Everest Simulation Reflection
MGMT1001
Everest Simulation Report
Managing People and Organisations
Executive Summary:
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.
Table of Contents
Introduction 4
Leadership 5
Groups and Teams 7
Communication 9
Conclusion 11
Appendix 12
Bibliography 14
Introduction
The Harvard Business Everest Leadership and Team Simulation allow participants to understand and appreciate underlying management concepts which form the basis of any well functioning organisation. Specifically, the simulation required students to work in cohesive teams, display important leadership qualities and to communicate effectively in order to make successful decisions. The Everest task involves the cooperation and cohesion of random individuals through their placement in a team. These teams consisted of five members, where each individual was assigned specific role and goals. These roles included the team leader, physician, environmentalist, photographer, and marathoner. Individuals goals were often contradictory and team members received unique, however important information concerning the task. This simulation aims to discover the way in which teams react in complex and often conflicting situations. Through a series of trials and tribulations, our Everest group were able to increase our score from 22% to 85% in the second simulation. This is a result of the exploration of various behavioural leadership styles including laissez faire and democratic leadership approaches
Everest Simulation Report
Managing People and Organisations
Executive Summary:
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.
Table of Contents
Introduction 4
Leadership 5
Groups and Teams 7
Communication 9
Conclusion 11
Appendix 12
Bibliography 14
Introduction
The Harvard Business Everest Leadership and Team Simulation allow participants to understand and appreciate underlying management concepts which form the basis of any well functioning organisation. Specifically, the simulation required students to work in cohesive teams, display important leadership qualities and to communicate effectively in order to make successful decisions. The Everest task involves the cooperation and cohesion of random individuals through their placement in a team. These teams consisted of five members, where each individual was assigned specific role and goals. These roles included the team leader, physician, environmentalist, photographer, and marathoner. Individuals goals were often contradictory and team members received unique, however important information concerning the task. This simulation aims to discover the way in which teams react in complex and often conflicting situations. Through a series of trials and tribulations, our Everest group were able to increase our score from 22% to 85% in the second simulation. This is a result of the exploration of various behavioural leadership styles including laissez faire and democratic leadership approaches
Bibliography: 1. Alge, B. J., Wiethoff, C., & Klein, H. J. (2003), ‘When does the medium matter? Knowledge-building experiences and opportunities in decision making teams’. Organisational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes Vol. 91, pp. 26-37. 2. Hafner, K. ‘For the well connected, all the world’s an office’, The New York Times, 30 March 2000, pp. D1+ 3. Jehn, K.A. (1995), ‘A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict’. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, pp 256-282 4. Judge, T.A, Piccolo, R. F. & Ilies, R. (2004), ‘The forgotten ones? The validity of considerating and initiating structure in leadership research.’ Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 89, no.1, pp 36-51 5. Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2001), ‘A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes’. Academy of Management, Review, 26, pp 356–376. 6. Nemeth, C.J. (1986) Differential contributions of majority and minority influence. Psychological Review, 93, pp 23-32. 7. Peterson, R.S. (1999), ‘Can you have too much of a good thing? The limits of voice in improving satisfaction with leaders’. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, pp 313-324. 8. Peterson, R.S., Simons, T.L., Rodgers, M.S., and Harvey. S. (2007), ‘Bridging troubled waters: Consensus decision rules attenuate the negative impact of low trust on decision implementation in top management teams’. Working paper. 9. Peterson, R. and Harvey, S. (2009), ‘Leadership and Conflict – Using power to manage conflict in groups for better rather than worse’, in Power and Interdependence in Organisations, eds D. Tjosvola & B. Wisse, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 281- 298.