Arctic Survival Simulation

Arctic Survival From Success to Failure untoward to the core exhibited by approximately other(a) stems during the Arctic Survival exercise, our ag gathering up score (34) was low-downer than my individual score (64). This is not to suggest that group collaboration is detrimental in fact, our outcome was unique among the partition and of capital surprise to uk/the-professor-is-a-dropout/the professor and entire class section. To be sure, pooling resources, elaboration of material, and suffer and motivation, while perhaps more time consuming, typically offer alter moments.In theory, this model implies that a teams collective knowlight-emitting diodege tin maximize utility and ensure the best outcome given the on tap(predicate) information and perspectives. In our case, our group dynamics were such that we did not efficaciously utilize the resources we had, and consequently poolight-emitting diode a very limited amount of information. sort of than minimizing our risk, we increased it. I attribute much of our groups mishap at this mannequin to go loss, which is defined as the problems that arise from escape of effective coordination among group members.A number of factors at play could explain the work on loss which led to our counterintuitive results. First and foremost, one must call choke off the way in which group dynamics impact the overall productiveness of group collaboration. Our team consisted of K, R, W, J and myself. K and W were quite opinionated, and in contrast, both R and J were quiet I did not start out a sense of what their true opinions were. K dominated the group by putting forth an idea and adhering to that idea in spite of other opinions. Both K and W were vocal in reiterating what they thought were the most important elements of survival.In our case, we took no measures to counteract the impact of clashing personalities. Subsequently, a need of civil discussion led to uncoordinated efforts with regards to how we sho uld begin to approach a systematic analysis of the situation. An effective manager, however, should be skilled at identifying employee team dynamics and personalities in order to maximize authority, the manager must select the emotional information (that is, the ability to perceive, decipher, use, and pinpoint emotions accurately) to understand how team members dissent with respect to emotions, motivation, perspectives, experience, and intentions.For example, though J was quiet and r bely spoke up or defended her ratings, I knew of Js work ethic from class and understood that it was not as though she avoided work or pulling her weight. In other words, I recognized that her behavior was not attributed to societal loafing, but to some other phenomenon. In this case, our group members seemed to exhibit alter levels of psychological safety, which is the belief that little to no risk exists in a particular group environment, and consequently each member witnesss free to channel t heir true thoughts. I presumed that J and R did not feel psychologically safe.Anytime a group member dis stand ford and press them to argue for their come out, they wavered and complied, indicating that they felt uncomfortable in taking a risk and voicing dissenting views. Their low psychological safety led to an apparent mode of groupthink, in which R and J preferred unanimity in the group over their perceived accurate valuations of arctic survival tools. Similar to the Asch experiment in which a dissenter purposely responded with the wrong answer regarding which stick length was equal, R and J were often silent even though their scores posterior revealed that their runing of the lap was more in line with the ideal.Indeed, both R and J, but particularly J, demonstrated a primary symptom of groupthink by censoring herself and failing to communicate her unique viewpoints. Managing a group of commonwealth requires careful put onation of the group dynamics in play, paying const rictive attention to symptoms of groupthink and low psychological safety which might lead to process loss. A manager must use his or her emotional intelligence and leverage group members differing perspectives.In doing so, team members will not fall victim to process loss, but will instead pool resources and expand on them, thereby facilitating healthy debate and a fracture end result than one could achieve on his or her own. In addition to identifying how team members differ with respect to emotions, motivation, perspectives, experience, and intentions, a manager must be button-down most his or her own activitys and biases. While being confident and immovable is often positive, it can also blind a manager or group member to other valid viewpoints.M both fall victim to loyalty and consistency, which is the aspiration for individuals to adhere very strongly to a mannequin of action because they feel pressure to act in line with their original tell commitments. Indeed, K ex hibited strong commitment and consistency to certain declarations and did not back down. In particular, he was quite stubborn in his opinion that dress circle was the second most important asset for survival behind matches. When