Oscar Higson-Spence

z5062918

Executive summary
This report discusses the value of the Everest simulation as a learning tool, as
well as my personal learning experience. The problems encountered by the team
have been compared and contrasted to relevant theory. The effect of personality on
learning and communication both individually and within the team was also
evaluated, primarily using the MBIT and Big Five models. It was found that the
issue imbalance of participation was related to the personality trait of extroversion vs.
introversion. Team conflict was found to have a positive impact on team coordination and performance, and was strongly linked to the personality traits of
opposing individuals. Different methods of communication, computer mediated
discussion vs. face-to-face interaction, were compared and their effect on team
performance was discussed. It was found that face-to-face interaction was the more
effective of mode of communication, as reflected in the improvement of simulation
results. The primary reasons for this were enhanced information exchange,
individual contribution and team co-ordination. This report concludes that educational
simulations are a valuable learning tool for students to apply theoretical knowledge
to real-life situations.

Oscar Higson-Spence

z5062918

Table of Contents
1. Introduction.
2. Section One: Issues encountered during Everest
3. Section Two: Analysis of Everest experience..............
3.1 Personality and learning....
3.2 Communication...
4. Section Three: Recommendations for learning
5. Conclusion.
6. Bibliography...
7. Appendix A: Results of the first simulation...
8. Appendix B: Results of the second simulation....
9. Appendix C: Team Contract

3
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
15
15
16

Introduction
Simulations are becoming an increasingly popular method to assess students ability
to apply theoretical knowledge and concepts to real-life context. This report
examines the value of simulations as a learning tool, with particular reference to the
2

Oscar Higson-Spence

z5062918

Harvard Everest Simulation. This simulation involved virtually climbing Mt. Everest in
groups and was carried out over two sessions. This report will identify issues
resulting from interactions within the team, and analyse them using the relevant
theory. The effect of personality on learning and communication will also be
explored. Different methods of communication and how they impact on team
performance will be evaluated. My personal learning experience will be discussed,
with specific reference to management frameworks and theories.

Section One: Issues encountered during Everest

Simulations are used to create environments within which learning and
behavioural changes can occur (Keys & Wolf, 1990). They are a type of experiential
learning (Russell & Shepherd, 2010) which have the "potential to develop students'
mental modes of complex situations as well as their problem solving strategies"
(Gredler, 1996). Furthermore, simulations that use the experiential method of
learning allow the individual to apply theoretical knowledge and principles while
developing

commitment

to

the

exercise

and

experiencing

sense

of

accomplishment or failure (Walter & Marks, 1981). Indeed, studies on the

educational value of management simulations provide evidence which suggests they
can be highly effective, but also somewhat problematic (Keys & Wolf, 1990).
The issues encountered during the Everest simulation included team conflict,
lack of participation, as well as the absence of team identity and effective
communication. These issues were far more prevalent in the first simulation, as
compared to the second simulation. Team conflict was caused by disagreements
between members and opposing strategies used when attempting to solve problems
(Behfar, Peterson, Mannix, & Trochim, 2008). There was also little compromise and
negotiation, especially during the first climb. Another issue was the lack of
participation of some team members, as not everyone was provided equal
opportunity to contribute their ideas to the group (Kirkman, Rosen, Gibson, Tesluk &
McPherson, 2002). The presence of certain individuals who dominated group
discussions was one reason for this. Furthermore, there was an absence of team
identity, as members did not feel mutually responsible for each others actions. Some
team members also displayed a disinterest in achieving the goals required, as well
as little commitment and dedication to the project. This ultimately undermined the

Oscar Higson-Spence

z5062918

teams effectiveness and was reflected in the poor result in the first simulation (See
Appendix A). Ineffective communication between the group members compounded
all the issues encountered, and most likely resulted from the flaws associated with
the virtual messaging system within the simulation. These flaws include information
overload (Dawson-Shepard, 1997) and a slow reply time to messages sent, which
reduced the need for an immediate response (Kirkman et al., 2002).
The issues discussed above resulted primarily from an imbalance of
participation (i.e. some members participating more than others), team conflict, and
ineffective communication. Thus it can be argued that the groups poor performance
in the first climb does not detract from the value of the simulation as a learning tool,
rather reflects the preparedness, organisation and attitude of the team (Hofstede, de
Caluwe, & Peters, 2010). Reflecting on previous experiences is one of the key
features of experiential learning theory (Kolb & Kolb, 2005), and the Everest
simulation provided this opportunity for the team after the first climb. A more detailed
exploration of relevant theory however is required to explain why the issues arose in
the first place.

