Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM

Copy

Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.

DeleteCancel

Make your likes visible on Facebook?

Connect your Facebook account to Prezi and let your likes appear on your timeline.
You can change this under Settings & Account at any time.

No, thanks

Mount Everest Simulation

No description
by

Angelina Yu

on 19 March 2015

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of Mount Everest Simulation

A Review of Our Performance
Theories:

1.
Trait Theory
- Particular characteristics of a Good Leader


2.
Directive
leadership to
participatory
leadership.


3. Definition of a Leader: Someone who
motivates
and
influences
Leadership
Theories:

1.
Sharing
: New knowledge, routines or behaviour becomes distributed among group members

- Groups should take time to
raise questions
and to
reflect
on the events
Sharing of Information
Theories:

1. Small conflicts
engagement in deep and deliberate processing
of task-relevant information.



2. Team members are
depersonalized
, more creative and try to think of different perspectives→foster the discussion process and achieve
efficiency



Conflict Management
Separation of team during camp 1
Prioritizing goals
Sharing of Information
Rushing into decisions
Oxygen Tanks Calculation
Major Decision Errors
Sharing of Information
Mount Everest Simulation
Outline

Review of Performance
Analysis of Main Theories and Concepts: Leadership, Sharing of information, Group Dynamics, Conflict Management and Decision making
Theory Vs Application
Learning Points from Project

Group Members:
Mengning Yu
Lam Hiu Ying
Kwong Chi Yan
Simran Bains
Taiyba Aftab
Thank you! Questions?
Group Dynamics and Development
Application:

- leadership was overtly
assertive
and
directive

- led to
incorrect decision-making

- Could be enhanced by giving every individual a chance to
develop their arguments
to produce the unity of direction





4. Leadership helped tackle
unique information
vs
shared information problem

free-riding
and
social loafing







5.
Democratic
style of leadership to ensure
full participation
of all members.

Theories:
- democratic style adopted at a later stage was
better suited
for our group.

- Task involved
unique information
, leadership tackled
social loafing
and
free-riding

- however, was too late to implement change to the results of our simulation
Application:
Application:

-
Lack of team sharing
during simulation

- Stasser and Titus (1985):
unique information
vs.
shared information

-
Lack of confidence
in the information passed down, did not follow exact information


Theories:

2.
Storage:

Changes
in the group's repertoire needs to be
stored in the group's memory



3.
Retrieval
: Group members should access the previous knowledge for subsequent use

Application:

- Did
not take notes
e.g. the health condition of each member, weather, etc which may help to make better decision for the next stage

- Did
not reflect nor remember information
for subsequent use

- Lack of information to make better group choices for the future


Leadership
Application

- Our group had
no major disagreements

- Lack of issue-based conflict→results
shallow discussion

- Should be
analytical
at times to encourage deep and deliberate processing of task-relevant information.
Theories:

1.
Forming:
Involves individuals
getting to know each other
and making a personal impact.
- Helps define hierarchy and the roles that will exist within group

Application:

-
Positive dynamics
as three members had worked with each other before, thus we know each other's working styles

2.
Storming
:
Stage where individuals are comfortable in positions and set their
own agendas

- Conflict and negotiation may occur, leading to clearer relationships.

-
Role was not specifically defined,
thus the strength of the simulation character was not emphasised enough
3.
Norming
: Establishing
norms
and
behaviour standards
within group

4.
Performing:
Once stages are complete, group is
mature
and able to
operate effectively
.

- Did not come up with
systematic way of communicating


- Overlooked opinions of some members


Group Dynamics And Development

Model of group development: Tuckman’s (1977) stage model of group development:
1.
Planning Fallacy
overestimate benefits and underestimate costs.

2.
Loss Aversion Bias
- value a loss more than a gain of the same magnitude.
Decision-Making
Theories:
- Focused on fulfilling individual goals,
overlooked easy points
such as weather forecasting.
- Failed to recognize
necessity
for extra oxygen cylinders in comparison to a light load.

Application:
(House’s path-goal leadership theory)
(Dobelli, 2014)
Research by Schulz-Hardt, Mayer, and Frey (2002)
Issue-based conflict
(Jehn, 1997)
Martin & Fellenz(2010) Organizational Behaviour & Management
Group Learning (Wilson et al. 2008)
Group Learning (Wilson et al. 2008)

- By the time we are mature, the simulation was almost over, could not have done anything to change the result.
(Avolio etal, 2009)
(Kotter, 1990)
(Likert, 1967)

Summary: Learning Points
Achievements
Setbacks
-
Mutual trust
and
respect
for all members

-
Positive
group dynamics

- No major conflicts

- Shared
sense of responsibility
within group
- Lack of
motivation

- Lack
insightful discussions

- Lack
experience

- Lack
structure
and
organisation
Full transcript