Mount Everest Simulations: Critical Analysis of Groups, Leadership, and Conflict Resolution

This article provides a critical analysis of the groups, leadership, and conflict resolution strategies used in the Mount Everest simulations. It discusses the importance of team building, communication, and conflict resolution in achieving team goals. The article also explores different leadership styles and theories and their effectiveness in team performance.

Mount Everest Simulations
Student’s name
Institution Affiliation(s)

Table of Contents
Executive Summary...............................................................................................................................2
Introduction...........................................................................................................................................3
Critical Analysis of Groups and Teams...................................................................................................3
Team Conflicts...................................................................................................................................5
Team Building....................................................................................................................................6
Conflict resolutions............................................................................................................................6
Punctuated equilibrium theory..........................................................................................................7
Critical Analysis of Leadership...............................................................................................................7
Roles of the leader.............................................................................................................................7
Leadership qualities...........................................................................................................................8
Leadership styles...............................................................................................................................8
Contemporary Theories of Leadership..............................................................................................9
Transactional vs. Transformational Leadership Theories...................................................................9
Charismatic Leadership Theories.....................................................................................................10
Trait Leadership Theory...................................................................................................................10
Contingency Theory.........................................................................................................................10
Critical analysis of Communication......................................................................................................11
Challenges and Recommendations......................................................................................................12
Conclusion...........................................................................................................................................13
References...........................................................................................................................................14
Appendices..........................................................................................................................................18
Appendix (i): Simulation 1...............................................................................................................18
Appendix (ii): Simulation 2...............................................................................................................19
Appendix (iii): Team Contract..........................................................................................................20
1

Executive Summary
The Everest Group Simulation set six learners into a transitory group, each with a
special word-related jobs and data to be accomplished amid the move towards the summit of
Mount Everest. The simulation exemplified the importance of team cohesiveness and
correspondence by displaying issues and difficulties just conquerable as a team. The
simulation experience built up both the group structures and leadership styles which were
most valuable and viable in expanding team performance even with misfortunes, for example,
interpersonal conflicts and difficulties introduced by the simulation. In the assigned groups,
we were given two endavours to finish the simulation, in spite of the fact that with
contrasting jobs between every simulation. The main simulation was directed without earlier
arranging nor experience, with an absence of association and correspondence between group
individuals. The conflicts in close to home objectives, undeveloped connections, and
individualistic frames of mind joined by vertical, vote based leadership and correspondence
hindrances, brought about the team's inability to talk about and give data amid the simulation,
and getting to be inclined with the impacts of similarity and GroupThink.
2

Introduction
In all, there were six (6) of us climbing the Everest. Of the six (6); however, five (5)
were used as team members whiles the other person was an observer. In effect, much of the
report, its data and outcomes are based on the five (5) people. The five (5) team members
were selected based on a purposive sampling procedure. This means that the selection was
made in such a manner that we carefully planned the membership of the team by creating an
inclusion and exclusion criteria. The essence of the purposive sampling technique was to
ensure that there was some kind of balance and fairness in the representation of the team in
terms of basic demographics such as age, gender, and racial background. To this end, the
purposive sampling resulted in 2 females, 3 males; 2 foreigners, 3 local people; 2 people
above 25 years, and 3 people below 25 years. It was hoped that this balance in the
representation would bring about reliability in the results with the simulation because the
results could easily be replicated in other settings due to the fairness in the sample size
Critical Analysis of Groups and Teams
If some members asked for additional time or clarification, it was provided. It was also
agreed by all members that we would not move on without the consent and understanding
from each member on the next steps. Since group members can often shift their opinions or
preferences during the interaction, it was necessary for each member to be a part of the
discussion and provide their thoughts (Klug & Bagrow, 2016). Sometimes the group
members would use direct requests or provide certain information to help guide the other
members to a decision. This was not to mislead anyone, however, used to help clarify
situations or decision, and to help other members understand why the requests were being
made. This allowed all members to have a full understanding of the decision at hand as well
as the possible outcome of making or not making this decision (Vangrieken et al., 2017).
3

