bjet12084

8/10/2019 bjet12084

1/24

The effects of computer-simulation game training onparticipants opinions on leadership styles

Anna Siewiorek, Andreas Gegenfurtner, Timo Lainema, Eeli Saarinen andErno Lehtinen

Anna Siewiorek, PhD, is a Project Researcher at the CICERO Learning Network, Institute of Behavioral Sciences,University of Helsinki. She is currently working on developing new ways of teaching and learning throughmobile technologies. Her research interests include computer simulation games, training leadership styles, andcomputer-supported collaborative learning. Andreas Gegenfurtner, PhD, is a Post-doctoral Research Fellow atthe TUM School of Education, Technische Universitt Mnchen. His research interests include the developmentof visual expertise and motivational influences on transfer of learning. Timo Lainema, PhD, is a Senior ResearchFellow at Turku School of Economics, University of Turku. He has applied simulation games in business education,in university teaching, executive education and in in-house management training programs since 1987. His PhDthesis (Turku School of Economics, 2003) focused on the use of business simulation games in business processeducation. His research interests include learning through simulation gaming and knowledge sharing in virtualworking contexts. Eeli Saarinen is a PhD student at Department of Management and Organisation, Turku School ofEconomics, University of Turku. Erno Lehtinen is an Academy Professor at the Centre for Learning Research andDepartment of Teacher Education, University of Turku. His research focuses on the learning of mathematical andscientific concepts, technology supported learning environments, and the challenges of expertise developmentin technology rich networked working life. Address for correspondence: Dr. Anna Siewiorek, CICERO LearningNetwork, Institute of Behavioral Sciences, University of Helsinki, Siltavuorenpenger 3A, 00014 Helsinki, Finland.Email: [email protected]

Abstract

The objective of this study is to elucidate new information on the possibility of leadership

training through business computer-simulation gaming in a virtual working context. In

the study, a business-simulation gaming session was organised for graduate students

(n =26). The participants played the simulation game in virtual teams that were geo-graphically dispersed and that were brought together by the use of technology. Before

the gaming session, the team leaders were preselected and trained in how to operate the

simulation game. Data consist of pre- and posttest questionnaires (the Multifactor Lead-

ership Questionnaire measuring transformational, transactional and passive/avoidance

leadership styles) and answers to open-ended questions. The results showed the differ-

ence in participants opinions on leadership styles before and after the training. After the

gaming sessions, team members scored lower in transformational and transactional

scales than team leaders. Only team leaders leadership styles correlated with game

performance. However, shared leadership among team members was typical for most

successful teams. Implications for leadership training are discussed.

Introduction

Many educators consider games and simulations as useful tools in teaching topics and skills that

have proved to be difficult to deal with in traditional educational situations. Difficult teachable

skills include many complex and ill-defined skills such as leadership. However, there is still rela-tively little research-based knowledge of the impact of games on leadership training. This study

examines the opportunities of using a collaborative computer-simulation game as a leadership

training tool.

British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 44 No 6 2013 10121035

doi:10.1111/bjet.12084

2013 British Educational Research Association

8/10/2019 bjet12084

2/24

Learning with games and simulations

When we discuss the learning environment of this study, we refer to it as a simulation gameinstead of a game or a simulation. On one hand, the word simulation is often considered too

mechanistic for educational purposes. Simulation refers to activities where an optimum for some

problem is searched for, while this is not usually the aim of an educational game (Lainema,

2003). On the other hand, the word game can imply time wasting, not taking things too seriously

and engaging in an exercise designed purely for entertainment. Authenticity and realism have

a role in business games such as the one described in this paper as they aim at providing a learn-

ing experience, which illustrates some of the critical features of the reality to the participants(Saunders, 1995). Keys and Wolfe (1990) define a (management) simulation game as a simplified

simulated experiential environment that contains enough verisimilitude, or illusion of reality, to

include real-world-like responses by those participating in the exercise. The concept of simulation

gaming seems to offer the right combination and balance between the two. Simulation gaming is

also the term that the educational gaming community has adopted (Greenblat Stein, 1988).

Games and simulations provide new opportunities to deal with complex and risky real-life pro-

cesses in a safe educational context (Gee, 2008; Winn, 2002). Studies have shown, for example,

that simulation games can successfully foster learning of complex problem-solving (Tennyson &

Breuer, 2002), decision-making (Salas, Wildman & Piccolo, 2009; Tompson & Dass, 2000) and

collaboration skills (Leemkuil, de Jong, de Hoog & Christoph, 2003). One of the key features ofsimulation games is that they provide outcomes and feedback in real time (Laurillard, 1998).

Some of the educational games can be played in teams in which each person has a distinctive

assigned role and team members have to coordinate their activities, just like in modern work-

places (Hakkarainen, Palonen, Paavola & Lehtinen, 2004; Lehtinen, 2003; Siewiorek, Saarinen,

Practitioner Notes

What is already known about this topic

There have been attempts to use simulation games for corporate leadership training

but not in higher education. It is not effective to teach leadership styles through conventional, lecture-based teach-

ing methods.

Students are more highly motivated by simulation games than by more traditional

instructional presentations.

What this paper adds

Novel implementation of leadership training through simulation gaming in higher

education.

The simulation game training changed participants opinions on leadership styles.

Shared leadership among team members was typical for most successful teams.Implications for practice and/or policy

More simulation games should be implemented into higher education to advance the

participants understanding on the leadership styles.

The discrepancy between team members and team leaders interpretations as to how

leadership styles were applied during the study offer powerful experience to be used in

future leadership trainings.

The results provide important guidance for instructors to design simulation trainings

to enhance leadership styles learning.

Simulation effects on participants leadership opinions 1013


8/10/2019 bjet12084

3/24

Lainema & Lehtinen, 2012). Simulating a workplace team context in multiplayer digital training

affords the chance to incidentally learn social skills, such as leadership, in realistic and authentic

learner-centred environments (Gegenfurtner, 2011; Knogler et al., 2013; Lainema & Lainema,2007; Siewiorek, 2012).

In spite of a growing body of literature highlighting the educational potential of computer gamesand simulations, some obstacles can make simulation games difficult to implement in educational

settings. For example, learners may perceive the simulation to be unrealistic or perceive the group

collaboration to be inefficient and thus they lose interest and the motivation to play (Adobor &

Daneshfar, 2006; Gegenfurtner & Vauras, 2012; Gegenfurtner, Veermans & Vauras, 2013). In

addition, the evidence supporting the educational potential of computer games is still limited

and contradictory, particularly regarding the effectiveness of games for concrete educational

purposes (Jenkins, 2002; Ritterfeld, Shen, Wang, Nocera & Wong, 2009). Many game studies are

either anecdotal or hypothetical. Anderson and Lawton (2009) summarise that today, the effi-

cacy of business games in achieving cognitive learning outcomes is still unclear.

There are several pedagogical approaches that can be used when simulation games are applied,such as learning by doing, learning from mistakes, goal-oriented learning and role-playing

(Prensky, 2001). Simulations and games have been associated with many learning theories.

These theories are, among, others, discovery learning (de Jong & van Joolingen, 1998), situated

learning (Winn, 2002), implicit learning (Ciavarro, Dobson & Goodman, 2008), activity theory

(Kuutti, 1996) and constructivism (Kebritchi & Hirumi, 2008). Simulation games have also been

characterised as a form of experiential learning (Kolb, 1984) because the process of knowledge

creation relies on the transformation of self-experience (Haapasalo & Hyvnen, 2001). The cycle

of experiential learning is very similar to the organisational structure of typical games (Herz &

Merz, 1998). According to Gredler (1996), educational games are experiential exercises. They

offer here-and-now concrete experiences to validate and test abstract concepts presented in thegaming environment.

