Everest Simulation

 Common Information Effect

Information held by more members before team

discussion has more influence on team
judgments than information held by fewer
members, independent of the validity of the
information.

1
 Common Information Effect

Groups tend to spend too little time discussing unshared

(unique, uncommon) information.
Three Possible Initial-Distribution Conditions

A,C,B,D
A,D A,B,C,D,E,F

A,C,B,E A,B,C,D,E,F
B,E A,C,D,F A,B,C,D,E,F
C,F

A,C: Common to all three people

No overlap of information All information fully-shared
B,D: Shared by two people
between three people by all three people.
E,F: Unique to one person
2
 Why the Discussion Bias?

1. Probability

2. Mutual Enhancement
 Discussing shared information feels good!
 Members are judged as more task competent & credible after
discussing shared instead of unshared information.
 Shared information is judged as more important, accurate,
and decision-relevant than unshared info.

3
 Why the Discussion Bias?
3. Bias for Preference-consistent Information:
 Members prefer to discuss information that is consistent with
their preferences (an example of the confirmation bias)

Some Groups Miss Optimal Solutions:

 Use of only shared information supports a less optimal decision
alternative whereas tapping into unshared information supports
the best option.
 Failure to discuss unshared info thus harms group decision quality

4
 Common Information Effect
 What does not work:
 More discussion
 Separate review and decision
 Bigger team
 More information (but same distribution)
 Accountability for decision
 Pre-discussion polling

5
 Common Information Effect
 What does work:
 Team leader is information manager
Increase focus on unique information
 Suspend initial judgment
 Frame as an information-sharing problem, rather
than a judgment to be made
 Minimize status differences

6
Source: Harvard Business Review 7
 Leading the Process
The Team Leader …

“shapes how the team works by managing its work

process. In that manner, the leader is very directive
and is pushing the team toward high performance, but
does that through management of the process, rather
than taking a position on all of the elements of the
team’s work.”
Reprinted with permission. “Managing the Team at the Top” by
David A. Nadler from the Winter 1996 issue of
strategy+business, published by Booz & Company.
Copyright 1996. All rights reserved. www.strategy-business.com

8
 Everest Simulation

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=
LhoLuui9gX8
 Simulation Summary
Team Goals Medical Ropes Oxygen
Achieved Challenge Challenge Challenge

1 76%   

2 52%   

3 63%   

4 74%   

5 72%   

6 85%   
Goals Achieved by Role: Leader
Team Goals Achieved

1 80%

2 65%

3 65%

4 70%

5 80%

6 85%
Goals Achieved by Role: Physician
Team Goals Achieved

1 80%

2 70%

3 60%

4 60%

5 70%

6 90%
Goals Achieved by Role: Photographer
Team Goals Achieved

1 63%

2 38%

3 63%

4 75%

5 63%

6 75%
Goals Achieved by Role: Marathoner
Team Goals Achieved

1 78%

2 11%

3 67%

4 89%

5 78%

6 89%
Goals Achieved by Role: Environmentalist
Team Goals Achieved

1 71%

2 57%

3 57%

4 86%

5 57%

6 86%
 Class Constructs:
Team Effectiveness

Team Team Team Rank

Effectiveness

1 4.21 2

2 4.60 6

3 3.42 5

4 4.20 3

5 3.75 4

6 4.15 1
 Class Constructs:
Psychological Safety

Team Psyc Safety Team Rank

1 4.83 2

2 4.60 6

3 4.33 5

4 4.60 3

5 4.80 4

6 4.80 1
 Class Constructs:
Cognitive Conflict

Team Cog. Conflict Team Rank

1 3.67 2

2 3.00 6

3 3.33 5

4 3.00 3

5 4.40 4

6 4.00 1
 Class Constructs:
Affective Conflict

Team Aff. Conflict Team Rank

1 1.83 2

2 1.20 6

3 2.33 5

4 1.40 3

5 2.20 4

6 2.40 1
 Class Constructs:
Leader Effectiveness

Team Leader Team Rank

Effectiveness

1 4.40 2

2 4.00 6

3 2.40 5

4 4.00 3

5 2.75 4

6 4.25 1
 Class Constructs:
Fair Process

Team Fair Process Team Rank

1 4.40 2

2 4.50 6

3 3.20 5

4 4.25 3

5 3.25 4

6 4.50 1