Management Teams based on Mount Everest Climbing Experience - Assignment Example

Problem & context Describe and explain your experience of the team project The team was set to climb Mount Everest early in the morning. It is considered the best time to do so. Our team embarked on climbing summit at 12 a.m. It was logical for us to reach summit approximately twelve hours after departure. The order for beginning final summit had been set by the team expedition leader. The final 18-hours prior to reaching the peak was challenging, as it required survival of the fittest. Our team had previously set turnaround time, which serves alert the team about time to abandon ascent and begin descent. The benchmark for turnaround times range between 12 p.m. and 2 p.m. The team leader ensured that each team member was equipped with bottled oxygen and steroids for emergency in case of serious exhaustion. Our team reached the Southeast Ridge Balcony approximately five and half hours after departure. This is one of the most difficult points to climb. Our team gradually ascended along the Balcony from around 8 a.m. to 10 a.m (Kayes, 2004). Did the team project work as expected or not expected? The team project did not work out as planned because not all members reached the summit. Most gave up ascending at Hillary Step due to wastage of time and snarl-ups. One of the expedition leaders breached the agreement regarding the order at which each team would begin for final summit. The team was not armed with radios for communication. One our team member was severely exhausted when we reached the Southeast Balcony. I together with another team pulled the climber with assisted with guide Sherpa. Moreover, our team was caught up in bottleneck. We could not proceed beyond that point because safety ropes had not been fixed. Our team together with other teams joined hands to secure the fixed safety ropes to secure our next mountain climbing session. This marked the onset of series of bottlenecks that were to occur in the course of our climbing. Our sojourn at Hillary Step took roughly an hour. Again, we were caught up in traffic snarl up, since long queue of climbers behind us was waiting for their turn to climb. Ropes had not been fixed as anticipated. We could not communicate to those below us, because we lacked radios. Unnecessary anxiety and confusion among climbers was looming. This point was approximately 28,800 feet beneath peak of Mount Everest. The previous climbers had not secured the ropes to facilitate ascent of those below at reasonable time (Kayes 2004). As a result, some team members arrived at the summit beyond the stipulated deadline at 2 p.m. The bottlenecks had ripple effects, because it affected the whole operation. Things went astray between 4 p.m. to 5 p.m., because whiteout occurred, which grounded descent to near halt. The turnaround time was set at 12 hours after departure. The bottlenecks caused delays so that 6 hours past the deadline, snowstorm occurred and halted descent. Some team members ran out of oxygen supply. Fatigued ensued. Some team members were conspicuosly absent. The team members who abandoned the summit attempt at snarl up, and few climbers who successfully reached the summit, started arriving at Camp IV between 4.30 p.m. to 6 p.m. What factors contributed to your experience (e.g. personal, social) Mountain climbing at Mount Everest offered opportunity for unique research experience. Authorities restricted public investigations. As a result, empirical data regarding the Mount Everest Disaster of 1996 remains scanty. Also, the chronology of the tragedy was never archived. In order to create sense, the team created chronology of possible events after painstaking review of observations by witnesses and survivors. A recent study (Kayes 2004) highlighted importance of integrated multiple analytic approach to tragedy sense-making. In order to ensure rational chronology of events, each team member conducted individual research, independence of chief investigations outlined in scholarly articles. The chronology was mounted on narratives, which contained systematic and reliable chronology. Another strategy, theory-building approach (Mohr 1982, cited in Kayes 2004) was useful in refining large amounts of archived data, in order to permit synthesis or focus on fundamental constructs, and generalization of events. Mohr’s theory-building pointed out out five determinants: 1) Focal unit of analysis, 2) Precursors of at least two experiences of the focal unit, 3) Motivators of precursors, 4) Probailistic procedures of factors affecting cohesion of precursors, 5) Results of precursor cohesion, which impact on focal unit to initiate an incident. Researcher’s personal experience of Mount Everest also played important role. The research interviewed observers and survivors of the Mount Everest tragedy. Personal experience provides useful background for problem analysis (Kemp 2009), because experience makes the researcher invlovement with spotlighted culture. According to Kayes (2004), researcher involvement with culture is appropriate for action-learning strategies. 