MGMT1001

ASSIGNMENT 2 – REPORT – 30%

Student Number: z5166055

Word Length:

Tutor Name: Erika Oschwald

Tutorial Day: Tuesday

Tutorial Time: 1PM

Paul Huang
 Introduction:

In self-reflection, we come to terms with our emotional intelligence,

strengthening our values and in turn become more fluent in our professional
skills. During the course of MGMT1001, students were placed into work
teams to undertake two attempts of the virtual online simulation, “Everest”
which replicated real team environments allowing for practical applications of
communication and teamwork. These programs outcomes were targeted to
develop from the Smart Goals in the Part B and further critiqued after this
learning opportunity to create a new plan. Communication, is the ability to
actively transfer and decode information; in this report I will focus on how a
disturbance in this balancing act may obstruct team objectives and progress.
Teamwork refers to the holistic contributions from team members in order to
drive performance goals and productivity; In particular, I will focus on how
certain behaviours promote dysfunctional conflict. In reflecting upon the
progress of these skills between simulations, it was clear that underlying issues
had not been resolved and thus no improvement was made. In the following
report I will examine the barriers and shortcomings that hindered the
development of these professional skills.

Communication over the two simulations was seen to become increasingly

problematic and was a prime reason for my lack of progress in this learning
outcome. Reflecting upon this, I drew on evidence from the learning
experience of the “Everest Simulation”. Qualitative data acquired from the
“Peer Feedback Review” was indicative of proficient abilities in
communication scoring 4.5 /5 in speaking and 4.8/5 in listening during
Simulation One. These results were suggestive of effective conveying of key
information and assistance of members in establishing a shared understanding
and clarification of ideas. However, this was inconsistent with the mid-range
percentage of individual and team goals achieved of, 70% and 61%
respectively. From this, it can be deduced that the SMART goals proposed in
Part B were not effectively utilised in my experience of the stimulation and
that barriers to communication were prevalent. This was identified during a
bonus challenge in the first simulation where we were required to request the
correct number of oxygen canisters corresponding to everyone’s rate of

Z5166055
 oxygen use. Using the virtual chatroom built in Everest, communication
quickly become dysfunctional due to conflicting goals between members.
Information became difficult to discern where opportunities for summarising
remarks were rare. The Physician focused on treating members while the
Photographer emphasized at staying at the camp to accomplish individual
goals of taking photos. Ultimately the bonus challenged was failed as I, the
leader failed to facilitate fluid exchanges of information that worked towards
achieving the balancing between both individual and team goals. The theory of
Media Richness suggests that the extent of which meaningful information is
conveyed is strongly correlated in the appropriateness of the medium utilised.
(Dennis, Fuller and Valachi, 2008). This can be applied in this incident where
performing the simulation face to face could allow me as the leader to
adequately transfer “richer” information to members considering the physical
cues of body language and tone of voice; ultimately allowing for a smoother
approach to the bonus challenge. However, the face to face medium could not
be applied to Simulation 2 due to conflicting timetables. Moreover, after
critically evaluating our communication styles and strategies our attempt on
the second stimulation was significantly worse. Updating our Team Contract,
the communication goal changed from being “upfront and honest” to “clearly
outlining individual situation before impeding later decision”. From the
Second Peer Review, I scored 4.3 in speaking and listening also warranting a
decrease of 15% and 14% in individual and team goals respectively.
Furthermore, in analysing a peer comment from Simulation two which stated
“On many occasions I felt, I could not fully trust our leader Paul in his
decision making as I felt he did not listen attentively to discussions” It can be
inferred that the hindsight bias may have been present in my decision making
due to prior experience in simulation one; resulting in me predicting outcomes
rather than engaging in active listening. This can be related to Johan Window’s
model, a communication theory coined by Joseph Luft and Harry Ingham
which emphasises the importance of disclosure and feedback in promoting
interpersonal communication. By implementation of this model, and expansion
upon the “Open Area” through more constructive feedback our team's
perceptions of information would align more closely thus leading to a greater
result. Having analysed both experiences of the “Everest Simulation” and

Z5166055
 drawing upon both quantitative and qualitative data, I now realise the myriad
of factors that contribute to relaying effective communication.