pressed to explain his case, his justifications were vague yet, he was very insistent.I mentioned, for example, that band was not necessary in killing prey for food (in comparison to the bowl over ax), and challenged him to elaborate on his view. He tried to reason by convincing me that rope was the better choice, but ultimately did a poor job at elaborating. The more we debated, the more steadfast he became he had committed to a course of action, ranking the rope highly, and felt the pressure to follow through. He couldnt back down now. instead than counteracting my challenge that a hand ax was more important, he simply offered that he did not agree without any explanation as to why.Whats more, he did not mind to the ways in which an alternative solu tion might be better (in this case, the hand ax), but instead disregarded my perspective and stood firm that the rope was more crucial to survival, thus confirming his previous beliefs. He defended his position and avoided information that potentially proved his theory wrong. Not unless does this defend commitment and consistency, but also chip bias, which is an individuals tendency to disregard information that would contradict his or her views and instead yet counsel on those explanations that confirm them.Ks adherence was convincing to W, who soon later on agreed with his valuation of the rope. Ws support coupled with the others group members lack of any objections whatsoever throughout the simulation led to my most immediate compliance on the subject matter. I let them down the rope, and they let me have the hand ax to follow. The next point of feud was the canvas. Though they all agreed that the hand ax was important, they did not count the canvas to be significant. I was the only obstacle who expressed a different opinion.K and Ws mutual agreement coupled with R and Js silence, seemed to bolster their insistence that the canvas was unnecessary. Eventually, J broke the silence and agreed with K and W. J was more likely to feel as though the canvas was insignificant given K and Ws dominant opinion regarding the matter. Once a pucker, I succumbed and agreed to rank the canvas lower down. Though I certainly did not consider myself a manager in this simulation, it allowed me to reflect on my own dealings within a group context and as a potential manager.I was aware of the group dynamics and recognized the limitations that commitment and consistency, social proofing, confirmation bias, and groupthink offerd, but also knew that likeability was a key strategy for influencing others. I prodded R and J to offer more insight, but my efforts often fell short. Rather than taking any organized approach, K and W would dominate conversation, and I assumed the role of mediator, trying to compromise between all perspectives. I could not claim to have expert power, but perhaps I could convince the group that we should take a more systematic and methodical approach to analyzing this situation.Unfortunately, my efforts probably provided more harm than good. I used reciprocality by telling K and W that he could have rope, if I could have the hand ax next. We continued to negotiate W could have navigation guide next if the canvas could follow shortly after. The simulation consisted of many exchanges such as these. Reciprocity, which is the tendency for members to agree to a course of action of an individual who has done them a favor, miserably backfired in our case.Not only did group members (myself included) interrupt each other and fail to exert any sort of coordination, but my attempt to give everyone what they wanted eventually led to a higher valuation of the navigation guide. I should have cognize that R and J were easily persuaded and would not speak up about this unwise decision, and yet I went through with it. In an effort to gain support through likeability and reciprocity, I sacrificed an effective decision-making process that would have led to a higher probability of success.Group collaboration is typically expected to flourish in this simulation due to pooling of resources and elaboration of material, and in retrospect, our group did a poor job of doing so framed this way, it is not surprising that our outcome was the exact opposite of the simulations intended effect. Though only a simulation, the Arctic Survival exercise certainly illuminated the non-homogeneous ways in which I could be susceptible to ineffective managing. These models and concepts are not simply applicable to this and other simulations, but also provide insight into my potential downfalls.Perhaps it is necessary to assign a devils advocate to the group so that teams are not victimized by groupthink instead a concerted effort to have varying opinions would liven thoughtful debate and ultimately more effective outcomes. Likeability is an important limb of influence, but should not come at the expense of sound decisions a manager must always exhibit a healthy rest of likeability and firm consideration of all the options. I must be cognisant of my team members and make sure to harness each individuals strengths, going to great lengths to avoid the common pitfalls exhibited in this simulation.