IS2104 Reflections Overall Team Perfomance

Everest Simulation

The team managed to reach the summit and attain 74% of the team goals. Individually, I managed to attain 90% of my goals. The unfortunate incident that occurred was that the environmentalist got rescued halfway on the climb to the summit, due to lack of oxygen. That probably led to the reduction in scores on both the team and individual fronts. Along the course of the simulation, our team was faced with 2 major decisions. The first was between camp 1 to camp 2, when the environmentalists health deteriorated, and I had to administer medical supplies as a result. After consulting with the rest of the team for their opinions, we ended up first supplying her with the blood pressure monitor at camp 1, whilst staying at camp 1 as a team on day 2. After a days rest, the environmentalist experienced symptoms of asthma, in which after consultation with members of the group once again, we decided the best course of action was to provide an inhaler, which turned out to be a right decision, as it helped her recover from her asthma. The next major decision we were faced with was in deciding whether we should move from camp 3 to camp 4 on day 4. The issue faced by the team was in deciding if the weather conditions were safe to move on. This resulted in a lengthy debate as the environmentalist, marathoner and photographer arrived at differing calculations and conclusions as to whether it was safe to proceed or not. Eventually, the team leader stepped in to try to resolve the issue by voting. The team then decided to move to the next camp. However, we decided to allow the photographer to stay back in camp 3, as he did not think it was safe to move on, and preferred to wait till the weather conditions improved. Team Effectiveness On the whole, I felt the team performed effectively. There was good information sharing amongst members of the team. This helped the team better understand each others viewpoints, and by pooling each others differing information together, we were able to increase our shared knowledge and thus help the team make more well-informed decisions. The team also displayed concern for one another, and frequently updated each other on our health status and issues that we were concerned about. This thus helped foster cooperation and understanding amongst team members. During the impasse that we experienced when deciding whether or not to advance to camp 4 on day 4, the team leaders decision to step in and get everyone to vote on a decision helped expedite the decision making process. Although the photographer eventually decided to stay back instead of moving on with the rest of the team, I felt the team did well to avoid the dangers of group think by not pressuring him to follow our decision as a team. On hindsight, this might have played an important role in the teams success as the photographer might have suffered the same fatal fate as the environmentalist had he been pressured to attempt the climb with the rest of the team. The photographers decision not to proceed to camp 4 also benefited the team on day 5, as more oxygen canisters could be allocated to other members of the team, thus possibly averting another disaster, considering the marathoners history of asthma. These factors thus helped the team members to effectively accomplish their personal objectives, whilst still being able to contribute unselfishly to team objectives.

Impediments to Team Effectiveness Trust: Trust in one anothers expertise was seen to be lacking in the decision regarding moving from camp 3 to 4. This could be partially due to the potentially fatal consequences of any miscalculations. The lack of trust and the severity of making a wrong decision thus lead to a long-drawn debate where the environmentalist, photographer and marathoner debated on whose calculations and judgements was to be relied on. Much time was thus spent harping on arguments that ultimately proved inconclusive. Goal alignment: As the various roles all possessed differing personal objectives, such differences do sometimes result in misalignment of objectives when the team is faced with certain crunch decisions where prioritisation of objectives is required. An example is an incident whereby the photographer stated that reaching the summit was not his top priority. However, the other team members may prioritise such an objective differently. This thus resulted in the photographer deciding not to move with the rest of the team from camp 3 to 4, as well as the preceding debate that took place. Team processes: Before embarking on the hike, we agreed that we would try to reach the summit as a team. However, due to the differing personal objectives of various members of the team, it may not have been necessary for everyone to reach the summit. Although we clarified our team objectives, little was spoken about personal objectives before the hike. This could therefore have led to the resulting differences in opinions that lead to much time wasted on debating on issues that arise due to differing personal objectives. Future challenges Decisiveness vs Groupthink: The most prominent point that I felt could have been improved on centres on the decisionmaking on day 4 when deciding whether to move from camp 3 to 4. All the team members agreed that we spent too much time debating on this issue. If we were to actually be faced with a real-life situation on Mt Everest, such time wastage can actually prove detrimental to team success, as the weather conditions may change, resources may be exhausted while we spent time debating, and relationships could be affected as well. As such, it is important for the team leader to quickly identify the problems leading to a deadlock in the decisions, and step in to facilitate the discussion. It might have been wise to leave the calculations to the environmentalist, who had the relevant expertise and information to advise the team on whether to proceed or not. Having said that, I believe we were also cautious to avoid group think and group polarisation, which probably lead to the lengthy debate. Therefore, the team might have decided from the start that in such disputes, the team leader will act as the mediator and probably the one who will make the final decision. The team leader would thus need to be someone who is discerning enough to balance the need to be decisive, with the potential dangers of group think. Shared Knowledge of Team: In the context of the simulation, we would also probably have been more efficient if the team had just trusted the advice of the marathoner (who needed the information to convey to climbers in camp 4) and environmentalist. Such trust can only arise if we were familiar with each others expertise. This thus advocates the need for team members to know the strengths and weaknesses of fellow team-mates. Therefore, it is useful for team members to also share

their domain of expertise prior to the start of the task, so as to increase the teams shared knowledge of its members. Goal Alignment: Prior to the start of the hike, it might be good if team members could also share their personal objectives, instead of just group objectives. This could help the team see how each members personal objectives can be aligned to the team objectives, and thus help us better cooperate with each other as a team. This could have lessened potential disagreements during the hike. Role as Physician: On hindsight of the mishap that happened on the last day of the hike, it might have been useful if I had advocated for every member of the team to provide a final detailed update on their health status prior to the hike from camp 4 to the summit, instead of relying on general daily updates from team members. The observer commented that it might have been useful to prescribe aspirin on those who were facing high health risks whilst at camp 4. Thus, such measures might have better enabled me to bring to the teams attention the varying medical needs of team members prior to the most dangerous part of the hike. Doing this might have also helped the team better allocate its oxygen resources according to the health risks of each member, and thus prevent the mishap from happening. Conclusion In conclusion, this simulation has shown us certain phenomenon that could occur in group decision making such as group think and group polarisation. We have also seen how team processes, information sharing and shared cognition within the team can have an impact on team performance. Lastly, we also observed the important contributions that roles such as the team leaders and mediators can play in improving team performance.

By: Benjamin Chua Zhe Ming Matric No. : A0075241M