As detailed in MGMT Part B plan, the communication learning outcome was

evaluated as a core weakness in the absence of an appropriate medium to
facilitate information. It was also discussed that perception gaps proved to be a
barrier to communication where my perceived comprehension of information
was incongruent to others. Having identified these key issues, I propose that I
should engage in active listening and pursue becoming a more effective reader.
Additionally, it is of the best interest to me to act upon this within a face to
face medium that allows for non-verbal communication such as body
movements and gestures, facial expressions and eye contact. ( reference ). It is
also important is consider assumptions and limitations of the evidence that can
be used to measure this goal progress. The Smart Goals proposed in Part B
revolved around utilising Peer Feedback review for development, from the
Everest experience it was clear it was not effective in improving my
communications skills. This can be explained through the assumptions and
limitations that are attached to the nature of Peer Feedback; being that
members may not have accurately assessed my abilities due to lack of
perceived importance, inflating my scores as a result of limited effort in
assessment. Moreover, certain decision-making biases may have obstructed
my reception of feedback. Due to the inflated scores, the over-confidence bias
may have formed which meant that objective accuracy became less clear due
to my subjective confidence. To mitigate these limitations, active listening
would be gauged through a more concrete form of feedback that would
comprise of actively looking for non-verbal cues during team tutorial
discussions such as facial expressions and eye contact which may better
indicate the effectiveness of my active listening. As Everest presented me with
large amounts of information to process, improving reading skills would
greatly assist in my goal of engaging in active listening through being able to
judge the content, focusing on the main ideas. This can be achieved through
the action of streamline reading by making internal memos and summarising
information as I read. For results, I would seek to apply myself in my other
subjects such as tutorial participation in Marketing. The target date would be

Z5166055
 the end of my university life where I would be competent in the intricacies of
communication.

In contrast to my short-comings in communication I believe teamwork is a

learning outcome which progressed after implementation of the Smart Plan
proposed in Part B. While I was effective at adopting a collaborative conflict
handling style, engaging in less accommodative behaviours that repress
criticism there were still are development areas of preventing groupthink and
increasing team cohesion. This can be realised in evaluating an incident from
the “Everest”. During the first simulation an intergroup conflict arose between
the Photographer and the Marathoner where during Camp 2, inconsistent goals
concerning the points received for staying at camp ,lead to the argument
becoming dysfunctional. As the leader, I handled this by reassuring members
that points were not the true objective of this exercise and was not important in
determining our grade. In dealing with the underlying problem of a
misunderstanding, indicative of the collaborative conflict handling style this
showed progress of the program learning outcome. On the other hand, in
analysing qualitative data retrieved from Peer Feedback, my team goal average
decreased from 4.3/5 to 3.8/5 which prompted a change in the Team Contract
where the goals for teamwork shifted from “sharing the same goals” to
“promoting constructive criticism”. This decrease could have been attributed
to my use of collaborative conflict handling style which by nature is very time-
consuming leading to neglecting of generating constructive criticism. Evident
in the Peer Feedback comment “As the leader, Paul focused too much trying to
devise solutions to problems rather than stimulating constructive conflict
which lead to a decrease in alternative ideas. Furthermore, this can be related
to the phenomenon of “groupthink” where “striving for unanimity overrides
motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action”. In
consideration of this, at a more fundamental level it can be inferred that to
prevent dysfunctional conflict, roles and norms may need to be adjusted to
facilitate a more productive environment. For instance, in the future, in
conjunction with my leadership role I would adopt certain attributes of a
maintenance role promoting constructive relationships among members.
Overall, for me the most meaningful insight was that some aspects of

Z5166055
 teamwork may be paradoxical to another thus inhibiting progress towards the
team objective.