Our group originally became acquainted with each other through email and in turn
decided on the first meeting time, and that the communication would be done through a
conference call line. The conference call line was provided by Mike through his personal
employer. This was a significant help in team communication and ensuring everyone was
able to voice their opinions and concerns adequately (Bannister, Wickenheiser, & Keegan,
2014).
Our group began the initial discussion by a realization that all members were extroverts
(with one exception), there was a good mix of thinking and feeling types and that all
members were judging types. After discussing how our skills and competencies could be
utilized in this simulation, we immediately began discussing the team and then personal
goals. After briefly discussing the individual goals, the team decided to jump right into the
simulation and begin the decision-making process (Sisson, 2013).
Once inside the simulation, the team began with day one at Base Camp. The first day
was a fairly quick and easy decision for the team, where the weather prediction was
submitted, and the team all agreed to move on to Camp one and day two. Since this was a
fairly quick experience, the team also agreed to complete the second-day decision as well.
Again, with no health or weather concerns, the team submitted the weather prediction, and all
agreed to move on to Camp two, day three. At this time the team agreed to take time away
from the simulation and debrief, thinking about current health situations and personal goals.
All members agreed to email the rest of the group their personal goals so that all could be
familiar with what each member was expecting as well as a review for options of sacrifices to
ensure the greater good of the team (McEwan et al., 2017).
For each decision that was needed throughout the simulation, it was led by the leader of
the group, Aashish. She would always ensure each member was able to express their
thoughts and feelings regarding the decision at hand. The team would then address the
4

concerns. No one submitted their decision through the simulation before the entire team
agreed on the next move. There were times that some members were staying at camps and
others were to move on; each member of the team would agree on the decisions being made
for each climber. We had a very cohesive group that shared common goals and trusted each
other fully; therefore, the communication among the group was phenomenal (Hedman &
Valo, 2015).
As a team we received a score of 96%, meaning were reached 96% of our team goals.
This was broken up individually as well. The leader, physician, and marathoner all received
a score of 100%, the environmentalist received a score of 86%, and the photographer
received a score of 80%. As a group, all five climbers reached the summit, and everyone was
proud of the achievement. Not one member felt shorted (the members that did not receive
100%) and was completely fine with needing to make sacrifices for the greater good of the
team. Each member was proud of the experience and felt very positive as a team and as an
individual member of the team (Park, Spitzmuller, & DeShon, 2013).
Team Conflicts
Conflicts are natural to any situation in which a group of individuals work as a team and
handle different assignments. The task of the team leader is to ensure that conflicts are
foreseen and avoided in a manner that fosters team spirit and goal realization. This essay
discusses issue of conflicts, contributing factors and signs that help to foresee conflicts.
Conflicts play an important role in generating new ideas and hence all conflicts are not
necessarily undesirable (Kakar, 2018). A task may be performed in different ways and if a
team member believes that there is scope for improvement in the way it is being done at
present and hence voices his/her opinion, even though it may lead to conflict with colleagues
or the team leader, such conflicts are to be assessed for the overall benefit to an organization,
setting aside individual ego problems. Thus it is not appropriate to create an entirely sterile
5

atmosphere that might lead to choking of new ideas. Team spirit arises out of accepting the
value of contribution of each individual to the common goal.
Team Building
The term ‘team building’ refers to broad array of actions, offered to organizations,
schools, religious or nonprofit associations or sports teams, intended for the advancement of
team performance. Team building is referred to the group of individuals organized or selected
to perform a specific task. It is followed by a range of practices, varying from both simple
bonding exercises to complex simulations. Team building is a significant aspect in any
environment, as it focuses to analyze the best in a team so as to certify self-progression,
optimistic communiqué, management skills and the capabilities to work harmoniously in a
team to resolve the dilemma. The exercises of team-building comprise of a variety of
responsibilities intended to develop the group members and the capabilities required to work
effectively (Miller et al., 2018).
In present day’s context, the concept of team building is required in every aspect
ranging from the games of kids to complex organizational conflict resolutions. The objective
of a specific team of individuals can be successful only if everybody is committed,
responsible and retain an excellent interpersonal relationship among them. The various stages
involved in the exercise of team building required for the resolution of conflicts in
organizations include forming, storming, and norming, performing and adjourning.
Conflict resolutions
Usually, the sources of conflicts within groups are the incongruence of goals,
interests, and lack of accurate perception of each member’s personalities and preferences.
Conflict behavior could be manifested through overt (or covert) expressions of hostility
between members of the group and deliberate interference with each other’s activities.
Human behavior practitioners have identified a number of approaches to resolve conflicts
6