Section Two: Analysis of Everest experience

Personality & Learning
Many of the issues discussed in section one can be analysed by considering
the effect of personality traits on individuals interaction within the group. The Big
Five Model describes five broad dimensions of personality including Extraversion,
Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Emotional stability and Openness (John, 1990).
In contrast, the less discriminatory Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) provides
individuals with information about their Jungian psychological type preferences.
Within the MBTI, The Big Five are associated as follows:
MBTI

The Big Five

Extravert vs. introvert

Extraversion

Feeling vs. thinking

Agreeableness

Perceptive vs. judgemental

Conscientiousness

No match is made on the measures of emotional stability since an evaluation is felt

Oscar Higson-Spence

z5062918

to be judgemental
Sensing vs. intuitive

Openness

A large body of research in the last decade has found the MBTI to be one of the best
indicators for many aspects of education including group presentation styles,
learning preferences, assessment methods, and group work (Brown & DeCoster,
1991). However, personality trait theory is limited by the fact that individuals can
display different behaviour in different circumstances, making fixed frameworks such
as MBTI and The Big Five problematic (Morgan, 2007).
Personality traits may have a positive or negative impact on educational
processes depending on the specific trait and on what is being learnt (ChamorroPremuzic & Furnham, 2005). Personality may also influence learning indirectly
through attitudes and motivation which create particular conceptions of learning, or
preferred ways to learn. Thus certain personality traits can be associated with
particular learning styles (Morgan, 2007). For example, deep learning, which reflects
intrinsic motivation and often results in strong academic performance, has been
related to personality traits such as openness, conscientiousness, and emotional
stability (Diseth, 2003). Personality can also influence how a student behaves in an
educational context (Brown & DeCoster, 1991), as seen in the Everest simulation.
One of the issues identified in the simulation was lack of participation by some
team members, and a dominance by others, which can be explained by considering
the MBTI personality trait of extroversion vs. introversion. Extroverts are generally
spontaneous, talkative and actively participate in group settings (Matthews, Deary &
Whiteman, 2003), meaning they prefer to learn through social interaction (Morgan,
2007). Thus it can be inferred that individuals considered to be extroverted gained
more from the second Everest simulation than the first. One downside however is
that extraversion may be a distraction for the learning of other students due to the
impulsive and outgoing nature of the individual (Matthews et al., 2003), and prevent
others from voicing their ideas and opinions. The MBTI model thus is able to explain,
particularly in the first simulation, the imbalance in participation and contribution by
group members. As a result, the Everest Team Contract was modified to include the
statement that everyones ideas must be heard before making decisions. This meant

Oscar Higson-Spence

z5062918

that all individuals, regardless of personality trait, were able to contribute equally to
group discussion in the second simulation, resulting in a significant improvement in
team performance (See Appendix B).
Opposing personality traits may also be able to explain conflict between team
members. For example, when solving the oxygen challenge in the second
simulation, one individual felt the oxygen should be allocated equally and another
argued a mathematical approach was needed to calculated the correct amount. This
difference in opinion can be attributed to a difference in the MBTI personality trait of
feeling vs. thinking. Contrary to popular belief, conflict does not always result in poor
team performance (Behfar et al., 2008), as it reduces the likelihood of the team
succumbing to groupthink1. Indeed, the presence of team conflict in the second
Everest simulation brought different strategies to light which were used to
successfully solve the problems encountered by the team.

Communication
Before the first simulation, communication was established via the social
networking platform Facebook, which provided the first opportunity for the team to
get to know each other. This method of communication was outlined in the team
contract, and proved effective for completing simple tasks such as organising
meeting times, and the team was able to connect without suffering from time-space
constraints as traditional teams do (Saonee, Manju, Suprateek & Kierkeby, 2011).
Communicating through Facebook also provided a store of information of previous
messages, which team members could refer to when needed.
Despite the relative success of Facebook as a platform for computer mediated
discussion, the messaging system on the Harvard website was an ineffective method
of communication during the first simulation. The main reason for this was
information overload, which created a communication barrier and made it difficult for
members to read and respond to all messages (Dawson-Shepard, 1997). This issue
was further compounded when certain individuals failed to remain calm and
spammed the chat with meaningless messages, creating noise in the communication
process and causing confusion among team members (Klimova & Semradova,
2012). Consequently, information needed to complete the individual challenges was
1 A phenomenon where the desire for harmony results in irrational decision-making