Constructivism focuses on the process of knowledge construction and the development of reflex-

ive awareness of that process (Bednar, Cunningham, Duffy & Perry, 1992). Learning is considered

to be an active process, in which meaning is developed based on experience. Learning should also

be situated in a rich context based on authentic tasks. The game-based simulation environment

used in the study includes many of the characteristics that have been highlighted in theories of

experiential learning and constructivism.

Approaches to leadership

Research on leadership has expanded over the years and many theorists have tried to define leaderroles and leadership processes. For example, DuBrin (1990) defined leadership as the process

of influencing the activities of an individual or group to achieve certain objectives in a given

situation (p 255). Wills (1994), however, defined a leader in brief terms: The leader is one who

mobilizes others toward a goal shared by leaders and followers (p 17).

One common element among the various definitions has involved the process of influence

(Bryman, 1992). Leadership involves persuading people to set aside, for a time, their individual

concerns and pursuits and work in support of the communal interest.

The broad and varied studies on leadership suggest that there are many appropriate ways to

lead. However, there is no agreement upon a working definition of leadership, or on what good oreffective leadership should be (Smith, Montagno & Kuzmenko, 2004). Instead, there are many

leadership style definitions. In our earlier studies (Siewiorek & Gegenfurtner, 2010; Siewiorek &

Lehtinen, 2011; Siewiorek et al, 2012) we have analysed how experiences in business simulationgames and game environments are related to different leadership styles, including such as heroic,

1014 British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 44 No 6 2013


8/10/2019 bjet12084

4/24

post heroic, authoritarian, shared and democratic leadership. In this study we focus on transac-

tional and transformational leadership styles. According to Burns (1978), the difference between

transformational and transactional leadership is in terms of what leaders and followers offer

one another. Transformational leaders offer a purpose that transcends short-term goals and

focuses on higher order intrinsic needs. Transactional leaders, in contrast, focus on the properexchange of resources. If transformational leadership results in followers identifying with the

needs of the leader, the transactional leader gives followers something they want in exchange for

something the leader wants (Kuhnert & Lewis, 1987). The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire

(MLQ, Bass & Avolio, 2000) used in measuring transformational and transactional leadership

styles also consists of a third dimension describing passive/avoidance leadership. Passive leaders

avoid specifying agreements, clarifying expectations, and providing goals and standards to be

achieved by followers. Passive leadership often occurs when there is an absence or avoidance of

leadership.

In addition to transformational and transactional styles, other leadership styles are to be found in

the literature. Heroic leadership is characterised by omnipotence, rightness and codependency asthe main characteristics of a leader. Post-heroic leadership refers to empowerment of members,

risk taking and the development of members. A widely used classification is to describe leaders

as authoritarian or democratic. Authoritarian leaders have all the control and determine all

the policies, activity steps and work tasks, whereas democratic leaders encourage group decisions

and build organisational flexibility. Close to authoritarian leadership styles are coercive leaders,

who demand immediate compliance to their orders and dictate each step taken. There has been a

need for new leadership formsparticularly in knowledge-intensive organisations and teams

characterised as shared leadership, where there is mutual influence and all members participate

in the decision-making process (Bass & Bass, 2008; Crevani, Lindgren & Packendorff, 2007;

Goleman, 2000). A new challenge for the leadership is due to globalisation and development ofinformation and communication technology, more and more work is done in virtual teams and

organisations (Lhteenmki, Saarinen, Fischlmayr & Lainema, 2010).

Leadership training and simulation gaming

Most leadership training initiatives fail to train leaders because typical programs teach leadership

theory, concepts and principles. This training promotes leadership literacy but not leadership

competence (Allio, 2005). However, potential candidates become leaders by practice, by perform-

ing deliberate acts of leadership. Some researchers claim that many of the qualities and attributes

that assist them in leadership effectiveness are innate (Blank, 2001). While at the same time, it is

obvious that early childhood development, education and later on-the-job experiences encourage

and nurture leadership abilities (Bass, 1990; Conger, 1992). Skills and abilities utilised by leaders

such as communicating, problem solving, visioning, decision making and negotiating can be

developed by proper leadership training. Although leadership training is relatively new in the

literature, there is an increasing body of knowledge on the issue (eg, Day, 2001; McCauley &

Douglas, 2004; Palus & Horth, 2004).

Leadership competence develops when an individual is forced to address the challenge of

innovating, inspiring and adapting. The leader in training will develop a portfolio of behaviours

to draw upon to respond to specific challenges in the future. In addition, evidence suggests

that the most effective leadership programs will focus on building self-knowledge, and skills in

rhetoric and critical thinking. For example, facing adversity, struggling with unfamiliar situa-tions, exposure to different people, problem-solving activities and hardships and making mistakes

are reported to be the most developmental types of experiences (Dentico, 1999). McCall (2004)

suggests that the primary source of learning leadership is experience. Experience as a leader or a

group member in demanding and challenging situations seem to be particularly beneficial for



8/10/2019 bjet12084

5/24

learning leadership skills. This kind of experience and systematic reflection of the experiences can

be facilitated in previously planned simulated environments (Johnsen, Eid, Pallesen, Bartonen &

Nissestad, 2009). Simulation gaming in teams serves as a promising platform for leadership

training within formal education because, in these environments, leader trainees can experience

challenges of leadership within complex situations, which includes communication, conflictresolution, delegation, motivating, decision making and problem solving. On the other hand,

participants of the groups can evaluate different leaders in, at least partly, standardised situa-

tions. One of the methods to evaluate the learning process during leadership training is to

compare the relationship between a leaders self-evaluation and group members evaluations

of the leaders behaviour. According to previous studies, leaders evaluate their leadership style

more positively than group members do, but, with increasing training, the self-evaluation and the

others evaluations tend to come closer together (Johnsenet al, 2009).

Researchers have tried for decades to examine the effectiveness of simulation games in manage-

ment and leadership training. For example, Farrell (2005) compared simulation games with

traditional teaching methods for undergraduate students in business management and foundthat students perceived the simulation game as a more effective learning tool. Li, Greenberg and

Nicholls (2007) conducted a similar study with MBA students. They also showed that the stu-

dents thought the simulation game was superior to a lecture-centred approach. Washbush and

Gosens (1998) study, in which they compared the before and after scenarios following an enter-

prise simulation game played by teams of undergraduate business students, showed that students

improved their exam score after the simulation. The effectiveness of the simulation game in

teaching operations management was demonstrated in Olhager and Perssons (2006) study. In

addition, the research implies that experiential approaches appear to be the most successful

in meeting the leadership training objectives (Bass, 1990). One of the aims in planning leadership

training simulations is to provide participants with challenging experiences, which increaseawareness of their own leadership behaviour and of the demands of different situations

(Raybourn, 2006).

Purpose of the study

This study examines the outcomes of using a collaborative computer-simulation game as a

leadership training tool. In particular, we are interested in whether this environment could serve

as a tool to provide participants with the experience of leadership styles in practice. The focus of

the study is to examine if students opinions on leadership styles before and after participating

in a computer-supported collaborative-gaming session will change. A second focus is to identify if

their opinions on leadership differ depending on the participants role (leader vs. team member)

in the team. In addition, we aim at observing what kind of new challenges distance membersparticipating through network tools bring for the group leadership. We are also interested in

investigating if there are any effects of leadership style on team performance.

