'Forbidden Island Reflection Paper\r'

' accentuate information prohibit Island is a visually sensational ‘cooperative board feisty. Instead of winning by competing with separate plyers like most enliveneds, e rattlingone must work in concert to win the mettle roughly. At the bloodline Of the term, the class was overlap out into several small-sized self-management groups that would be responsible to learn how to take to the woods Forbidden Island together under minimal supervision. Because this is the aggroup that we bequeath work together on contrary projects throughout the term, we feature introduced ourselves to all(prenominal) other, UT we had in reality limited knowledge somewhat individually other.This would be considered as our first stage of Dustmans stages of group study: forming. There are six members in my team. I will call them by J, B, O, P and K. establish on first walk oution and very lowly knowledge about their subscribeground, before the spirited, I had the hobby detection about the team members: J and B both are Asians, but growing up in Canada. I popular opinion they were rational and self-asserting because they are from JDK/MBA course of instruction, and law students are broadly speaking considered to shit higher aim of conscientiousness and emotional debility.P leavemed very easy-going and harmonical, because she never showed whatsoever objection during our previous conversations. O was comparably quiet during our first meeting, so I do the assumption that she was to a greater extent invaginate. K tardily came from India, according to my past experience with my Indian coworkers, who were generally strong-willed, hardworking and assertive; in that respectfore, I presumed that K would demand the same characteristics. Throughout our interactions during the granulose, would gradually realize that have made some typical perception errors, which will be discussed later.None of our team members have played Forbidden Island game before, s o our knowledge about the game is close to zero. At the beginning of the Forbidden Island game session, teams were assigned to breakout rooms, which were small and closed rooms, natural hold backowment us a prison feeling. Analysis of team appearance For the three- second session, we only played two rounds. Overall, the game experience with the team was quite pleasant. At the beginning, we fagged a few min to set a end and discuss the strategy.We agreed without raising each objection that our design is to win the game cooperatively, because we hared the rough-cut belief that self-managed teams that demonstrate high group coherency and collective efficacy are more credibly to victorfully achieve goals and accomplishments. With a common end goal in sight, we strategically started with ensuring we understand the rules. J had watched some Youth videos about how to play the game; thus she had a give way understanding about rules. J took the leadership employment to explain t he rules.J made us grasped the main idea of the rules; however, since majority of us grew up in distinct countries with opposite last background, we were instantly conf apply with some details of the rules. after struggling with the details for about ten minutes, proposed to play a test round at novitiate level first. Everyone admitted that we would understand the rule more easy with hired hands-on experience. J continued her leadership role to direct the play at the beginning; the single impostors permitted this guidance.However, as everyone feels more comfortable with the game and private role, J easily surrendered the leader role in favor of the group dynamic of mutually addressd cooperation among all. Meanwhile, team members participation level was increased. With a better understanding of the each roles strengths and weakness, every player essay to utilize their strengths and avoid their weakness in their touch offs. For each round, the player of the round would ask for an open password about the move he/she should take, and then the player would explain his/her decision on moves and ask the abide of the team for agreement.For me, such effective communication ensured that every move we made was towards the same direction. It was worth mentioning that B firstly communicated in this manner when professor Karamazov presented in the room, and then everyone else followed his method automatically. As far as am concerned, although Professor Karamazov did not make any verbal comments during her presence, we all felt her power as a professor as she put her hand at the back, this gesture, to me, indicated her Status of leadership, and we therefore inclined to impress her as students; as a result, we started to communicate in a more formal way.Moreover, it was intriguing to touch how well the team members played when someone require retention. The conversation took on an air of empathy for someone who could be taken off the board and everyone spoke o n how best to save said player. It was with a bellyache of jubilation when everyone showed each individual player how to move toward the helicopter pad in order to tent flap off the island. The game was won and smiles and pats on the back were shared. The test round went over very swimmingly. I did not sense much of controversy among us, rather we were very cooperative and agreeable.Notwithstanding, we enjoyed more healthy competition in the fleck round and we played the amen more strategically. We increased the difficulty level to Elite for the second round. We started with examining our roles strengths and the overall situation before making any moves. Although we followed the same effective communication method we used in the first round; I comprehend more healthy competition during the discussion. Instead of being agreeable, each of the players competed for their ideas during the discussion.Surprisingly, O and J were the most actively participated in the debate for the be st move, since I thought they were introverted and agreeable before. Due to some eagle-eyed abate during the game, the second round took about an hour to finish. If we examine our team success through posture approach, we achieved the goal by winning the game at the end; on the other hand, if we examine the teams success through effectiveness, then suppose we failed to achieve the goal; since the game was designed for thirty minutes for each round, we spent the double time to win.Time as a resource was not utilized. Our team does not really have a leader, we all equally share the responsibly in coordination; however, no one managed to see the overall picture at the end, n this event is we were running overtime. Takeaways Forbidden Island is a well-designed cooperative game that is exciting and tense even when played at the novice level. While the game is simple there is a strategic aspect that keeps it interesting. From this game session, I was able to put some organizational ai r theories into application.I saw our team experienced Dustmans stages of group development. We started from forming stage, where the individuals behavior is driven by a desire to be accepted by the others, and avoid controversy or conflict. Then we next enter terming stage, in which different ideas compete for consideration. Then we came up with one goal and came to a mutual plan for the team at morning stage. Next, we reach the performing stage, where were capable of functioning as a unit as we unwrap ways to get the job done smoothly and effectively without inappropriate conflict or bring for external supervision.Overall, I would evaluate the functionality of our team as above average. Even though, clearly there some improvement opportunities lies in increasing team procedure efficiency; our team had a high level of collaboration and some lately competition to classify some innovative ideas. Team members personalities played an burning(prenominal) role in how we enhanced ou r collaboration. At the beginning I made some typical perception errors, such as stereotypes, selective perception, self-fulfilling prophecy etc.J from JDK/MBA program turned out to be full of emotion, and K from India, instead of have strong opinions, is the most agreeable person on the team, and O is not introverted at all, according to Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, she would be .NET P type, who is innovative and entrepreneurial. Some important implications for my future repressions life obtained from this game play were, first of all, the real-life manifestations of five different stages of team development.\r\n'