Oscar Higson-Spence

z5062918

not properly exchanged between members, resulting in poor decision making

(Watson, Michaelsen & Sharp, 1991).
In the second simulation, the method of communication was changed from
computer

mediated

discussion

to

face-to-face

interaction,

which

allowed

instantaneous information exchange between group members (Dawson-Sheperd,

1997). Collaboration and engagement was greatly enhanced, with team members
being able to respond to non-verbal cues such as body language and emotions
(Alge, Wiethoff & Klein, 2003). In contrast to the first simulation, all members were
able to contribute to group discussions as the team listened actively to one anothers
ideas and provided each other with feedback. This was particularly important in
solving the weather, medical and oxygen challenges, which were highly delicate and
interdependent tasks requiring all members to share information (Stasser & Titrus,
1987). Ultimately, the team was able to successfully complete all three challenges,
which is a testament to the improvement in communication within the group. This
improvement was attributable to enhanced information exchange between members
as well as collective decision making and team coordination (Berry, 2011).

Section Three: Recommendations for learning

As an observer, my role was to examine team interaction and the
establishment of team dynamics, paying particular attention to information sharing
and conflict. My learning experience was thus more reflective than other individuals,
as I did not actively participate in the majority of group discussions. Despite this, I
still feel the simulation was a valuable learning tool. In particular, it allowed me to
observe the effects of personality and communication on team performance. By fully
engaging with the simulation, the other members of my team were able to reflect on
their actions and thus learn experientially. However, I believe my experience would
be considered social learning, as I focused on observing what happened to other
individuals rather than participating myself.
During the first simulation, I did not find it difficult to stand back and obverse
others interact. In the second simulation however, I feel I had to restrain myself from
contributing my ideas and opinions to the group. In some instances, I started
communicating with the team before I remembered it was not my role to do so. I
believe this is due in part to my personality. According to the MBTI personality model,

Oscar Higson-Spence

z5062918

I learnt that I classify as an ESTJ (extrovert, sensing, thinking, judgemental).

Individuals with this combination of personality traits are generally excellent
organizers, and good at managing things or people. They are outgoing, dedicated,
strong-willed, direct and honest, and enjoy creating order (Matthews et al., 2003).
These aspects of personality trait theory are able to explain why I struggled to
properly fulfil the role of observer. One aspect of my learning experience that does
not follow the MBTI personality model, was my ability to pay attention to non-verbal
cues of other team members such as emotion and body language. Theory dictates
that the greatest weakness of ESTJ individuals is inability to feel empathy and
emotion (Brown & DeCoster, 1991), however in my experience with the Everest
simulation I found this to be incorrect.
Self-monitoring is another that may provide a better explanation of my lack of
self-control at times when communicating with the group. It is a personality trait that
measures an individuals ability to adjust their behaviour to external, situational
factors (Matthews et. al, 2003). As evidenced by my outbursts in the second
simulation, I failed to adjust my behaviour to the situation in which I was required to
be silent and observe others. This was not an issue for me in the first simulation,
partly because the computer mediated discussion meant I did not experience any
attachment to my group members and did not feel the need to help them (Saonee et.
al, 2011). However, when faced with a team who was struggling with the oxygen
challenge, I felt very frustrated. I had figured out the solution, and as a result it took
all my willpower to prevent myself from attempting to help them. Thus as the
simulation progressed, I felt that my self-monitoring increased as I adapted to the
role of observer.
Although I feel the role given to me was not suited to my personality, I believe
I had a positive learning experience and learnt a lot about myself during the
simulations. As my future career will most likely involve working with other people in
some form, I feel I would have had a better learning experience if I was able to thrive
as a more active participant of the group

Conclusion
Overall, this report has discussed the value of the Everest simulation as a
learning tool, as well as my personal learning experience. The problems

Oscar Higson-Spence

z5062918

encountered by the team have been compared and contrasted to relevant theory.
The effect of personality on learning and communication both individually and within
the team was also evaluated, primarily using the MBIT and Big Five models. It was
found that the issue imbalance of participation was related to the personality trait of
extroversion vs. introversion. Team conflict was found to have a positive impact on
team co-ordination and performance, and was strongly linked to the personality traits
of opposing individuals. Different methods of communication, computer mediated
discussion vs. face-to-face interaction, were compared and their effect on team
performance was discussed. It was found that face-to-face interaction was the more
effective of mode of communication, as reflected in the improvement in results of the
simulation. The primary reasons for this were enhanced information exchange,
individual contribution and team co-ordination. Ultimately, educational simulations
are an effective tool for students to apply theoretical knowledge and concepts to reallife context.