Research questions and hypothesesIs there any difference in team leaders and team members opinions on leadership styles after

participating in collaborative computer-simulation game training?

The two-day gaming session without systematic feedback is not expected to be enough for the

development of a reciprocal awareness of group processes between the team leader and the

team members. Thus, it is assumed that in the posttest, the team-leaders self-evaluations of

leadership styles will differ from team members evaluations (Hypothesis 1a). However, it isexpected that the challenging experiences during the simulation-game sessions increase team

leaders and team members awareness of the leadership styles (Hypothesis 1b). This can be seen

as changes in their evaluations after the experience when compared with their ideal ratings

before the experience.



8/10/2019 bjet12084

6/24

To what extent does leadership style correlate with team performance?

It was expected that team performance at the end of the collaborative computer-simulation game

training would correlate positively with transformational leadership (Hypothesis 2a) and trans-

actional leadership (Hypothesis 2b) and would correlate negatively with passive/avoidance lead-

ership (Hypothesis 2c).

What kind of leadership processes emerges in teams during the gaming sessions?

It was expected that various kinds of leadership processes would emerge in teams during the

simulation-gaming sessions due to leaders being preselected before the sessions and given lead-

ership authority and responsibility.

Method

The simulation computer game

RealGame, http://www.realgame.fi (Lainema, 2003), is a business-simulation computer game

that provides an experience of managing a business. During the game play, the participants (in

teams of three or four) manage their own manufacturingcompany, andtheyareableto follow theircompanys operations and material flows in real time, thus being provided with a dynamic and

transparent view of causeeffects in business organisation. Simulation participants are immersed

in a realistic business environment where they buy materials, produce goods and compete with

other teams.They arechallenged bydifficultdecisionssuch as whichmarket to enter, at what prices

to buy and sell or how many units to produce. Meanwhile, they have to deal with cash-flow

problems, supply-chain bottlenecks and competition from other players. The game operator

can use an interface to manipulate the game-clock speed in order to adapt it to the participants

gradually developing decision-making abilities; usually the clock speed is slower at the beginning

of the game, whereas it runs faster towards the end of the gaming session. In addition, the game

operator can create additional simulated companies so that the participants can observe andinteract with the supply, and the demand and different business concepts. In summary, RealGame

is a continuously processed dynamical system, which involves many activities that occur in

everyday business situations. RealGame is not planned for directly teaching leadership skills, but

when applied in teamwork, it provides a rich platform for exercising different aspects of leadership

in challenging face-to-face and virtual small group situations. (For more studies on RealGame,

see Lainema & Lainema, 2007; Lainema & Nurmi, 2006; and Siewiorek, Saarinen, Lainema &

Lehtinen, 2012).

Description of the design

Data were gathered during RealGame gaming sessions at a Finnish university in February 2010.A group of students (n =26; 10 females and 16 males, aged between 22 and 25 years) partici-pated in the study. Because the participants of the study were partly international exchange

students, the language of the gaming session was English. None of the participants, except the

selected leaders, had experience in playing the simulation game before the training sessions.

Participation was voluntary and the gaming sessions were not a part of students study program.

The participants were selected randomly; an email was sent to the students at two Finnish

universities with the information about the gaming session, and they were asked to participate in

the session. The number of participants was slightly lower than the optimal number of players in

the RealGame environment. In the middle of the term students had timetable problems to par-

ticipate in an extracurricular activity that took two whole days.

Before the gaming sessions, the team leaders were selected based on their pretest answers to

the MLQ (Bass & Avolio, 2000). Their answers were analysed using MLQ and the Multifactor

Leadership Questionnaire Feedback Report (Bass & Avolio, 2005). The MLQ consists of three

subscales: transformational, transactional and passive/avoidance leadership styles. Team leaders



8/10/2019 bjet12084

7/24

were selected so that half of them scored high in transformational and half in transactional

subscales of the MLQ relative to the answers of all participants.

A training session for eight selected leaders was organised 2 days before the gaming sessions.

During the training, the leaders were taught to operate the software and were taught the rules of

the simulation game. As a result of the training, they became experts in operating the simulationgame, and we expected that this knowledge would add to their authority as team leaders. The

leaders goal was to inform their team about the simulation game and lead the team during the

gaming sessions.

The 26 participants were divided into smaller teams, each comprising of three or four students.

As a result, there were eight teams (eight companies), which formed a materials value chain of

subcontractors and producers. Some teams were subcontractor companies, which were manu-

facturing Processor units and Electronics. Both products were needed in producing BioCounters(high-tech laboratory equipment). The subcontractor companies were selling their products to

the BioCountermanufacturers. Figure 1 presents the example of the RealGame BioCountermanu-

facturer interface that participants saw when managing their game company.

The internal clock of the simulation runs in 1-hour batches which length is set by the simulation

game operator (1 simulation hour may take, for example, from 40 to 10 seconds, depending on

the participants skills). The participants are not tied to making decisions at specified points of

time but they can make decisions whenever they choose to. The participants see the internal and

external business processes evolve, for example, hour by hour. Lainema (2004, p 42) describes an

Figure 1: The simulation game interface



8/10/2019 bjet12084

8/24

example of what the gaming tasks might include (the times are simulation internal clock times

imagine that one simulation game hour takes 20 real world seconds):

8 AM: The participants notice that they are short of product BioCounter. There are three unfilled orders withthe amount of 150 BioCounters and the inventory includes only 13 units. The participants change the final

assembly production cell to produce BioCounters instead of the BioCounter DLX model. At the same timethey also note that one of the production cells in the preceding production phase has run out of raw materialElectronics. They order 10 000 units of Electronics from a supplier who promises to deliver the productswithin 2 days.

10 AM: The company runs out of cash. The participants contact the bank and receive a loan of 2 000 000euros, with interest of 4 % pa, term being 12 months. The cash shows now 525 000 euros.

Noon: Because of the previous incident, the participants decide to check their Accounts payable and receiv-able. They note that incoming cash flow will cover the outgoing expenses until the end of next week.

2 PM: The participants run a market report of their companys market share within each market area.They note that they are losing their share in Europe and decide to invest in advertising in that area. Amarketing campaign of 1 000 000 euros is started. They also note that this expense must be paid after 2weeks.

4 PM: The participants also check their market prices compared with those of their competitors.They note that they can increase the price of BioCounter in Europe but the other market areas remainunchanged.

5 PM: Some customers in North America inform that BioCounter DLX deliveries have arrived some 13 dayslate. The participants change the auto delivery method from Ship to Air, which will increase the delivery costper unit by 55 euros but the deliveries should arrive 78 days faster. They also modify the promised deliverytime in their North American offers from 10 days to 5 days. This, they hope, will also increase demand fortheir products. To compensate for the increased delivery costs the price of all products for North America isincreased by 3%.

6 PM: The participants run the real-time income statement and note that their Profit-% has increased by1.2 percentage units compared with the profit 1 week ago. Also some other key figures (like ROI, inventory

turnover, and debtequity ratio) have got higher.

In order to present the challenges of steering a modern organisation with an international

supply chain and time delays along the chain, the team members were dispersed geographically

during the gaming sessions. Figure 2 illustrates the gaming session design. Some teams consisted

of two sites; one team member (a satellite member) was separated from her or his team members

and was located in another IT classroom, and all satellite members were located in the same

IT classroom. Because of practical difficulties two of the teams did not have a satellite member.