2. Reflection What team role did you perform? In was involved in decision-making, interacting, and communicating with other team climbers through radio call. I was charged with ensuring that each team member had sufficient supply of oxygen to last entire turnaround time and beyond. I was also involved in rescue operations of colleagues trapped in snowstorm. Teamwork enables coordination of roles ( Kayes 2002). I performed roles that I knew I was suited best, which harmonize with my area of specialty. Even though decision-making was made at team level, I was tasked with making decision at individual level prior to brainstorming my ideas with other team members (Hallgren 2007). I conducted personal investigation into creating possible scenarios for Mt Everest tragedy. I was involved in design of reasonable turnaround times for mountain climbing expedition. A study by (Kayes 2004, p. 1274) indicated that problem solving by team members requires ability to “deal with psychological needs, and to adapt to changing environmental circumstances”. Was your role chosen? I was not assigned team role. Rather, it is self-initiative motivated by the need to adapt to the complex situation at hand that required quick solutions. The climbing expedition provided opportunity for applying my skills and knowledge in complex life situations. Mountain climbing demands continuous learning and adaptation to highly complex environment, because such environment motivated me to seek solutions quickly. The challenging experience made me learning how to cope with similar situations in workplace. Did your role overlap? Team roles are mutual, especially that required collaborative effort by team members. In most cases, decision-making was individual. Our common goal was to reach the summit of Mt Everest. The sense-making research was also conducted individually independent of principal investigator. Why did you perform this role? To gain first-hand experience in accomplishing team tasks. Teamwork helps to define problem correctly. The sense-making investigation of chronology of events helps to construct possible scenarios and adapt according to contingencies such as unpredictable weather patterns, changes in team organization and dynamics, and interaction with members of other climbing teams. What factors and knowledge influenced your decisions and actions during the activity? The risks associated with consensus seeking. My decision was influenced by need for achieve compromise, even if reaching consensus seemed impossible. I also have the need for articulating my opinions, and ensure that it is considered. This motivates me to support a decision that has been approved by the team. In case of bottleneck, the team leader can intervene. Another factor is certainty. Well-defined and clear solutions to problem provides recipe for successful approval of decisions and commitment by the team. Even though decisions may not be necessarily correct, it is better than not reaching consensus (Lencioni 2002, p. 208). 3. Alternative Courses of Action Were there other courses of action or choices I could have taken? Narrowly defining team goals requires coordinated and logical team purpose, and employs logics of cause-and-effect. These goals are clearly defined and are logical and systematic. Goal definition must follow existing paradigms. On the contrary, lack of clear purpose has proven disastrous. Problem definition must not have emotion, uncertainties, and perceptions taken into account. Unclear team goals offer multiple alternatives, which tend to be contradictory. For instance, the temptation to reach the summit, especially when it is necessary to abort summit attempts. The team should not have depended heavily on leaders. Kayes (2004) observed that overreliance on leaders has proven detrimental. Even though leaders can ensure technical expertise for teamembers, it limits team member’s ability to adapt according highly complex and dynamic environment similar to Mt Everest. Setting of summit shedules and abort times at base camp require collaborative efforts rather than declaration and enforcement by single individual. Teamwork requires collective responsibility. Team members should not abandon each other in times of crisis. In fact, crisis provides opportunity for team cohesion. Effective team work takes into account interpendence of team members. Roping could have been done collectively. What might the consequences of taking these courses of action be - • for me? Well-defined problem helps one to sense ill-defined problems. One can identify ambiguous solution to problems, which existing benchmarks may not define. When both problem and its solution are unclear, the achievement of goals will remain unclear. For my relationship with my wider group or colleagues? Collective responsibility offers individuals with chance to practice discretion. This enhances learning by team members, and helps them to adapt to changing circumstances. For the overall group outcome? Success would depend on team’s ability to deal with complex and ill-defined problems. It also depends on team’s diversity, and team’s engagement in collaborative reasoning (Thompson & Choi 2008, p. 71). 