Bibliography
Atherton, J. S. (2010) Learning and Teaching: Experiential Learning, retrieved 15
February 2012.
9

Oscar Higson-Spence

z5062918

Ackerman, P. L. (1996). A theory of adult intellectual development: process,

personality, interests, and knowledge, Intelligence, vol. 22, pp. 227-257.

Alge, B, Wiethoff, C & Klein, H (2003). 'When does the medium matter? Knowledgebuilding experiences and opportunities in decision-making teams', Organizational
behavior and human decision processes, vol. 91, no. 1, pp. 26--37.

Barrick, M., Stewart, G., Neubert, M., Mount, M., (1998) Relating member ability and
personality to work-team processes and team effectiveness, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol 83, no. 3, pp. 377-39

Behfar, K, Peterson, R, Mannix, E & Trochim, W (2008). 'The critical role of conflict
resolution in teams: a close look at the links between conflict type, conflict
management strategies, and team outcomes. Journal of applied psychology, vol. 93,
no. 1, pp. 170.

Berry, G (2011). 'Enhancing Effectiveness on Virtual Teams Understanding Why

Traditional Team Skills Are Insufficient', Journal of Business Communication, vol. 48,
no. 2, pp. 186-206.

Klimova, B & Semradova, I (2012). Barriers to communication, Social and

Behavioural Sciences, vol. 31, pp. 207-2011.
Brown, V. L., & DeCoster, D. A. (1991). The Myers Briggs Type Indicator as a
developmental measure: Implications for student learners in higher education,
Journal of College Student Development, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 378-379.

10

Oscar Higson-Spence

z5062918

Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (Eds.). (2005). Personality and intellectual

competence. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Chin, J., Dukes, R. & Gamson, W. (2009). Assessment in Simulation and Gaming: A
Review of the Last 40 Years, Simulation and Gaming, vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 553-568.

Crookall, D. & Saunders, D. (1989). Towards an integration of communication and

simulation, Communication and simulation: From two fields to one theme. Clevedon,
UK: Multilingual Matters.

Dawson-Shepherd,

(1997).

Communication

in

organisations

operating

internationally, Journal of Communication Management, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 158-166.

Diseth, . (2003). Personality and approaches to learning as predictors of academic

achievement, European Journal of Personality, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 143-155.

Edmondson, A., Bohmer, R., & Pisano, G. (2001) Speeding up team learning.
Harvard business review, vol. 79, no. 9, pp. 125-134.

Freitas, Sara I. (2006). Using Games and Simulations for Supporting Learning.
Learning, Media and Technology, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 343358.
Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (1995). Implicit social cognition: attitudes, selfesteem, and stereotypes. Psychological review, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 4.
Gredler, M.E. (1996). Educational games and simulations: A technology in search of
a research paradigm. In D.H. Jonassen (ed.), Handbook of research for educational
communications and technology, pp. 521539, New York: Macmillan.

11

Oscar Higson-Spence

z5062918

Hofstede, G.J., de Caluwe, L. & Peters, V. (2010). Why simulation games workin
search of the active substance: A synthesis, Simulation and Gaming, vol. 41, no. 6,
pp. 824843.

John, O. P. (1990). The Big Five factor taxonomy: Dimensions of personality in the
natural language and in questionnaires. In L. A. Pervin (Ed.), Handbook of
personality: Theory and research. New York: Guilford.

Keys, B. & Wolfe, J. (1990). The Role of Management Games and Simulations in
Education and Research, Journal of Management, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 307-336.

Kirkman, B, Rosen, B, Gibson, C, Tesluk, P & McPherson, S (2002). 'Five challenges

to virtual team success: lessons from Sabre, Inc.', The Academy of Management
Executive, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 67-79.

Klassen, K. J. & Willoughby, K. A. (2003). In-Class Simulation Games: Assessing

Student Learning, Journal of Information Technology Education 2.