These two sites (team members and a satellite) could see exactly the same business decision-

making computer interface and both of them could steer their company at the same time (using

mouse and keyboardalthough they needed to agree whose turn it was to act as a decisionimplementer at any point in time). Both sites of each company had a computer to use and a

headset for communicating online. Participants were using Skype (Skype Communications

SARL, 23-29 Rives de Clausen, L-2165 Luxembourg, www.skype.com/en/; a software applica-

tion that allows users to make telephone calls or chat online over the Internet) to communicate

with each other. Students participated in two 7-hour gaming sessions that were organised over 2

successive days.

All the parties in Figure 2 were connected with each other over the computer network, using

Skype.

Teams 1 to 3:

Produced Processors and Electronics and were selling these as profitably as possible to Teams 48 Teams 1 and 2 had a satellite member, and they were expected to guide him or her via Skype to

negotiate with Teams 48 to get the best terms possible when sellingProcessorsandElectronicsto these teams.



8/10/2019 bjet12084

9/24

Teams 4 to 8:

Were supposed to order Processors and Electronics with the best terms possible fromTeams 1 to 3 Could also negotiate good terms with the satellites of Teams 1 and 2

Teams 58 had a satellite member, and they were expected to guide him or her via Skype to

negotiate with Teams 13 to get the best terms possible when buying Processors and Electronics.

Data collection

Data were gathered in the form of pre- and posttest questionnaires that included scale questions

(see the MLQ, by Bass & Avolio, 2000) and open-ended questions referring to leadership (see

Appendix A for the detailed questions). For the purpose of this study, the leaders and participants

responses to pre- and posttest questionnaires were analysed, and quantitative and qualitative

research methods were implemented. The MLQ was utilised to measure transformational and

transactional leadership styles.

The MLQ has two forms: a leader form and a rater form. The leader form was designed to be

completed by an individual to measure self-perceived leadership styles. The rater form was devel-

oped to be completed by individuals who are asked to measure the perception of the leadership

styles of a designated leader. For detailed information on MLQ, its scoring, assessment scales and

example items, see http://www.mindgarden.com/products/mlq.htm

The data were collected using Webropol, a web-based survey tool (for more information, see

http://www.webropol.com). The link to the pretest questionnaire was sent to all participants via

email a few days before the gaming sessions.

Subcontractors Producers

Team 1

3 team members +

satellite member

Team 4

3 team

members

Team 2

2 team members +

satellite member

Team 5

2 team members +

satellite member

Team 6

2 team members +

satellite member

Team 3

3 team

members

Team 7

3 team members +

satellite member

Team 8

2 team members +

satellite member

Figure 2: The graphical representation of the gaming sessions design



8/10/2019 bjet12084

10/24

In our study, we preselected leaders of the teams using a pretest (MLQ questionnaire). Our

goal was to choose, on the basis of the pretest, the participants who showed different leadership

profiles. After analysing the pretest answers using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire

Feedback Report (Bass & Avolio, 2005), eight participants were chosen whose scores were high in

transformational (four participants) and transactional (four participants) leadership styles. Theywere assigned the roles of leaders during the gaming sessions. The training session on how to

operate the game software was organised for the selected leaders 2 days before the gaming session.

Due to two trained leaders being unable to come to the gaming session, two additional leaders

were selected just before the gaming session. These replacing leaders had similar profiles than the

originally selected leaders but got only shorter training before the beginning of the game. Team

members were assigned randomly into the different teams.

The link to the posttest questionnaire was sent to all participants via email after the second

gaming session. There were two versions of the posttest: one for the leaders (self-assessment) and

one for the rest of the participants in order to assess their leaders (see Appendix A2 and A3 for the

detailed questions).

AnalysisQuantitative analysis

Analyses were done at two levels: individual and team. At the individual level, differences between

team leaders and team members (satellite team members and ordinary team members) were

analysed using the MannWhitney U-test for two-group comparisons and the KruskalWallisH-test for three-group comparisons. Development from pretest to posttest within groups wasanalysed using one-way repeated measures ANOVA. Uand Zstatistics from the MannWhitney

and the matched-pairs test were complemented with estimates of Cohensd. All analyses wereperformed by using the original subscales of the MLQ questionnaire, because the relatively small

sample size prohibited factor-analytic methods (MacCallum, Widaman, Zhang & Hong, 1999).

However, estimation of reliability indicated that, despite the small sample size, measures had

adequate statistical properties for exploratory research (Hair, Black, Babin & Anderson, 2009),

with Cronbachs alpha values ranging from 0.68 for transformational leadership, to 0.66 for

transactional leadership and 0.73 for passive/avoidance leadership. The alpha values of trans-

formational and transactional are slightly lower than 0.7, which is normally considered as the

limit of good reliability. At the group level, differences in team performance were estimated

with the KruskalWallis H test, MannWhitney U-test and Cohens d. Correlations between

team performance variables and leadership styles were computed using the Pearson correlation

coefficient.

Qualitative analysis

Qualitative data consist of leaders and participants answers to the posttest. The posttest

included the open-ended questions regarding leadership in the teams (see Appendix A2 and

A3 for the detailed questions). Analysis of the qualitative data had two phases. We first

coded all expressions of the participants answers that referred to leadership and division of

roles in a team; this coding was based on the leadership style coding scheme (see Appendix B).

We then determined the dominating leadership style of each team based on the coding of par-

ticipants answers; these leadership styles were elucidated in teams according to team members

opinions.

Two independent raters coded the qualitative data, and they agreed in all cases but one. In thiscase, one rater coded the team as heroic leadership and the other as shared leadership. After

discussion between the raters, the team was coded into the shared-leadership category. The

intercoder reliability for the qualitative data (deciding on the type of leadership in each of the

eight teams) had a Cohens kappa value of 0.75 (SE =0.17; 95%CI =0.45, 1.00).



8/10/2019 bjet12084

11/24

Results

Effects of the computer-simulation gaming session on participants opinions on leadership

styles are explored on two levels: individual and team. On the individual level, we address the first

research question: is there any difference in participants opinions on leadership styles before and

after participating in a collaborative computer-simulation gaming session?On the team level, we address the second research question: how does leadership style correlate

with team performance? Results for both levels are specified in turn.

Team leaders and members leadership style opinions

This section starts with describingbetween-group differences in leadership style opinions of teamleaders and team members before and after gaming session; we then report within-group differencesthat resulted from participating in the computer-simulation gaming session.

First, Table 1 presents mean scores and standard deviations of leadership opinions for team

leaders and team members.

Leadership preferences of satellite team members and ordinary team members did notdiffer. Because there were no statistically significant differences and because the team function of

satellite members and ordinary members was identical, the two groups were combined into one

group. Consequently, analyses were based on two groups: team leaders and team members. The

pretest estimates indicate that, between groups, there were no statistically significant differences

for transformational, transactional, and passive/avoidance leadership before the computer-

simulation gaming session. The results also show that there was very little variance in the

leadership styles of the participants. Even though the eight participants who scored highest

in transformational or transactional leadership style were selected to be leaders, there were no

statistically significant differences between leaders and members leadership style opinions.

After the gaming session, however, significant differences between team leaders and teammembers emerged for transactional leadership (U =28.50, p

8/10/2019 bjet12084

12/24

between transformational and passive/avoidance leadership subscales, but it was only significant

in team members data (r = 0.59, p

8/10/2019 bjet12084

13/24

Qualitative results describing the leadership processes during the gaming session

Observational data of the gaming session are aimed at answering the third research question

concerning the emerging leadership processes during the teamwork experience. The findings for

each of the eight teams are described separately.

