Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Basic management theory
Team cohesion team leadership
Communication in organisation
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Basic management theory
Everest Simulation Reflection
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
Leadership5
Groups and Teams7
Communication9
Conclusion11
Appendix12
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 ou...
... middle of paper ...
...eam 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.
However, despite of the fact that being a communicable in a group is one of the challenge for me, I have enjoyed all of team activities. This is because throughout the Biz cafe simulation, my team and I put our coffee store “JAV-AH” as a leadership team in the market by our best efforts. To increase our productivities, all of us have enjoyed sharing opinions to be aware of business essentials and researching how they are important in the business. Without doubt, I can definitely explain that we have been able to make a decision confidently. Therefore, I will describe that while the Biz café simulation provided me a useful and helpful opportunities to increase knowledge of business essential tools, I have also motivated how group performance is significant to reach business
Communication, conflict resolution and geographical issues play an important role in enabling team leaders to lead effectively. Kouzes and Posner (2012) outline that good communication allows members of both virtual and non-virtual teams and their leader to exchange ideas that foster collaboration among members. This actually enables team leaders to resolve conflicts that often arise from conflicting ideas, and hence this enhances the development and adoption of solutions to geographical issues like cultural conflicts. A team with good communication, limited conflict and a few issues can excel in nearly every sector of the global economy.
Delegating leadership responsibilities to in-groups poses a challenge of building a strong structure with a clear understanding of procedure. On the other side, if the leader cuts followers out of the decision making process, the newly formed relationships will suffer. The Normative Decision Model offers a recommendation for the ways leaders “adjust their decision style depending on the degree to which the quality of the decision is important and the likelihood that employees will accept the decision (Nahavandi, 2015).” An easy first step for leaders is to understand how many people will be effected by the decision (Nahavandi, 2015). Does it only concern an individual or is the whole group going to be impacted? Using the decision tree on page 76 of Nahavandi’s The Art and Science of Leadership (2015), leaders can effectively identify the appropriate decision style needed. A leader must adopt an autocratic style when the quality of the decision is not significant, when employees disagree, and when the employees don’t see eye to eye with the organizations goals (Nahavandi, 2015). While a consultative style is necessary when the employees will hold the responsibility of implementation; especially when employees agree with the overall goals of the organization (Nahavandi, 2015). Finally, “group oriented decision style should be used when the leader does not have all the information, and
Creating and managing effective teams in today’s work environment is much different than it was just a short time ago. With each generation of American workers come new ideas, rules, and methodologies that must be considered when developing an effective team. Some of the newer ideas may have been foreign to managers even ten years ago. An example of this is that many companies today are becoming more socially responsible. A recent article in Incentive states, “Social responsibility, it seems, is the new signing bonus” (Flanagan, p4, 2006). Rarely are managers given a perfect set of employees, a perfect environment, or a team without conflict in order to develop an effective team. These issues make it more important than ever to be able to effectively manage these teams. The simulation for Luxurion was an excellent example of managing a team well, even when the team is not put together perfectly. This paper will examine what team member were chosen, why these choices were made, issues that were worked through during the simulation and the final outcome after completing the simulation.
Tost, L., Gino, F., & Larrick, R. P. (2013). When power makes others speechless: the negative impact of leader power on team performance. Academy Of Management Journal, 56(5), 1465-1486. doi:10.5465/amj.2011.0180
Larson, C. and LaFasto, F. (1989), Teamwork: What Must Go Right/What Can Go Wrong. Newberry Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Vecchio, R. (Ed.). (2007). Leadership: Understanding the dynamics of power and influence in organizations (2nd ed.). Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
The role of the leader in the Everest simulation was to motivate, instruct, resolve conflict and achieve group goals. I, as the team leader, made the point of differentiating myself from a manager, to someone who was extraverted, energetic and driven, within and outside of the simulation. This involved organising location times and communication between members, drawing up the team contract and building relationships between team members beyond the classroom. During the simulation however I chose to adopt a less prominent role to minimise conflict and maximise satisfaction.
“What You Don’t Know About Making Decisions” by David A. Garvin and Michael A. Roberto explores the ways successful leaders can design an effective decision-making process, and the areas one needs to avoid. Some areas that are mention are how leaders should focus on maintaining an Inquiry style decision process, and avoid an Advocacy style decision process. They explore how constructive conflict is desired if its cognitive conflict which allows people to openly express their differences which allows everyone to introduce new ideas. Affective conflict is to be desired, as it is emotional based and cause problems amongst teams. Garvin and Roberto talk about how leaders need to show they were listening to the discussion, and once a final choice is made, leaders need to show logic as to why the decision was made. Garvin and Roberto discuss closure within deliberations, and they talk about a Litmus Test. Throughout the paper Garvin and Roberto discuss many do’s and don’ts about decision making and ways leaders can be successful in running a team.
Some of the characteristics seen in collaborative leadership are shared problem-solving and decision making. In order to come to a mutual decision between group members, the...
Particularly, two members within my group began to emerge as leaders due to their knowledge, skills, as well as experience working with our chosen population. Although I always view them as ‘experts’ in this topic, our group became less focused on our goals and more concerned about the ‘power struggle’ between our two leaders, before we could reach any consensus. Essentially, our group had two authoritarians butting heads and trying to take lead throughout the beginning of the group process. Thus, the other members or ‘followers’ contribution, like mine, seem to not matter unless they adhered to either leaders’ opinions without question. According to Stringer (2014), “Leadership… Is defined according to its function of facilitating organizational and operational processes, rather than defining and controlling them” (p. 31). The researcher further states that active participation is the key to encourage and motivate group members to invest their time and energy to shape the quality of the group's production. Therefore, our group needed to find ways for all members to have a chance to participate fully and apply their individual strengths, in order to enhance our group’s
Stewart, G., Manz, C., & Sims, H., (1999). Teamwork and Group Dynamics. New York: Wiley. pp. 70- 125.
When we think of the word team, individually many different ideas may come to mind about what a team really is. Some may think of an NFL team (Tennessee Titans), an NBA team (Sacramento Kings), or a NASA astronaut team with such pioneers as Edwin Aldrin, Jr. and Neil Armstrong as members. You might even think of the U.S. Navy, Air Force, Army, Coast Guard, or Marines as teams. In fact they all are, and they have a great deal in common as teams. However, for the purposes of this paper I will examine the characteristics of work teams, as they apply to organizations and I will supply answers to the following questions: What is a team? Where did the team concept come from? What are the types of teams? What are the advantages and disadvantages of having teams in organizations? What does it take to make a team effective?
Realizing that a group can become a high performance team is important. Accomplishing this goal is invaluable, advantageous and profitable. Once able to operate from a group to the high performing team is a great step into preparation into the big business world. Leaders and members must also realize not only how to accomplish this but that some problems will and can arise from different demographic characteristics and cultural diversity. That is if one is in such a group, which the probability would be quite high.
In addition, (Amandi et al, 2004) makes us understand issues related to leadership decision and also gives a clear overview on leadership theories.