within groups through group meetings, brainstorming, group dynamics and team-building
exercises, and sensitivity training (Madalina, 2016).
Punctuated equilibrium theory
Punctuated equilibrium theory proposes an interaction between incremental and
radical change in a group or a team. The proponents of this theory argue that convergent
periods experienced in a team or a group cause reorientation that demarks and sets the
bearing for the coming convergent period. However, some issues have not been explored in
detail. The order in which change occurs in a team or a group has not been resolved together
with the role of the top and middle team leadership (Kuhlmann & Heijden, 2018). The model
does not explain when a team or a group undergoes radical or incremental change. The reason
behind incremental then radical change or vice versa has not been explored
Critical Analysis of Leadership
Roles of the leader
The roles of the leader started rolling right after she was elected to her position. This
is because we realized we had no time to waste in putting things in order at all. The
assignment of the role was done as a unit. This means that we all came together to decide
what the role of the leader was going to be like (Clinebell et al., 2013). This was done by
using the individual observational reports that had been written in the course of the first
simulation. The roles were also based on the individual goals that we had each set for
ourselves as members of the team. In other words, the role of the leader was more of a
tasking role whereby the team tasked her to get certain responsibilities delivered. First of all,
the leader was to be responsible for the organization of the group (Gjerde & Ladegård, 2019).
That is, whenever we needed to meet, it was her duty to organize all of our together. The
leader was also tasked with the responsibility of ensuring the welfare of individual members
in the team by ensuring that the rates at which we sought rescue was minimized, and where
there was the urgent need for medical attention, it was provided straight away (Waldman,
7

Galvin, & Walumbwa, 2013). What is more, the leader had a role of instilling disciple in the
team. Discipline with the use of time and resources was needed to ensure that we progressed
on the hiking in the best of fashion. Finally, the leader was tasked with the role of chairing all
meetings as there were going to be many discussions among the group for the second
simulation (Yahaya & Ebrahim, 2016).
Leadership qualities
In the first place, the leader showed a great sense of honesty to us as followers.
Indeed, we took the simulation very seriously and wanted it to depict a very clear everyday
situation and so entrusted a lot of things to the care of the leader. For example, in most cases,
she was responsible for keeping all our laptops and other computer gadgets. In doing so, she
was ethical and respected the privacy of each person’s personal information. She never went
beyond her bounds of what she could assess from a person’s computer and what she could
not (Sudha, Shahnawaz, & Farhat, 2016). Even more, she should have great competence and
ability in leading the group. She clearly made us have belief in her as followers that she could
take us to the promised mark we had set for ourselves in the second attempt, which was 65%.
Leadership styles
Instead of dictating for the group, the leader ensured that as and when there was the
need for any decision to be made on how we could progress effectively on our trip, she
assembled us all and had fruitful discussions with us (Solomon & Steyn, 2017). One
important aspect of this leadership style as was exhibited by the leader was when on her own
accord, she created four portfolios within the team to ensure that each person was given a
shared part of her role to manage. Each of the remaining four people was, therefore,
managers in their own right, who were tasked with specific roles and were made to report to
the leader as and when necessary. Clearly, this realized the theoretical basis of leadership as a
shared responsibility (Łukowski, 2017). All the portfolios created were channeled towards
the successful completion of the Everest simulation. Examples of these portfolios were a
8