Team 1 consisted of three team members plus a satellite member. The teamwork was classified as

representing shared leadership.

In Team 1, shared leadership was noted and this team ended the game with the highest profit.

Based on our observations, we assume that the team achieved good business results because they

divided responsibilities between each other. Each team member was responsible for one of the

following roles: production, sales, marketing, communication and strategy. The satellite member

managed the software of the game, although he was in a distant location and he did not take part

in the training session for selected leaders where the rules of the game were explained. Accordingto him, there was no leader on the team, but the tasks were split and each team member had her

or his own responsibility. The other team members also stated that there was no leader on the

team, but that all team members did their best for the company. One team member wrote in his

answer to the open-ended question: My team proved best as we clearly distributed tasks among

ourselves and made independent decisions in our domains.

In addition, the selected team leader admitted that it was shared leadership during the game. Her

opinion on leadership in the team was: Actually, my team members were much more like a leader

than I was. . . And all of our achievement should be attributed to the effort of every member, not

only just the leader of the team.

This was clearly the most successful team in the simulation gaming session in terms of financialperformance. Traditional descriptions of individual attributes of the leader did not explain the

success, but the emerging shared leadership, which made it possible to engage all the members

effectively, including the satellite member, in the coordinated joint activity, explained this groups

success.

Team 2 consisted of two team members plus a satellite member. The teamwork was classified as

representing shared and democratic leadership.

In this team, shared and democratic leadership took place and all team members were responsible

for leading their game company. The selected team leader agreed on that and her answer to the

open question was: In my opinion, the leadership was effective since it gave freedom to the team

members, but at the same time was strong enough to make things happen when we faced a

problem.

There was no clear division of roles in the team. The appointed team leader managed the game

software and made the final decisions. One of the team members opinions about the leader was:

Table 3: Team performance indicators at the end of the training

Profit Turnover

Team 1 13 375 111 35 203 150

Team 2 4 782 765 15 098 390Team 3 4 772 368 16 690 550Team 4 2 834 136 27 074 300Team 5 2 426 983 27 854 600Team 6 5 437 282 34 117 980Team 7 4 337 704 36 400 250Team 8 7 912 405 37 560 100



8/10/2019 bjet12084

14/24

She (the leader) in fact did not consider herself as a leader, but a member, equal to the other two members.So there was not a leader in our team, and we managed the parts (of the game) ourselves, made decisionstogether or discussed them together.

In summary, smooth coordination among the team members was crucial to complete common

tasks during the game. In spite of not having clarified roles for each team member, the teameffectively managed the game company together due to a democratic decision-making process.

Team 3 consisted of three team members. The teamwork was classified as representing passive/

avoidance leadership.

The selected leader of this team did not take the leadership role during the game, instead another

team member wanted to lead the team. The appointed leaders opinion about the leadership was:

Actually I was not leading the team. There were people in the team who wanted to lead or move

the team in their way.

The other team member agreed with that opinion and, when asked about the leadership in the

team, answered:

Our formal leader was not a leader at all, because after explaining the rules of the game, he lost his power andanother member took the keyboard and mouse in her hands and screamed at others who tried to cooperate.She wanted to make all the final decisions, while other team members were not taken into consideration.

The leadership type of the team member who wanted to lead had characteristics similar to an

authoritarian leadership style. This team members opinion on leadership in the team was: I do

not feel the guy that knew the game was the leader of our team; but I might have a misunder-

standing of what a leader should be. He was too passive for my taste.

The team was not effective because no leader authority could be determined, and they did not

divide the responsibilities between each other. Additionally, there was no cooperation in the team.

The selected team leader stated:

The team was not effective as there was no clear distinction about what we were trying to do. We should havecommunicated better. We should have had a clear goal and clear roles for people. We, as members, shouldhave cared more about the team goal rather than individual goals.

Overall, all team members agreed on the fact that the role division was important in order to be

successful during the gaming sessions.

Team 4 consisted of three team members. The teamwork was classified as representing passive/

avoidance leadership.

This team is another example where the role division was crucial for the team to be successful.

The leader of the team did not divide the responsibilities between the team members and thisresulted in the team not being effective. The leader stated:

Considering myself as a team leader, I am not satisfied with the methods of leadership I was using. Forexample, I felt a lack of ability to delegate tasks and distribute responsibilities. This led to the situation whereI was always doing something and two other team members were somehow bored.

The team did not have a strategy, and played according to whatever other teams did and merely

reacted to the simulation events rather than being proactive. No specific leadership could be

determined in the team, thus the team was classified as a team with passive/avoidance leadership.

The team members opinion about the leadership in the team was:

I do not think the leadership was quite effective. Although the leader had the idea of everything that wasgoing on, he could not manage all risks related to the supply chain and the productive process, which causedsome trouble for the company.

Another team member stated: This was not a very good team in general in terms of cooperation

and efficiency. All of us were involved in every task but we did not divide responsibility.



8/10/2019 bjet12084

15/24

Thus, without dividing clear responsibilities between team members, the team could not be

successful during the gaming sessions.

Team 5 consisted of two team members plus a satellite member. It was classified as representing

shared leadership.

In this team, shared leadership was elucidated and, again, this team proved that role division was

needed during the game in order to achieve good financial measures. The selected team leader

stated: In the game, it is crucial for people to be assigned tasks and follow a procedure so that

things run more efficiently.

However, he did not consider himself as an influential leader, and his opinion on leadership was:

No person had too much control or anything. I did most of the computer work while my team

members worked on securing business deals with the subcontractors.

According to another team member: I think the team was a good and motivated one, but the lack

of authority and control and the inability of proper assessment led to the failure of the team.

He also stated about the leader figure that: In my opinion, he was not a mature leader and did notpossess the qualities of a successful team worker. He was really uncommunicative regarding the

roles, job assignment and task completion.

The other team member had the same opinion about the leader:

I do not think that we had a real leader in our team. Everybody tried to make the main decision. I think themain mistake of our leader was that he did not distribute the roles in the team. And everybody tried to doeverything.

Summarising, the lack of role division in the team caused the team not to succeed in the game and

they had the lowest business results of all the other teams.

Team 6 consisted of two team members plus a satellite member. The teamwork was classified asrepresenting democratic leadership.

In this team, democratic leadership was in place. The selected team leader considered himself

as a democratic leader. In his opinion, the team was effective: communication was clear and

decisions were democratic. All team members were willing to cooperate and collaborate and the

leader was competent at making decisions. He was also eager to know the team members

opinions. One team members opinion about the selected leader was: The leader of our group did

quite a good job. He described the rules of the game clearly, and he could always communicate

with us about the strategies and he made decisions very fast and effectively.

However, again, role division was mentioned as an important factor in the team. One teammember stated: I think the only problem we had was that we should have divided our team

members responsibility a bit more clearly, so that it did not waste any time and energy.

The team was good at cooperating, but they made some ineffective business decisions at the

beginning of the game; thus, their financial results were not spectacular.

Team 7 consisted of three team members plus a satellite member. The teamwork was classified as

representing shared leadership.