4. Learning What have I learned from the group project/ teamworking? I have learnt that effective problem solving requires proper definition of problem. Guide’s decision may not necessarily be correct, because it limits one’s ability to respond to highly challenging environment. Leaders tend to impede team performance. Temptations for reaching Mt Everest may have blurred leaders’ ability to seek alternative solutions (Elmes & Barry 1999, cited in Kayes 2004). The Mt Everest disaster illustrates that team learning tend to be inhibited by combination of narrowly defined team purpose, insensitivity to ill-defined problems, and authoritarian leadership (Kayes 2004). Team goals must be clear in order to facilitate their achievement. Teamwork requires acknowledgement of interdependency of team members. Imposition and enforcement of team norms and purposes does not benefit. Narrowly defined team purpose coupled with autocratic leadership allows complete achievement of goals. Nevertheless, narrowly defined team goals tend to limit learning. The combination of narrowly defined goal with ill-defined problem (Felipe et al. 2011) permits practice of discretion by team members. The combination of autocratic leadership with ill-defined problem allows discretion by group members, which promotes adapting amid unknown contingencies characterizing ill-defined problem. This is only true if discretion is entrenched within the system. This authoritarian leadership helps group members focus and benchmark processes essential for adapting to changing situations (Kayes 2004). Have I changed my approach to interacting with, and relating to, others? I tend to work independently when faced with complex situations. Brainstorming has proven less effective. This is due to social loafing, which tends to impede critical thinking (Thompson 2003, p. 185). I have adopted calm and composed approach to complex situations. I use emotions to promote thinking, and controlling my emotions. I have also developed skills of accurate judgment of my emotions and those of my colleagues (Clarke 2010, p. 120). I have also been ethusiastic about my tasks. I have also learnt to treat my colleagues with respect and discipline (Belbin, 2010, p. 50). What skills and responses have I developed, and can apply in the future? A recent study (Hallgren 2010)suggests that mountain climbing requires skills in elaborate planning and control, and taking moderate risks. Expedition guides must be skillfull in managing highly risky situations characterized by unknown contingencies. Team learning also helps in developing emotional intelligence. According to Clarke (2010, p. 119), ‘relational bond’ tend to become stronger when one is increasingly invloved in team-based learning. This increases individual’s awareness of his/her emotional intelligence. Will you now react or respond differently in similar future work based situations? My goal is to help individual team members to change their attitudes towards complex situations. Team members need to be helped to adapt to changing situations, and should not view these situations as insolvable. Rather, adopt new approaches whenever traditional technique fails. In this regard, team leaders must offer appropriate intervention at individual level (Adair 2007, p. 124). Evaluate the main ideas and principles governing inter-personal relationships According to Chrobot-Mason (2004, p. 9), high identity formation tend to promote ‘positive interracial interactions’. This may be attributable to high comfortability in dealing with people from different racial and ethnic bakgrounds. Teamwork negotiation involves creation of social ties (Koc-Menard, 2009), which facilitate location and acquisition of resources necessary for enhancing team’s capacity to handle bargaining process. Social relations enable teams to transcend their internal processes and epngage in activities that manage environment of the team. Social relations rely on personal and professional ties of team members. A recent study (Yoon et al. 2010) indicated that collaborative learning culture tends to have direct and positive effects on team creativity, although indirectly influences team performance. Collaboration between team members, ability to adapt to changing environmental circumstances, enhanced organizational performance, opportunities for development, team cognition, and adequate resources are important factors for teamwork. Team learning, and thus organizational learning, occurs when group members are cohesive and diligent in correcting errors of past (Levi, 2011). This tends to influence organizational goals, planning, and norms. Research (Yoon et al. 2010) indicated that task orientation, collaborative innovation, mutual vision, and participation tend to affect team environment and creativity in positive ways. Construction of mental schema of key aspects of relevant environment enhances team creativity (Mohammed & Dumville 2001; Burningham & West 1995, cited in Yoon et al. 2010). These mental representations influence team’s worldview and course of actions. This means that presuppotions, images, or general impression must be deeply entrenched in minds of team members. Furthermore, mental models tap into creative and learning abilities by team members, so that they are able to solve problems encountered daily in the workplace. 