MGMT1001: Everest Report

Andrew Lau
A critical and reflective self-evaluation of my experiences during the Everest team simulation in the contexts of ‘attitudes, personalities & perceptions’, ‘power & conflict’ and ‘groups & teams’.

Executive Summary
The Everest simulation is a team simulation designed to emulate real life group processes and the diverse range of intergroup interactions this entails. Developed by Harvard Business School, participants are grouped into teams of 5 (with an optional sixth member, the observer) that make a virtual climb up Mount Everest. Performance is assessed through both individual and team goals that are provided throughout the simulation. Members were allocated into groups randomly
The report focuses on my reflections of my role in the team as the environmentalist. The complex interactions that took place throughout the task are very broad, and thus we focus on three key areas of management theory and models.

Using models of attitudes, perception and personality from schools of management psychology we open with an analysis of the social mechanics and cognitive processes that drove interactions within the group. The role of both formal and informal power as well as the optimal level of conflict is then covered in the report and finally the report reflects how group performance could have been improved through Tuckerman’s group development schema. Upon completion of the simulation and this report it is evident this simulation provides a useful proxy of real-life teams and group processes. This reflective understanding of the factors involved will help prepare me for group collaborations later in life.

Attitudes
The modest success encountered during the Everest simulation can be understood in terms of attitudes; expressions of favour or disfavour towards the attitude object, a person, thing, event or idea (Carlson & Heth, 2010). The Everest simulation provides insight into a facet of attitudes particularly relevant in the context of a workforce , job involvement (May, Gilson & Hart 1997, p. 11-37). The overall level of job involvement within the group was of moderate levels,