In creating a plan to extend upon the Part B MGMT Plan, I first considered the
shortcomings and assumptions that was made in the first plan. As a self-
managed team by nature, it is crucial to have a strong sense of trust and
reliability among team members; which is generated through many
interactions and activities as a team. In this case, due to the limited length of
time spent with my team, the Peer feedback percentages may not be an
accurate indication of my teamwork progress. Additionally, it was also
assumed that there was no bias in the reception of feedback however, in
hindsight there may have been confirmation bias as I was selectively focusing
on the feedback which supported my adoptions of the collaborative conflict
handling style proposed in the first plan. For this Smart Plan, I propose the
new goal of increasing team cohesions and stimulation of constructive conflict.
In order to mitigate the limitations discussed above, measurement of this goal
would be achieved by periodic feedback over extended periods of time which
would over face-to face exchanges. In execution, applying Johan’s Window
model would be especially suitable as it is designed to promote interpersonal
relations through self-awareness and understanding. This is done through
increased open disclosure of personal information such as my emotions,
feelings and views and thereby increasing the “Open Area”. In addition, the
personal feedback provided would decrease the “Blind spot” through increased
awareness of one’s weakness from differing perspectives; in turn allowing
fluid team cohesion to form. Furthermore, constructive conflict could be
stimulated through the actions of using programmed conflict such as the “
Devils Advocacy” ; assigning the role of a critic to enable fresh perspectives
and critical insights. More importantly this is an example of how “constructive
thought” patterns can develop where undertaking the critic role develops
habitual patterns of thinking that are focused on opportunities and overcoming
challenges rather than assuming tasks as obstacles. In turn, productivity is
enhanced, and group think suppressed. Results of these strategies to achieve
the goal of team cohesion would be assessed in future assignments
encountered during my university life after the adjourning of my current team.

Z5166055
 Lastly, the target date for these goals extend throughout the duration of my
remaining time at university with expectations that they are accomplished and
realised.

In conclusion, this report draws upon the learnings opportunities presented

within MGMT1001 and reflects upon these experiences in developing the
learning outcomes of communication and teamwork. By analysing the lack of
progress of these skills from the “Everest Simulations” I am able to critically
evaluate my plan in Part B and develop a more comprehensive plan having
identified underlying weaknesses. In particular, issues of communication
revolved around accurately decoding information and that a virtual working
environment may prove to be barrier to communication. On the other hand,
problems with teamwork consisted of resisting groupthink and conflicting
strategies of team cohesion which undermined each other. Ultimately, Everest
is a virtual replication of real organisational situations, exposing me to a
variety of teamwork dynamics and communication opportunities. Simulation
One was characterized by lack of understanding of team objectives,
communication gaps and conflicting goals. Due to the lack of effort and
indifferent attitude towards Peer Feedback 1, Simulation 2 saw a significant
decrease in team and individual percentages; Characterised with groupthink,
decision biases and dysfunctional conflict. In the future, I would dedicate
much more time in evaluating strategies and approaches in tackling challenges
and obstacles.

Z5166055
References:

Kiniki, A 2014, Management: A Practical Introduction 2nd edn, McGraw-Hill Australia,

Australia.

Golkar, H 2013, ‘ Group think principles and fundamentals in organisation’, Interdisciplinary

Journal Of Contemporary Research In Business, vol. 5, no. 8, pp. 225-240

Saxena, P 2015, ‘ Johari window: An effective model for improving interpersonal

commucanition and managerial effectiveness’, Journal Of Management, vol. 5, no. 2, pp.134-
146

Dennis, A., Fuller, R. and Valachi, J, 2008 ‘Media, tasks and communication processes: A
theory of media synchronicity’, MIS Quarterly, vol. 32, no. 3, pp.575-700

Z5166055
Appendices:

\\

Z5166055
P. Review 1: ( Appendix, Part A)

Z5166055
P. Review 1: ( Appendix, Part B)

Z5166055