2. Understand and be able to use the principles of group dynamics, behaviour, and facilitation in diverse group and team based contexts. Research (Chrobot-Mason 2004, p. 9) on self-reflection and privilege experience by dominant groups, has focused on Whites and diversity programs. Both dominant and minority groups tend to view ethnicity and race as complex constructs of society. In order to address issues of racial and ethnic diversity in workplace, racial history, and power relations that prevails among diverse identities must be understood. Managing diverse employees requires psychological preparation by White managers. Such preparation encompasses evaluation of individual’s ethnic identity, psychological privilege, and intrinsic ethnocentric inclinations. Team learning is facilitated through support inquiry and communication (Ernst, Martin & CCL 2011). This is possible in learning organizations, whereby collaborative problem solving process, and definition and rectification of errors are involved. A study (Curseu & Schruijer 2008) on how collective mental representations affect group performance, illustrated that non-framing groups tend have greater performance than framed groups. This is because framed groups tend to be more defensive during negotiations, and are usually more collaborative. Negative framing of information often underlie negativity prejudice. Information framed as dangerous tends to affect decision-making. Research (Stasser & Titus 1985, 1987; Lamm 1988, cited in Curseu & Schruijer 2008) indicated that group context tend to emphasize mutual personal preferences, with mutual information being primarily the subject of group discussion. Multidisciplinary teams tend to be flexible with regard to shifting their team membership. This depends on task demand. Collaborative synergy is a crucial dynamic for creation of mutual wisdom. It helps to solve problems at procedural levels that may impede organizational performance. In this regard, diversity becomes important ingredient for group creativity. Mental schema not only enhances addresses complex problems, but also helps in surmounting workplace conflicts, which is often prevalent among multidisciplinary and diverse teams (Yoon et al. 2010). Teams play significant role in creation of knowledge through provision of temporal opportunities for interaction and tacit acquisition of knowledge through experience. This often occurs at the onset of socialization. It also permits solidification and codification of group member’s presumptions. The acquired knowledge synthesized into problem solutions and definition through combination process (Yoon et al. 2010, p. 253). 3. Apply organisational behaviour and learning theory to the business context critically analysing the factors influencing individual behaviour in teams Individual behavior of team members is affected by creativity, whereby individuals interact with situation. Guilford in 1977(cited in Yoon et al. 2010, p. 251) observed that creative behavior of individuals involves generation of ‘new ideas and solutions by linking unrelated events and symptoms together’. Creative behavior of individuals is a precursor for team creativity, which is achieved through interpersonal relationships and processes within the group. In fact, individuals tend to produce more and effective ideas than teams (Thompson (eds) 2003). Team cohesiveness tend to promote open-minded discourse,whereby team members from diverse backgrounds ahre their unique viewpoints, and playful environment (Amabile 1998, cited in Yoon et al. 2010). Research on individual job satisfaction and task satisfaction (Mason & Griffin 2005, p. 627), revealed that group structure of task satisfaction tend to differ from individual satisfaction of job. This is because of teams have both internal and external work environment. Even though members may be satisfied with their group’s cohesiveness, they may be dissatisfied with external work environment. According to Curseu and Schruijer (2008, p. 349), individual behavior tend to affect cognitive representations of each group member. This ‘social stimulus’ affect other members of the group, and tend to fluctuate according to shifts in individual representations. Stability of mental representations implies reaching consensus by group members. In view of this, it is likely that group’s decision-making will be based on such mutual cognitive