In this team, shared leadership was noted. They considered every team members inputs

before making major decisions and focused on opportunities rather than on mistakes. The team

members were making decisions together and there was a distribution of roles in the team. Oneteam member stated about the leaders role:

He (the leader) tried to allocate tasks to each person even when time was tight and some urgent events kepthappening. After that, everything went well and he just kept distributing tasks to all members. As a result,we could just focus on our own jobs without thinking about any other issues.



8/10/2019 bjet12084

16/24

This role switching in the team gave every team member a chance to perform various activities

such as negotiating, managing the production line, inventory and so forth.

The team had a great team spirit, and the team members were communicating all the time, which

was a very good strategy, especially for the satellite member who was included in the teams

operations and participated in the teams decision making. The division of tasks helped in col-laboration and in achieving good business results at the end of the game.

Team 8 consisted of two team members plus a satellite member. The teamwork was classified as

representing a transformational and post-heroic leadership style.

This teams leadership style could be interpreted as transformational and post-heroic. The

selected team leader made the decisions, but he was taking into account the team members

opinions when leading. He was an efficient leader, his team achieved very good business results

and the highest turnover of all teams. One team member stated about the leader:

He (the leader) knew the game well, thats why our team got the lead in the game. At first, he introduced

himself and let all team members know each other and try to know the strength of the team members.

The team members complimented each other and worked really well together; however, no clear

role division took place. Another team members opinion about the task division was:

We made mistakes, but we could learn from that and we tried to avoid the same mistakes next time. Since wedid not know each other well, our leader could not arrange our own assignments very well. Some of theteammates were very busy, and some had nothing to do. But overall, we did well.

This team had a satellite member in a distant location. The satellite member stated that because

of his role, little personal learning took place such us remote team coordination or patience.

Summary of the qualitative resultsAccording to team members answers to the posttests open-ended questions, the development of

leadership styles in teams during the gaming sessions was as follows: in Team 1, shared leader-

ship, and in Team 2, shared and democratic leadership was evidenced. In Team 3 and Team 4, no

clear leadership style could be determined, thus these teams were classified as teams with passive/

avoidance leadership. In Team 5, shared leadership, and in Team 6, democratic leadership was

noted. In Team 7, shared leadership, and in Team 8, transformational and post-heroic leadership

was evidenced.

Discussion

The goal of the study was to evaluate if teamwork in a simulation-game environment wouldprovide participants with experiences that could be beneficial for learning about leadership styles.

The results indicate that realistic experience, when teams were running simulated companies,

resulted in changes in participants opinions about leadership styles. This was, however, only true

for team members, whereas team leaders opinions after the gaming session were closer to their

ideal opinions about leadership styles expressed in the pretest phase. The Hypothesis 1a is supported

by the results but the Hypothesis 1b only when it concerns team members. This could be due to teamleaders being less objective when evaluating their own leading strategies after the gaming session.

An alternative explanation could be that team members and team leaders experienced collabo-

ration differently due to different group roles (Gegenfurtner et al, 2013; Siewioreket al, 2012). It

can be concluded that gaming sessions increased team members awareness of different aspects ofleadership and the difficulties in applying ideal leadership models in real situations. The discrep-

ancy between team members and team leaders interpretations as to how leadership styles were

applied during the sessions offer excellent opportunities for joint reflection and can be a powerful

experience to be used in leadership training (Johnsen et al, 2009).



8/10/2019 bjet12084

17/24

Team performance at the end of the training correlated positively with transformational leader-

ship and transactional leadership. These results supported the Hypotheses 2a and 2b. However,

Hypothesis 2c was not supported because there was no significant correlation between passive/

avoidance leadership and performance.

The common leadership style, according to team leaders (as measured by the MLQ question-naire), was transformational leadership. Team members experienced the gaming sessions differ-

ently and emphasised passive/avoidance leadership in their MLQ answers. Based on the design of

the study, it is not possible to conclude whether team leaders or team members answers reflect

better the leadership processes that took place during the sessions. On the one hand, team

members are less biased and thus better able to evaluate the leadership processes, which came

true during the sessions. On the other hand, the results indicate that the ratings of team leaders

about transformational and transactional leadership during the gaming sessions correlated with

the teams success in the business game, whereas evaluations of team members were not related

to the game performance.

The leadership style dimensions measured by the MLQ highlight the individual aspect of leader-

ship. However, one of the main findings of this study, particularly on the basis of the qualitative

analysis of the group processes, was that a shared-leadership style dominated in the most suc-

cessful teams. It might be that classical individually oriented leadership models are not enough to

explain successful team processes in technology-rich virtual environments (Lhteenmki et al,

2010).

Given the intensive environment of the simulation game, to do well in terms of the financial

measures was due to the team leaders ability to divide the responsibilities in the team and gain

extra effort from team members. It was difficult for one person to handle the simulation game

without the team members support. Thus, the division of roles in teams during both gamingsessions, where each participant was responsible for his or her assignment (ie, one was respon-

sible for inventory and production and the other for sales and marketing) was decisive for suc-

cessful performance.

Two teams (Team 1 and Team 7) clearly divided the roles between each other while playing the

game, creating an environment where every team member was actively involved in running the

company and at the same time was responsible for his or her role. Further, role formation allowed

for knowledge sharing, learning from others and developing new ideas.

The teams who divided the roles between each team member had better business performance

than teams who did not divide the responsibilities. In six teams, team members considered thedivision of roles as the most important strategy for being successful. During the game, they

experienced how teamwork and collaboration towards a common goal brought more effective

results than working alone. Overall, in order to end the game with good financial measures, the

team had to divide the responsibilities between each team member. Because of the small sample

the results of the study should be interpreted with caution. Particularly the number of team

leaders is too small for any generalisations of the data. A replicated study with bigger number of

participants and teams is needed. Replications of the study can also consider using technological

or analogue infrastructures for the simulation game. In line with previous work on technology-

enhanced learning (for reviews, see Cheung & Slavin, 2012; Fleischer, 2012; Gegenfurtner

et al, 2013; Noroozi, Weinberger, Biermans, Mulder & Chizari, 2012), we expected that the digitalcomputer environment would increase learners engagement with the task material (Lainema &

Nurmi, 2006) and scaffold their sociocognitive regulations during leadership interactions

(Siewiorek & Lehtinen, 2011). Still, although research documents positive effects, future research

can test if similar findings emerge in non-technological simulation games.



8/10/2019 bjet12084

18/24

In spite of the limitations of the study the findings are encouraging for combining business

simulation environments and collaborative settings in leadership training in higher education.

The results of the study showed the difference in participants opinions on leadership styles before

and after the simulation gaming session. It can be stated that the training increased participants

consciousness about the features of leadership and provided them with an experience they wereable to reflect. These changes and the differences in team leaders and team members interpre-

tations can serve as a useful starting point for a deeper understanding of leadership and team

processes. In order to make the gaming session more beneficial for leadership training in the

future, more reflective discussions between and after the gaming session are needed in order to

help participants in developing their understanding of the challenges of using leadership styles in

practice. In the training model used in this study, team leaders still overestimated their ability to

implement their ideal model of leadership in concrete group work. To fully achieve the learning

potential of this environment, more in-depth discussion should be conducted in order for the

leaders and participants to realise why it was not possible to use the leadership styles that they

wanted to use at the beginning of the gaming session. The results also indicated that this kind of

environment can be used in familiarising students with the challenges of leadership in virtual

work settings.