Kolb, D.A. (1984). Experiential Learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Kolb, A. & Kolb, D. (2005). Learning Styles and Learning Spaces: Enhancing
Experiential Learning in Higher Education, Academy of Management Learning and
Education, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 193212.
Latham, G (2004). 'The motivational benefits of goal-setting', The Academy of
Management Executive, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 126-129.

12

Oscar Higson-Spence

z5062918

Matthews, G., Deary, I., & Whiteman, M. (2003). Personality Traits (2nd ed.).
Cambridge University Press.

Morgan, K (2007). Personality and learning. European Journal of Personality, vol.

23, no. 4, pp. 137-148.

Myers, I. B., & McCauley, M. H. (1985). A guide to the development of the MyersBriggs type indicator. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Russell, C. & Shepherd, J. (2010). Online role-play environments for higher

education. British Journal of Educational Technology, vol. 41, no. 6, pp. 9921002.

Saonee, S., Manju, A., Suprateek, S. & Kirkeby, S. (2011). The Role of
Communication and Trust in Global Virtual Teams: A Social Network Perspective,
Journal for Management Information Systems, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 273-309.

Staples, D. S., & Webster, J. (2007). Exploring traditional and virtual team members'
"best practices". A social cognitive theory perspective. Small Group Research, vol.
38, no. 1, pp. 60-97.

Squire, K. D. (2006). From content to context: Video games as designed

experiences. Educational Researcher, vol. 35, no. 8, pp. 19-29.

Turner, M. E.; Pratkanis, A. R. (1998). Twenty-five years of groupthink theory and

research: lessons from the evaluation of a theory, Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, vol. 73, pp. 105115.

13

Oscar Higson-Spence

z5062918

Walter, G. A., Marks, S. E. (1981). Experiential Learning and Change: Theory,

Design and Practice, Canadian Journal of Counselling and Psychotherapy, vol. 7,
no. 3, pp. 137-138.

Watson, W. E, Michaelsen, L. K., & Sharp, W. (1991) Member competence, group

interaction, and group decision-making: A longitudinal study. Journal of Applied
Psychology, vol. 76, pp. 801-809.

Williams, H. M., Parker, S. K., & Turner, N. (2007). Perceived dissimilarity and
perspective taking within work teams. Group & Organization Management, vol. 32,
no. 5, pp. 569-597.

14

Oscar Higson-Spence

z5062918

Appendix A: First simulation results

Appendix B: Second simulation results

15

Oscar Higson-Spence

z5062918

Appendix C: Team contract

TEAM CONTRACT
Everest 2

Team Name: Frostbite

Name

Role

Shaira Rahman

Leader

Daniel Thornton

Marathoner

Jamieson Raabe

Photographer

Oscar Higson-Spence

Observer

Bryan Ye

Medic

Seok Ho Kim

Environmentalist

Contact

Team Procedures
1. 1. Day, time, and location of team members for Everest 2:
Wednesday Morning 7:30am, 16/09/15

1. 2. Preferred method of communication before and during Everest 2 (i.e., e-mail, mobile,
chat function, face-to-face in a specified location).
2.
A. A.

Before the climb

Facebook messenger
A. B.

During the climb (Note: Everest 2 has to be conducted face-to-face in a specified

location during the exercise)

16

Oscar Higson-Spence

z5062918

Face to face conversation

A. C.

After the climb

Facebook messenger

1. 3. Team goal for Everest 2:

Achieve 85%+ average goal success as a group.

1. 4. Decision-making policy (By consensus? By majority vote? By team leader?):

Democratic decision making based on group discussion.

Team Participation

1. 1.

How will we resolve conflict?

Civil discussion. If it cant be resolved, team leader makes the ultimate decision.

1. 2.

Strategies for encouraging/including ideas and debate from all team members :

Hear everyones thoughts before making a decision.

1. 3.

Strategies for achieving our goal:

Clear communication, step by step process - no rushing anything, careful analysis of each step of everest
and each individuals goals.

17

Oscar Higson-Spence

1. 4.

z5062918

Preferences for leadership (team leader only, shared leadership):

Team leader has the final say, but we try to make decisions democratically.

Personal Accountability

1. 1.

Expected individual attendance, punctuality, and participation at Everest 2:

2. Everyone attends, arrives sharply at 7:30am on the third floor of the law building, ready
for Everest 2.

1. 2.

What are the consequences for lack of engagement in Everest 2?

Public Shaming is a fantastic source of motivation.

18