The Everest Simulation was carried out twice in 1 hour sessions by Group 53 of MGMT 1001 at UNSW. The five team members each were assigned a role, with personal goals that were to be achieved. In addition to this, there were team goals that had to be addressed.
The first simulation was not as well carried out- perhaps due to lack of research, while the second simulation went according to plan, and in correlation, the marks also increased. The report explores the various interactions within the group and within an individual during the two simulations and comes up with recommendations for future group work exercises. The report also finds that although the team was assigned a leader the team doctor possessed as much power, if not more. In addition, various team interplays and the use of a flat management structure are explored.
The Everest Simulation was an exercise carried out in groups of 5 individuals simulating an attempt to climb to the summit of Mount Everest as a group. In addition to this, each individual has his/her own assigned agenda and mission which he/she seeks to fulfill. The purpose of the two simulations as well as the subsequent analysis was to recognize and cope with differing attitudes and roles within a team, as well as foster communication and decision making skills. Performances in the simulations are determined by the successful completion of team goals in conjunction with individual goals, as well as everyone in the team being healthy at the completion of the climb.
Team 53 of Everest completed the first simulation in a face-to-face setting around a table while the second simulation was completed with the only communication being the chat function of the simulation. This posed unique challenges which will be discussed in further detail.
Individually, my role in the team as a photographer in the team presented unique challenges, as I had to stay two extra days in camps one and two. Hence my goals interfered with the overall goal of the group.
The purpose of this report is to analyse and break down the various factors contributing to the team’s successes and failures during the two simulations, in terms of the groups interactions and dynamics.
2.0 Attitudes, Perception and Personality
A key point of the simulation was the achievement of individual goals through the expression of ideas- these ideas and mediums of expression can be influenced by the individual’s attitudes, perception and personality. An individual’s personality is the unique combination of emotional, thought and behavioral patterns that affects how a person reacts and interacts with others. Attitudes refer to one’s response in a particular setting, while perception is a process by which individuals organize and interpret their sensory impressions in order to give meaning to their environment.
2.1 Personalities affecting individual and group outcomes
The concept of a locus of control was especially relevant for the simulation. Our assigned leader had an external locus of control, being responsive to the group’s suggestions although not being proactive on decisions affecting the group as a whole. An example would be the decision to advance to the 3rd base camp, which took a considerable amount of time to execute because of indecision- this was resolved by the team doctor coming to a decision for the rest of the team. Several member of the team had a high internal locus of control- interestingly, these were the ones that achieved their personal goals in the simulation, but were less willing to sacrifice for team goals. A combination of both loci meant that our group had a diverse mix of...