ReferencesAdobor, H. & Daneshfar, A. (2006). Management simulations: determining their effectiveness. Journal of

Management Development,25, 2, 151168.Allio, R. J. (2005). Leadership development: teaching versus learning. Management Decision, 43, 7/8, 1071

1077.Anderson, P. H. & Lawton, L. (2009). Business simulations and cognitive learning. Simulation & Gaming,

40, 2, 193216.Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass and Stogdills handbook of leadership: theory, research, and managerial applications

(3rd ed.). New York: The Free Press.Bass, B. M. & Avolio, B. J. (2000). MLQ multifactor leadership questionnaire sampler set: technical

report, leader form, rater form, and scoring key for MLQ form 5X-Short (2nd ed.). Palo Alto, CA: MindGarden.

Bass, B. M. & Avolio, B. J. (2005). Multifactor leadership questionnaire feedback report. Palo Alto, CA: MindGarden.

Bass, B. M. & Bass, R. (2008). The bass handbook of leadership: theory, research, and managerial applications(4th ed.). New York: Free Press.

Bednar, A. K., Cunningham, D., Duffy, T. M. & Perry, J. D. (1992). Theory into practice: how do we link?T. M. Duffy & D. H. Jonassen (Eds), Constructivism and the technology of instruction: a conversation(pp. 1734). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Blank, W. (2001).The 108 skills of natural born leaders. New York: AMACOM.

Bryman, A. (1992).Charisma and leadership in organizations. London: Sage.Burns, J. M. (1978).Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.Cheung, A. C. K. & Slavin, R. E. (2012). How features of educational technology applications affect student

reading outcomes: a meta-analysis.Educational Research Review,7, 198215.Ciavarro, C., Dobson, M. & Goodman, D. (2008). Implicit learning as a design strategy for learning games:

Alert Hockey.Computers in Human Behavior,24, 28622872.Conger, J. (1992). Learning to lead: the art of transforming managers into leaders. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass

Publishers.Crevani, L., Lindgren, M. & Packendorff, J. (2007). Shared leadership: a post-heroic perspective on leadership

as a collective construction.International Journal of Leadership Studies,3, 1, 4067.Day, D. V. (2001). Leadership development: a review in context. Leadership Quarterly,11, 581613.de Jong, T. & van Joolingen, W. R. (1998). Scientific discovery learning with computer simulations of

conceptual domains.Review of Educational Research,68, 179201.Dentico, J. P. (1999). Games leaders play: using process simulations to develop collaborative leadershippractices for a knowledge-based society. Career Development International,4, 3, 175182.

DuBrin, A. J. (1990).Essentials of management(2nd ed.). Cincinnati, OH: South-Western Publishing.Farrell, C. (2005). Perceived effectiveness of simulations in international business pedagogy: an exploratory

analysis.Journal of Teaching in International Business,16, 3, 7188.



8/10/2019 bjet12084

19/24

Fleischer, H. (2012). What is our current understanding of one-to-one computer projects: a systematicnarrative research review.Educational Research Review,7, 107122.

Gee, J. P. (2008). Being a lion and being a soldier: learning and games. In J. Coiro, M. Knobel, C. Lankshear& D. J. Leu (Eds), Handbook of research on new literacies (pp. 10231036). New York: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates.

Gegenfurtner, A. (2011). Motivation and transfer in professional training: a meta-analysis of the moderat-ing effects of knowledge type, instruction, and assessment conditions. Educational Research Review, 6,153168.

Gegenfurtner, A. & Vauras, M. (2012). Age-related differences in the relation between motivation tolearn and transfer of training in adult continuing education.Contemporary Educational Psychology, 37,3346.

Gegenfurtner, A., Veermans, K. & Vauras, M. (2013). Effects of computer support, collaboration, and timelag on performance self-efficacy and transfer of training: a longitudinal meta-analysis. EducationalResearch Review,8, 7589.

Goleman, D. (2000). Leadership that gets results. Harvard Business Review,78, 2, 7890.Gredler, M. E. (1996). Educational games and simulations: a technology in search of a research paradigm.

In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.),Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 521540).

New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.Greenblat Stein, C. (1988). Designing games and simulations: an illustrated handbook. Newbury Park: SagePublications.

Haapasalo, H. & Hyvnen, J. (2001). Simulating business and operations management: a learning environ-ment for the electronics industry.International Journal of Production Economics,73, 261272.

Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J. & Anderson, R. E. (2009). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Upper SaddleRiver, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Hakkarainen, K., Palonen, T., Paavola, S. & Lehtinen, E. (2004). Communities of networked expertise: profes-sional and educational perspectives. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Herz, B. & Merz, W. (1998). Experiential learning and the effectiveness of economic simulation games.Simulation & Gaming,29, 2, 238250.

Jenkins, H. (2002).Game theory: digital renaissance. MIT Technology Review, Cambridge, March 29.Johnsen, B. H., Eid, J., Pallesen, J., Bartonen, P. T. & Nissestad, O. A. (2009). Predicting transformational

leadership in naval cadets: effects of personality hardiness and training.Journal of Applied Social Psychol-ogy,39, 22132235.

Kebritchi, M. & Hirumi, A. (2008). Examining the pedagogical foundations of modern educational com-puter games.Computers & Education,51, 17291743.

Keys, B. & Wolfe, J. (1990). The role of management games and simulations in education and research.Journal of Management,16, 2, 307336.

Knogler, M., Gegenfurtner, A. & Quesada-Pallars, C. (2013). Social design in digital simulations:effects of single versus multi-player simulations on efficacy beliefs and transfer. In N. Rummel, M. Kapur,M. Nathan & S. Puntambekar (Eds), CSCL 2013 proceedingsVol. 2 (pp. 293294). Madison: ISLS.

Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning experience as a source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice Hall.

Kuhnert, K. W. & Lewis, P. (1987). Transactional and transformational leadership: a constructive develop-mental analysis.Academy of Management Review,12, 648657.

Kuutti, K. (1996). Activity theory as a potential framework for human computer interaction research. InB. A. Nardi (Ed.), Context and consciousness: activity theory and humancomputer interaction (pp. 1744).Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Lhteenmki, S., Saarinen, E., Fischlmayr, I. C. & Lainema, T. (2010). Virtual organizations. In B. Hossein(Ed.),Handbook of technology managemen(pp. 186209). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons.

Lainema, T. (2003). Enhancing organizational business process perceptionexperiences from constructingand applying a dynamic business simulation game. In Turku School of Economics, Series, Vol. A-5: 2003.Retrieved May 13, 2013, from http://info.tse.fi/julkaisut/vk/Ae5_2003.pdf

Lainema, T. (2004). Redesigning the traditional business gaming processaiming to capture businessprocess authenticity.Journal of Information Technology Education,3, 3552.

Lainema, T. & Lainema, K. (2007). Advancing acquisition of business know-how: critical learning elements.

Journal of Research on Technology in Education,40, 2, 183198.Lainema, T. & Nurmi, S. (2006). Applying an authentic, dynamic learning environment in real world

business.Computers & Education,47, 1, 94115.Laurillard, D. (1998). Multimedia and the learners experience of narrative. Computers & Education, 31,

229242.



8/10/2019 bjet12084

20/24

Leemkuil, H., de Jong, T., de Hoog, R. & Christoph, N. (2003). KM QUEST: a collaborative Internet-basedsimulation game.Simulation & Gaming,34, 89111.

