Table of Contents ● The executive summary p2 ● Introduction p4 ● Everest team experience p4-6 ● Analysis of team’s result p7-9 ● Analysis of team’s communication structures and experiencep9-11 ● Conclusion p12 ● Bibliographyp13-14 ● Appendicesp15-19
● Introduction The members of team 1 (Seungkon, Florence, Yajia, Michael, Manas and Rebecca) were supposed to do Everest simulation at week 5 and 8. Before the first simulation, as I had not had any experiences with other members and also I had no experiences regarding Everest simulation, there was a lack of knowledge about the members’ personal characteristics and the task itself. However, regardless of the knowledge, it was the most difficult task in all the assignments. This is because I am terribly reluctant to have interpersonal interactions in
Australia due to the linguistic barrier and a negative stereotype about Australians. In addition, although my unique characteristics (described by “active”, “charismatic” on tasks) were acceptable in almost any case in South Korea, they caused the internal and external conflicts during the simulation. With these several internal factors and other theoretical factors, this report explores the reasons of some problems identified during the simulation. This report will present our team’s experiences, the analysis of the team’s result and communication structures in sequence.
● Everest team experience
The most noticeable thing in Everest team experience is that although it is generally agreed that the second trial brings better outcomes than the first trial, our team had the reverse experience during the simulations. The poor performance of a physician lies at the heart of the experience. During the first simulation, I (a physician, Seungkon) played a crucial role in receiving high marks for each member by providing medicines in proper time because this helped avoidance of being rescued and the risk of frostbite during the climbing. For instance, although Manas had an asthma attack at day 3, he was provided with the inhaler so that he could keep climbing, and this resulted in a bonus point for everyone. Also, Rebecca (a leader) could reach the summit after she took an aspirin at camp 4 when she suffered from the critical health status due to poor weather conditions. In contrast to ‘good’ performance in the first simulation, the physician was airlifted to the base camp during climbing
from camp 3 to 4 at day 4 and as a result, Michael and Manas were rescued due to the critical attitude sickness at the camp 5 in the second simulation (that was due ostensibly to a lack of oxygen, but actually the two members already suffered from the critical health status and very high risk of frostbite for a long time). The fundamental reason for my poor behaviour in the second simulation in contrast to the first one is attributable to my personal characteristics. For instance, from the beginning, the role of a physician did not fit in my personality that places much value upon leading the team on the front than supporting at the back side. My personal antipathy toward the role forced me to behaviour very passively and carefully in each step and support the “safety first” policy in my mind during the first simulation because although there was no motivation on the role, there was a determination not to negatively affect other members due to an impulsive judgement and behaviour. However, the two main factors motivated me to behave self-righteously in the latter half of the second simulation. Firstly, a feeling of frustration and anger that started since the first simulation came to the climax at the second simulation. Secondly, I strongly believed that fast decision-making style based on an intuition and an experience is more economic way of finishing the simulation because the first simulation was merely lengthy with not very high result.
Another noticeable thing is...