technical manager, human resource manager, monitoring and evaluation manager, and safety
manager.
Contemporary Theories of Leadership
The models of contemporary leadership state that effective leadership is the one
whereby leaders possess behavioral and cognitive capability to realize and address paradox,
contradicting and complex issues in workplace. There is increasing understanding of the
contemporary leadership models in all business sectors because of the increasing diversity,
complexness, and rapid leadership changes in contemporary organizations. An effective
leader is one who is able to train, equip, select, influence his or her followers with diverse
skills, abilities, and shape them to be effective workers to ensure that the organization
achieves its goals and objectives. Leadership styles are changing rapidly to enable leaders
address the contemporary challenges (Kerdngern & Thanitbenjasith, 2017).
According to contemporary leadership theories, current leaders should ensure
dynamic relationship between them and their collaborators for leading both parties to extreme
levels of moral growth and development and motivation hence evoking “true” change in an
organization. Basing argument on this definition, there are three key principles that
contemporary leadership should ensure: mutual (sharing things in common), collaborations
(working as a team), and relationship (connection between individuals). Therefore,
collaborators influence leaders to work as a team to achieve a specific goal. Below are two
contemporary leadership theories that leaders should focus on in order to ensure effective
leadership towards success of an organization.
Transactional vs. Transformational Leadership Theories
Transactional leaders are those who are able to determine the kinds of rewards that
will motivate employees and enable them meet their objectives and goals. On the other side,
transformational leadership refers to the actions that transformative leaders create to
empower participants who take part in the process. Transformational leaders have the
9

capability of bringing up significant change to his or her followers. That is, transformational
leadership facilitates redefining of individuals’ goals and objectives, renew their dedications,
and restructure their process of accomplishing their goals (Ma & Jiang, 2018).
Charismatic Leadership Theories
A charismatic leader has supernatural powers over his or her subordinates. A
charismatic leader is a leader who has extraordinary and profound impacts on his or her
subordinates due to his or her personal abilities. The subordinate staff of a charismatic leader
has loyalty and trust towards the values, visions, and characters of the leader. Charismatic
leaders make use of their powers rather than positional powers to encourage subordinates
achieve the organization’s goals and objectives (Sacavem et al., 2017).
Trait Leadership Theory
This theory states that for a leader to be effective, he, or she should possess specific
character traits. According to this theory, if a contemporary leader has leadership traits, then
he or she can lead effectively no matter what situation. Contemporary leadership focuses on
“what an individual is” rather than what he or she can accomplish. Therefore, for a leader to
be effective in the current contemporary leadership, he or she should have leadership traits.
The generally dissatisfaction of trait theory of leadership results to behavioral theory. This
theory mainly focuses on the actions of a leader. In contemporary leadership, leaders should
have excellent leadership behaviors (Asrar & Anwar, 2018).
Contingency Theory
The progressive evolution of leadership thinking further led to the emergence of the
contingency theory. This theory upholds the fact that leadership skills are fundamental in the
leadership process. Notably, the theory of contingency accounts for diversity and dynamism
in leadership. In so doing, it is noted that the knowledge and skills of practice vary from one
field to another, one situation to another, and across organizations. In other words, different
10

leadership situations may or may not require different sets of leadership skills. The
determining factor in this case is the desired final outcome (Vidal et al., 2017).
Critical analysis of Communication
Not much of face to face communication was encouraged. In the first attempt, therefore,
most of the exchange of ideas and opinions were done via technological communication
instead of one on one communication. Individuals were tasked to record their personal
experiences, opinions, and recommendations (Walker, Cardon, & Aritz, 2018). On the whole,
it must be stated that the first attempt to climb the Everest produced a very low and
discouraging score of 39%. This certainly failed for us as people because our initial target
was to get beyond 50% in the first attempt and 65% in the second attempt. We, however,
encouraged ourselves towards the next chance that we had. Part of the causes of our failure in
the first attempt was identified to include lack of judicious use of time and resource. Because
of the absence of coordination, each individual used time as and when he wanted. There were
also instances of misunderstanding in communication because of the approach used in the
communication, which was disjointed and uncoordinated (Minei, 2016).
Once the simulation began for our second meeting and everyone had the chance to
review the individual goals and details, the team debriefed and reviewed the following two
days in the simulation. Considering the greater good for the team, there were members that
were willing to let go of certain goals of their own, sacrificing their points, to help the team.
By reviewing each other’s goals, each member was able to see where they could make a
sacrifice for the team, but still, keep themselves in a positive individual position. The
photographer agreed to not stay at Camp one (giving up one of her point options) because
there was no need for anyone else to remain on Camp one and therefore, it would only hinder
the group to stay a night on Camp one so early on in the simulation (Pentland, 2012).
However, now at Camp two, the photographer asked to stay there to receive one of her
11

