression that a leader should do most of the talking but leading is more of a directive process, encouraging others to speak. If you are a good leader you do not maximize your own contributions but motivate others to put in their best inputs. I learned that this is a challenge because you have to establish yourself as the higher authority at the same time as well.
Our team for the Everest simulation was both successful and unsuccessful in certain ways. We were obviously unsuccessful because none of our team members was able to reach the summit and we were not ‘effective’ as a team. However the team was very successful with respect to the way we communicated with each other. Everyone was open and honest about the information that they had and the tasks that