representation. Intellectual, practical, affective and transferable skills: 4. Demonstrate effective management practice and behavioural skills in a team environment to generate personal and organizational performance impact Research (Adair 2007, pp. 51, 65 & 81) highlights control, which has to be practiced with sensitivity and skill. Teams require leadership and management. Team managers should maintain records of their leadership skills and qualities. Leading by example helps to motivate team members who are eager and willing to learn. Teams are more effective than autocratic leadership. Leadership skills require understanding of leadership concepts. Leaders must be open-minded to other people’s goals, values, tasks, and leadership. Leaders who listen tend to promote team creativity. Accoding to Wheelan (2010, p. 83), leaders must provide environment necessary for progressive development. Leaders must tailor their behavior to conjure up open discussion. Bureaucracy tends to impede team creativity. Although it is necessary to adhere to rules and procedures, sometimes it is prudent to bend these norms. Team leaders with ‘creative dyslexia’ forestall being weighed down by treacle of organizations. Team leaders must be able to allocate or procure minimal resources. Effective team leadership requires enthusiastic leaders. The enthusiasm contagion inspires and motivates team members. Innovative leadership promotes incremental improvements, or small truths, which enable team members to rise ‘to great truths’ (Adair 2007, p. 82). Conclusion To sum up, Mt Everest disaster illustrated that bottlenecks tend to have ripple effects, which can bring entire project operation to halt. Empirical data on 1996 Mt Everest disaster remains scanty. The mountain climbing experience provided unique opportunity for research experience. The Mt Everest environment is a metaphor of complex work environment. Leadership can motivate or impede team creativity. Individual decision-making tend to be more effective than group brainstorming. Team management not only requires management skills, but also leadership skills. References Adair, JE 2007, Leadership for innovation: how to organize team creativity and harvest ideas, Kogan Page, London ; Philadelphia. Belbin, M R 2010, Management teams: why they succeed or fail, 2nd edn, Elsevier Ltd, Burlington. Chrobot-Mason, D 2004, ‘Managing racial differences: the role of majority managers' ethnic identity development on minority employee perception of support’, Group & Organization Management, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 5-31. Clarke, N 2010, ‘Developing emotional intelligence through team-based learning’, Articles, vol.21, no. 2, pp. 119-138. Curseu, PL & Schruijer, S 2008, ‘The effects of framing on inter-group negotiation’, Group Decision Negotiation, vol.17, pp. 347-362. Kayes, DC 2002 'Dilemma at 29,000 feet: an Exercise in ethical decision making based on the 1996 Mt. Everest climbing disaster’, Journal of Management Education, vol.26, no.3, pp. 307-321 Ernst, CT, Martin, A & CCL 2011, Critical reflections: how groups can learn from success and failure, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken. Felipe, J, Alvarez, A , Pustina, A & Hallgren, M 2011, ‘Escalating commitment in the death zone new insights from the 1996 Mount Everest disaster’, International Journal of Project Management, pp. 1-15. Hallgren, M 2007, ‘Beyond the point of no return: on the management of deviations’, International Journal of Project Management, vol. 25, pp. 773-780. Hallgren, M 2010, ‘Groupthink in temporary organizations,’ International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 94-110. Kayes, CD 2004, ‘The 1996 Mount Everest climbing disaster: the breakdown of learning in teams,’ Human Relations, vol. 57, no. 4, pp. 1263-1284. Kemp, J. M. (2009). Moving out of the box : tools for team decision making. California: Stanford Business Books. Koc-Menard, S 2009, ‘Team performance in negotiation: a relational approach,’ Team Performance Management, vol.15, no. 7/8, pp. 357-365. Lencioni, PM 2002, The five dysfunctions of a team: a leadership fable, 1st edn, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco. Levi, D 2011, Group dynamics for teams, 3rd edn, SAGE, Los Angeles. Mason, CM & Griffin, MA 2005, ‘Group task satisfaction: the group's shared attitude to its task and work environment’, Group & Organization Management, vol.30, no.6, pp. 625-652. Thompson, LL 2003(ed.), The social psychology of organizational behavior: key readings, Psychology Press, East Sussex. Thompson, LL & Choi, HS 2008, ‘Creativity and innovation in organizational teams’, Taylor & Francis, New Jersey. Wheelan, SA 2010, ‘Creating effective teams: a guide for members and leaders’, 3rd edn, SAGE, Los Angeles. Yoon, SW, Song, JH, Lim, DH & Joo, BK 2010, ‘Structural determinants of team performance: the mutual influences of learning culture, creativity, and knowledge’, Human Resource Development International, vol.13, no. 3, pp. 249-264. Read More