possible points. This was also a time where our environmentalist’s health was critical; she
was unable to breathe, and we were concerned with her continuing to climb. It was agreed at
this time, the photographer and the environmentalist would stay at Camp two, while all other
members proceeded on to Camp three. When the group received the results at the end of this
decision, it was clear to everyone that personal sacrifices would need to be made in order to
ensure the greater good of the group (Roth & Markova, 2012). The thoughts of “needing to
protect their own,” or being “suspicious” of the other members and their intentions, quickly
dissolved from each member of the group. The group soon learned we all had shared goals;
everyone was now completely trusted with the other members of the group and understood
the shared objectives and aspirations.
Challenges and Recommendations
Undoubtedly, the aggregate endeavours of the group guaranteed that our score
improved from 39% to 71%. Nonetheless, this accomplishment was not accomplished
without certain challenges. For the most part, there were two noteworthy types of challenges
that we faced once we met up as a group. The main type of test could be named as logistics
constraints as there were times that we lacked or were short of basic technological tools that
would have made our work easier. For example, even though there were many faces to face
discussions, which were necessary for the success of the team, additional communication
could have taken place outside of the face to face meetings, using video conferencing.
However, it was not all of us in the group that had access to such logistics. The second type
of test was human challenges, which had to do with managing individual differences and
preferences. Obviously, the beginning periods of the group framework were trying for us all
as we thought that it was hard to sink into one another's identity. This was quickly resolved
but took much shine from the success that we could possibly have had. Also, once a while,
there were organizational conflicts among members were we disagreed on ways of getting
12

things done. Despite the fact that this was not a formula for genuine confusion and encounter,
the nonappearance of such incessant conflicts could have made the program progressively
productive. By effectiveness, reference is being utilized time and assets inside an
exceptionally short time allotment to accomplish to such an extent.
Conclusion
This was a successful group; both individual success and team success were achieved
through the simulation. I was able to look at the team and the communication between
members in a different way. The leader was always there to keep all members on task and
make sure the real issue (end goal) was not being ignored. If there were members that were
not initially prepared to sacrifice one of their personal goals, Aashish would help provide
information to that member to explain how the sacrifice could potentially help the group as a
whole. She was a very active leader who was involved with each decision being made. She
would allow each member to express their own feelings and concerns with each decision; she
was passionate and understanding about each concern. Most members of the group were
quick to voice their opinions and suggestions for the next move. The Marathoner of the
group was the only introvert of the group. He would not openly discuss but was a very active
listener. He would express his concerns or suggestions, but only when asked directly what
his thoughts were. He was very involved with the decision and at each round would have to
predict the weather for the next camp. The predictions were correct on all but one account,
the very first prediction.
13

References
Asrar, M., & Anwar, S. (2018). The many faces of leadership: Proposing research agenda through a
review of literature. Future Business Journal, 4(2), 179–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fbj.2018.06.002
Bannister, S. L., Wickenheiser, H. M., & Keegan, D. A. (2014). Key Elements of Highly Effective
Teams. PEDIATRICS, 133(2), 184–186. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2013-3734
Clinebell, S., Skudiene, V., Trijonyte, R., & Reardon, J. (2013). Impact Of Leadership Styles On
Employee Organizational Commitment. Journal of Service Science (JSS), 6(1), 139.
https://doi.org/10.19030/jss.v6i1.8244
Gjerde, S., & Ladegård, G. (2019). Leader Role Crafting and the Functions of Leader Role Identities.
Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 26(1), 44–59.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051818774553
Hedman, E., & Valo, M. (2015). Communication challenges facing management teams. Leadership &
Organization Development Journal, 36(8), 1012–1024. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-04-2014-0074
Kakar, A. K. (2018). How do team conflicts impact knowledge sharing? Knowledge Management
Research & Practice, 16(1), 21–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/14778238.2017.1401194
Kerdngern, N., & Thanitbenjasith, P. (2017). Influence of contemporary leadership on job
satisfaction, organizational commitment, and turnover intention: A case study of the construction
industry in Thailand. International Journal of Engineering Business Management, 9,
1847979017723173. https://doi.org/10.1177/1847979017723173
Klug, M., & Bagrow, J. P. (2016). Understanding the group dynamics and success of teams. Royal
Society Open Science, 3(4), 160007. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.160007
14

