University of Queensland
Business School
MGTS1301 Introduction to Management
Semester 1, 2018
Written Analysis of Everest Simulation
Student ID Number 44458007
Student Name HU XUANYU
Other Simulation Team Members Megan
Emily
Jared
Harrison
Introduction
Everest's simulation objectively gave me the first appearance of how to achieve excellent
teamwork in practice. On the 17th March 2018, five climbers who made up the team started
our virtual adventure mission. Our team's goal is to let everyone as far as possible to reach the
top of the mountain, reduce rescues, and get bonus points where feasible. As an
environmentalist, I was committed to not taking rescue measures and staying at Camp 4 for an
extra day. However, our team score just reached the average rating of 63%, while the personal
count reached 71%. This result made me realize that there is still much room for improvement
in our teamwork. We should combine the theoretical knowledge of leadership and ethical
analysis of the actual situation and make better decisions.
Leadership
Description of Issue
While simulating the game of climbing Mount Everest, the team leader actively communicated
with the team members and consulted the opinions of the team members. However, when the
task structure was measured, there was no apparent conflict between our tasks and personal
goals. It is not possible to get the right trade-off between team goals and personal goals. It can
be said that there is a weaker measure of position power and a lower level of task structure. At
one point, as an environmentalist, I had a weak physical condition from the very beginning,
but we could have been able to move forward without further impact on the body. However,
leaders are worried about my physical condition at this time, because she did not want me to
die or stay alone, and eventually spends a day and a group of time wasted, which also led to
the marathoner did not have time to complete his goals and finally got much lower scores.
This consequence shows that the leader is more inclined to relationship-oriented leadership
styles, and the control of the situation is not very high. They have high relationship behavior
and low task behavior. Although participants are taken part in the activities, they have
unwilling or insecure feeling with this kind of team leader.
Management Research Evidence
According to Federer's contingency theory (Sumual & Lee, 2011), this article makes a similar
explanation for relation-oriented leaders who actually cannot be effective leaders. They
assessed in the 22nd Student Committee of the BNCC and found that people-oriented leaders
have a weaker leadership position and are not able to determine the focus of an unstructured
task structure. Compared with task-oriented leaders, they have a relatively low degree of
situational control and cannot lead the entire team to achieve the ultimate goal efficiently.
Besides, Sumual and Lee (2011) also point out that regarding whether the Fede...
