Everest_Simulation

The most serious problem in our simulation is ineffective information sharing. The simulation lasts 6 rounds and members should analyze information and determine how much information to communicate in each round. Failure to adequately analyze information as a team has negative consequences on our team performance. 1. Personal bias One key barrier to information sharing is personal bias which stems from the recognizable and meaningful role distinction. The basic need for self-esteem encourages members to set themselves apart from others in ways that enhance their image and success. For example, in the simulation, team members were assigned different roles with different tasks to accomplish. When members seek better outcomes for themselves, they will only deliver and accept information that fits with their individual need. 2. Lack of trust Another barrier to information sharing is the lack of trust. In the simulation, all team members identified and circumscribed the territory which includes physical space as well as other intangible objects like ideas and information. For example, nobody was willing to provide the information that he possessed. Team members could not share information freely and openly without trust. 3. Information complexity In the simulation, over loaded interweaving information reduces our ability to concentrate effectively on the most important messages. In each round, we need to discuss whether to attempt to reach the next camp en route to the summit based on the information of supplies, oxygen bottles, hiking speed, health and weather. The allocation of oxygen bottles requires calculations. In a team work, communication is the process by which meanings are perceived and understandings are reached among team members. In the simulation, several barriers prevented the sender and the receiver from perceiving the message in the same sense. 1. Language Barriers Different languages, vocabulary, accent, dialect often represent a communication barrier. The use of inappropriate words poorly explained or misunderstood messages can result in confusion. In our team, the environmentalist and I are not native speakers. Based on my experience and observation, our poorly chosen words and awkward sentence structure failed to translate the messages into proper language easily understandable to other members. 2. Emotional barrier Individuals may communicate emotions differently through tone of voice, choice of words, facial expressions and other physical gestures. The expression of emotions through verbal and non-verbal communication and the understanding of the emotions are culture specific. When expressions of emotions are misunderstood, the information conveyed along with the emotion is lost. For example, when I asked to stay at camp1, the leader spoke loudly at me: “why you cannot move with us”, beating the desk with his palm. Perhaps he just wanted to strongly convey his opinion but I felt that he was angry with my “non-cooperation” and I stopped negotiation with him. 3. Lack of feedback Feedback is reaction, without it, the sender cannot know whether the recipient has received the message or grasped its intent. In our simulation, it is surprising that feedbacks did not occur simultaneously with the conversation. Members were indifferent to some messages and kept silent for a few seconds or gave delayed feedbacks. Without prompt feedbacks, the sender was greatly discouraged. 1. Lack of planning Good decision making seldom takes place by chance. It needs prior thinking and proper planning. Guidelines of operations, for example, how to do, when to do are incorporated in the policies of the organization. We never discussed the norms about decision making. Without the regulation, everybody made decisions at one’s own will. 2. Mistaken assumption How do teams make decisions more effectively in difficult situations when members have opposing interests' Usually when parties enter into a decision making, they too often assume the situation of goal conflict as purely win-lose competition. They do not believe that it is possible to make mutually beneficial trade-offs that enlarge the pie of value. Our members are no exception. Everybody fought for his own interest and failed to fully consider the perspective of the other parties. If team members do not consider the underlying interests of others, it is likely that team success will never be discovered. 3. Group polarization The term “group polarization” perfectly describes the tendency of our decision making in the simulation. Also, it was disastrous. When we were discussing the allocation of oxygen bottles, the marathoner and the environmentalist refused to take more bottles. After the physician analyzed the issue to them, they became more radically opposed. Unfortunately both of them were rescued due to the lack of oxygen.