Kuhlmann, J., & van der Heijden, J. (2018). What Is Known about Punctuated Equilibrium Theory?
And What Does That Tell Us about the Construction, Validation, and Replication of Knowledge in
the Policy Sciences? Review of Policy Research, 35(2), 326–347. https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12283
Łukowski, W. (2017). The impact of leadership styles on innovation management. Marketing of
Scientific and Research Organizations. https://doi.org/10.14611/minib.24.06.2017.12
Ma, X., & Jiang, W. (2018). Transformational Leadership, Transactional Leadership, and Employee
Creativity in Entrepreneurial Firms. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 54(3), 302–324.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886318764346
Madalina, O. (2016). Conflict Management, a New Challenge. Procedia Economics and Finance, 39,
807–814. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(16)30255-6
McEwan, D., Ruissen, G. R., Eys, M. A., Zumbo, B. D., & Beauchamp, M. R. (2017). The
Effectiveness of Teamwork Training on Teamwork Behaviors and Team Performance: A Systematic
Review and Meta-Analysis of Controlled Interventions. PLOS ONE, 12(1), e0169604.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0169604
Miller, C. J., Kim, B., Silverman, A., & Bauer, M. S. (2018). A systematic review of team-building
interventions in non-acute healthcare settings. BMC Health Services Research, 18(1), 146.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-018-2961-9
Minei, E. M. (2016). Teaching Small Group Communication: The Do Good Project. InSight: A
Journal of Scholarly Teaching, 11, 73–80. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920631246382
Park, G., Spitzmuller, M., & DeShon, R. P. (2013). Advancing Our Understanding of Team
Motivation: Integrating Conceptual Approaches and Content Areas. Journal of Management, 39(5),
1339–1379. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206312471389
15

Pentland, A. “Sandy.” (2012, April 1). The New Science of Building Great Teams. Harvard Business
Review, (April 2012). Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2012/04/the-new-science-of-building-great-
teams
Roth, L. M., & Markova, T. (2012). Essentials for Great Teams: Trust, Diversity, Communication ...
and Joy. The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine, 25(2), 146–148.
https://doi.org/10.3122/jabfm.2012.02.110330
Sacavem, A., Martinez, L., Vieira da Cunha, J., Abreu, A. M., & Johnson, S. (2017). Charismatic
Leadership: A Study on Delivery Styles, Mood, and Performance. Journal of Leadership Studies, 11,
21–38. https://doi.org/10.1002/jls.21519
Sisson, J. (2013, June). The difference between a group and a team. Retrieved April 8, 2019, from
The Business Journals website:
https://www.bizjournals.com/bizjournals/how-to/growth-strategies/2013/06/the-difference-between-a-
group-and-a.html
Solomon, A., & Steyn, R. (2017). Leadership styles: The role of cultural intelligence. SA Journal of
Industrial Psychology, 43(0), 12. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajip.v43i0.1436
Sudha, K. S., Shahnawaz, M. G., & Farhat, A. (2016). Leadership Styles, Leader’s Effectiveness and
Well-being: Exploring Collective Efficacy as a Mediator. Vision: The Journal of Business
Perspective, 20(2), 111–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/0972262916637260
Vangrieken, K., Boon, A., Dochy, F., & Kyndt, E. (2017). Group, team, or something in between?
Conceptualising and measuring team entitativity. Frontline Learning Research, 5(4), 1–41.
https://doi.org/10.14786/flr.v5i4.297
Vidal, G. G., Campdesuñer, R. P., Rodríguez, A. S., & Vivar, R. M. (2017). Contingency theory to
study leadership styles of small businesses owner-managers at Santo Domingo, Ecuador.
16

International Journal of Engineering Business Management, 9, 1847979017743172.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1847979017743172
Waldman, D. A., Galvin, B. M., & Walumbwa, F. O. (2013). The Development of Motivation to Lead
and Leader Role Identity. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 20(2), 156–168.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051812457416
Walker, R. C., Cardon, P. W., & Aritz, J. (2018). Enhancing Global Virtual Small Group
Communication Skills. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 47(5), 421–433.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17475759.2018.1475292
Yahaya, R., & Ebrahim, F. (2016). Leadership styles and organizational commitment: literature
review. Journal of Management Development, 35(2), 190–216. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMD-01-2015-
0004
17