Lehtinen, E. (2003). Computer supported collaborative learning: an approach to powerful learning envi-ronments. In E. De Corte, L. Verschaffel, N. Entwistle & J. Van Merriboer (Eds), Unravelling basic compo-nents and dimensions of powerful learning environments (pp. 3553). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Li, T., Greenberg, B. A. & Nicholls, J. A. F. (2007). Teaching experiential learning: adoption of an innovativecourse in an MBA marketing curriculum. Journal of Marketing Education,29, 1, 2533.MacCallum, R. C., Widaman, K. F., Zhang, S. & Hong, S. (1999). Sample size in factor analysis.Psychological

Methods,4, 8499.McCall, M. W., Jr (2004). Leadership development through experience. Academy of Management Executive,

18, 3, 127130.McCauley, C. D. & Douglas, C. A. (2004). Developmental relationships. In E. Van Velsor & C. McCauley (Eds),

Handbook of leadership development(pp. 85115). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Noroozi, O., Weinberger, A., Biermans, H. J. A., Mulder, M. & Chizari, M. (2012). Argumentation-based

computer supported collaborative learning (ABCSCL): a synthesis of 15 years of research.EducationalResearch Review,7, 79106.

Olhager, J. & Persson, F. (2006). Simulating production and inventory control systems: a learning approach

to operational excellence.Production Planning & Control,17, 2, 113127.Palus, C. J. & Horth, D. M. (2004). Exploration for development. In E. V. Velsor & C. McCauley (Eds), Handbookof leadership development(pp. 438464). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Prensky, M. (2001).Digital game-based learning. New York: McGraw-Hill Companies.Raybourn, E. M. (2006). Simulation experience design methods for training the forces to think adaptively.

I/ITSEC 2006 Proceedings, Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation and Education. Conference Pro-ceedings, December 47, Orlando, Florida.

Ritterfeld, U., Shen, C., Wang, H., Nocera, L. & Wong, W. L. (2009). Multimodality and Interactivity:connecting properties of serious games with educational outcomes.Cyberpsychology & Behavior,12, 6,691697.

Salas, E., Wildman, J. L. & Piccolo, R. F. (2009). Using simulation-based training to enhance managementeducation.Academy of Management Learning and Education,8, 4, 559573.

Saunders, D. (1995). Introducing simulations and games for business. In D. Saunders (Ed.), The simulationand gaming workbook volume 3: games and simulations for business (pp. 1320). London: Kogan Page.

Siewiorek, A. (2012).Playing to learn: business simulation games as leadership learning environments. Turku:Annales Universitatis Turkuensis.

Siewiorek, A. & Gegenfurtner, A. (2010). Leading to win: the influence of leadership style on team perfor-mance during a computer game training. In K. Gomez, L. Lyons & J. Radinsky (Eds), Learning in thedisciplinesVol. 1 (pp. 524531). Chicago, IL: International Society of the Learning Sciences.

Siewiorek, A. & Lehtinen, E. (2011). Exploring leadership profiles from collaborative computer gaming.International Journal of Leadership Studies,6, 3, 357374.

Siewiorek, A., Saarinen, E., Lainema, T. & Lehtinen, E. (2012). Learning leadership skills in a simulatedbusiness environment.Computers & Education,58, 121135.

Smith, B. N., Montagno, R. V. & Kuzmenko, T. N. (2004). Transformational and servant leadership: contentand contextual comparisons.Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies,10, 4, 8091.

Tennyson, R. D. & Breuer, K. (2002). Improving problem solving and creativity through use of complex-dynamic simulations.Computers in Human Behavior,18, 650668.

Tompson, G. H. & Dass, P. (2000). Improving students self-efficacy in strategic management: the relativeimpact of cases and simulations.Simulation & Gaming,31, 2241.

Washbush, J. B. & Gosen, J. (1998). Total enterprise simulation performance and participant learning.Journal of Workplace Learning,10, 6/7, 314319.

Wills, G. (1994).Certain trumpets. New York: Simon & Schuster.Winn, W. (2002). Current trends in educational technology research: the study of learning environments.

Educational Psychology Review,14, 331351.



8/10/2019 bjet12084

21/24

8/10/2019 bjet12084

22/24

Appendix A2After the game session

Posttest for team members to assess their leaders

1 Has the leader of your team:

1 Use the following rating scale when answering the questions below:

0Not at all; 1Once in a while; 2Sometimes; 3Fairly often; 4Frequently, if not always

0 1 2 3 4

1. Gone beyond self-interest for the good of the group2. Expressed satisfaction when others met his or her expectations3. Focused attention on irregularities, mistakes and exceptions4. Emphasised the importance of having a team mission5. Helped others to develop their strengths

6. Expressed confidence that the teams goals would be achieved7. Kept track of all mistakes8. Suggested new ways of looking at how to complete tasks9. Treated others as individuals rather than just as a member of the team

10. Talked optimistically about the future11. Avoided making decisions12. Displayed a sense of power and confidence13. Considered the moral and ethical consequences of decisions14. Sought differing perspectives when solving problems15. Failed to interfere until problems became serious16. Waited for things to go wrong before taking action17. Provided others with assistance in exchange for their efforts18. Delayed responding to urgent questions

2 Has the leader of your team used methods of leadership that were satisfying? Has he or she led

a team that was effective? Please describe how he or she was coping with leading the team.

3 Please write comments about your team and about the whole game session.



8/10/2019 bjet12084

23/24

Appendix A3Game-session results

Posttest for leaders to self-assess their leadership

1 Have you as a leader of your team:

1 Use the following rating scale when answering the questions below:

0Not at all; 1Once in a while; 2Sometimes; 3Fairly often; 4Frequently, if not always

0 1 2 3 4

1. Gone beyond self-interest for the good of the group2. Expressed satisfaction when others met your expectations3. Focused attention on irregularities, mistakes and exceptions4. Emphasised the importance of having a team mission5. Helped others to develop their strengths

6. Expressed confidence that the teams goals would be achieved7. Kept track of all mistakes8. Suggested new ways of looking at how to complete tasks9. Treated others as individuals rather than just as a member of the team

10. Talked optimistically about the future11. Avoided making decisions12. Displayed a sense of power and confidence13. Considered the moral and ethical consequences of decisions14. Sought differing perspectives when solving problems15. Failed to interfere until problems became serious16. Waited for things to go wrong before taking action17. Provided others with assistance in exchange for their efforts18. Delayed responding to urgent questions

2 Have you as the leader of your team used methods of leadership that were satisfying? Have you

led a team that was effective? Please describe how you were coping with leading your team.

3 Please write comments about your team and about the whole game session.



8/10/2019 bjet12084

24/24

Appendix B

Leadership Style Classification

1. Transactional leadership 1. Transfor mational leadership costbenefit exchange between leaders

and their followers contingent rewards active management by exception

inspiring and stimulating followers

idealised influence inspirational motivation intellectual stimulation individual consideration

2. Heroic leadership 2. Post-heroic leadership omnipotence rightness face-saving codependency

empowerment of members risk taking participation development of members

A) Authoritarian leadership A) Shared leadership high degree of control leader determines all policies, activity steps

and work tasksgives orders no active group participation, leader mostly

makes decisions alone

mutual influencedispersed leadership role members participate in the decision-making

process members fulfil tasks traditionally reserved for a

hierarchical leader members offer guidance to others to achieve

group goalsB) Coercive leadership B) Democratic leadership

leader demands immediate compliancewith his orders

leader dictates each step taken drive to achieve, initiative, self-control

leader encourages group decisions, participationand discussion

leader builds consensus through participation leader shares leadership to some degree with

members leader builds organisational flexibility


bjet12084

Documents

Transcript of bjet12084