Appendices
Appendix (i): Simulation 1
Virtual teams for Mount Everest
Start:
There are 7 teams (medical team, photography team (us), enviromentalist team, leadership
team and other teams.
We were the photography team.
Profile of the photographer: award winning photographer, climbed mount Everest twice, well
respected for our mountaineering accomplishments in native Chile.
Primary interest is in capturing photos and videos of the Khumbu icefall for a new project.
To do a good job, you want to spend an extra day at camp 1 and camp 2 where you can easily
hike back to the icefall. You hope that these photographs will help you win an award.
Day 1: Our health is at risk. You are a bit concerned as you have started cough
Day 2 we stayed an extra day at camp 1
6hrs from base camp 1
We achieved the photos of Kumba falls.
Our team member Danny: continuously asking questions and kept arguing with members in
our photography team
We are on Day 3: we climbed up camp 2 (the weather was 11 degrees farenhight. Our health
is at risk.
Day 4: we are still at camp 2. We had asthma attack. The marathon runners and
environmentalist are racing ahead and not staying back with us.
Day5: We are ascending to camp 3. We are behind everyone.
Day6: we are camp 3, we have mental health problems and we need medical help but they are
not helping us
18

Day 7: End. The learning experience is that personal goals and team goals need to be
balanced. We achieved 0 bonus points. Total points achieved were 5. Total possible points
are 8. Danny in our team kept conflicting with the photography team leader Aashishsh and
team member raj tried to explain to Danny why we thought mine and Aashish’s decisions
were right. Ali needs to be more interactive in our team as he is part of our photography team
and needs to learn to make confident decisions. This was a virtual team. The problem with
virtual teams is that you cannot express emotions and the need for certain things and
expressions over chat.
Appendix (ii): Simulation 2
Simulation 2 which was same as simulation 1 but in this scenario we had physical teams
instead of virtual teams):
Day 1 we ascended to camp 1.
Day 2 we are at camp 2. We have physically told the leaders that we want to take photos and
we need an extra day here.
Day 3: we are ascending to camp 2. We are behind everyone as everyone is already at camp
2.
Day4: we are at camp 2 and now ascending to camp 3. The rope has been damaged between
camp 3 and 4 and hence the other team will be providing us with rope but we require their a2
and b2 (a2+b2=c2) so we can calculate. The medics flew down to the start.
Day 7: We reached the summit (top of mount Everest) at day 7.
Physical teams this time was much easier to communicate with.
The team leaders were very helpful this time round. The medical team did not do their job
properly as they failed to support the photography team (our team), failed to listen to the
leader team, There was no arguments in the photography team.
19

Appendix (iii): Team Contract
Team Name: Photography Team
Team Procedures
Day, time, and location of team members for Everest 2:
Tuesday 4PM Library
Preferred method of communication before and during Everest 2 (i.e., e-mail, mobile,
chat function, face-to-face in a specified location).
Before the climb - Facebook group to relay all information between one another.
During the climb - Face to Face: This allows for more discussion in real time and
makes it easier to resolve conflict.
After the climb - Face to Face directly afterwards for a short period of reflection, and
Facebook group afterwards for any further discussion.
Team goal for Everest 2:
Everyone reaches summit
Better our Previous Mark (Above 54%)
Decision-making policy (By consensus? By majority vote? By team leader?):
Consensus Decision making. In the event that the group cannot form a consensus the
team leader will have the final decision.
Team Participation
How will we resolve conflict?
Conflict can be resolved through discussion of the issue and making a group decision
as to what actions we should take.
Strategies for encouraging/including ideas and debate from all team members:
Leader should ask each person for their ideas or thoughts.
Strategies for achieving our goal:
Teamwork and Communication
Attempt to maximise individual points and make it to the top
Share all information
Preferences for leadership (team leader only, shared leadership):
Team leader only
Personal Accountability
Expected individual attendance, punctuality, and participation at Everest 2:
20

Everyone must attend and be punctual
What are the consequences for lack of engagement in Everest 2?
Low Individual and Team Points
Failing the simulation (Needing to be rescued)
Losing marks
21