Bjet 12084

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

Anna Siewiorek, Andreas Gegenfurtner, Timo Lainema, Eeli Saarinen and
Erno 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 through
mobile technologies. Her research interests include computer simulation games, training leadership styles, and
computer-supported collaborative learning. Andreas Gegenfurtner, PhD, is a Post-doctoral Research Fellow at
the TUM School of Education, Technische Universitt Mnchen. His research interests include the development
of visual expertise and motivational inuences on transfer of learning. Timo Lainema, PhD, is a Senior Research
Fellow 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 PhD
thesis (Turku School of Economics, 2003) focused on the use of business simulation games in business process
education. His research interests include learning through simulation gaming and knowledge sharing in virtual
working contexts. Eeli Saarinen is a PhD student at Department of Management and Organisation, Turku School of
Economics, University of Turku. Erno Lehtinen is an Academy Professor at the Centre for Learning Research and
Department of Teacher Education, University of Turku. His research focuses on the learning of mathematical and
scientic concepts, technology supported learning environments, and the challenges of expertise development
in technology rich networked working life. Address for correspondence: Dr. Anna Siewiorek, CICERO Learning
Network, Institute of Behavioral Sciences, University of Helsinki, Siltavuorenpenger 3A, 00014 Helsinki, Finland.
Email: anna.siewiorek@helsinki.
Abstract
The objective of this study is to elucidate newinformationonthe 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 difcult to deal with in traditional educational situations. Difcult teachable
skills include many complex and ill-dened 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
Learning with games and simulations
When we discuss the learning environment of this study, we refer to it as a simulation game
instead 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) dene a (management) simulation game as a simplied
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 of
simulation 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
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 games
and simulations, some obstacles can make simulation games difcult to implement in educational
settings. For example, learners may perceive the simulation to be unrealistic or perceive the group
collaboration to be inefcient 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 ef-
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 the
gaming environment.
Constructivism focuses on the process of knowledge construction and the development of reex-
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
Researchonleadership has expanded over the years and many theorists have tried to dene leader
roles and leadership processes. For example, DuBrin (1990) dened leadership as the process
of inuencing the activities of an individual or group to achieve certain objectives in a given
situation (p 255). Wills (1994), however, dened 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 denitions has involved the process of inuence
(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 denition of leadership, or on what good or
effective leadership should be (Smith, Montagno & Kuzmenko, 2004). Instead, there are many
leadership style denitions. In our earlier studies (Siewiorek & Gegenfurtner, 2010; Siewiorek &
Lehtinen, 2011; Siewiorek et al, 2012) we have analysed howexperiences in business simulation
games and game environments are related to different leadership styles, including such as heroic,
1014 British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 44 No 6 2013
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 proper
exchange 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 as
the main characteristics of a leader. Post-heroic leadership refers to empowerment of members,
risk taking and the development of members. A widely used classication 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 exibility. 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 inuence 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 of
information 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 claimthat 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 specic 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 benecial for
learning leadership skills. This kind of experience and systematic reection 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, conict
resolution, 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 thangroup members do, but, withincreasing training, the self-evaluationand the
others evaluations tend to come closer together (Johnsen et 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 found
that 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
inmeeting the leadership training objectives (Bass, 1990). One of the aims inplanning leadership
training simulations is to provide participants with challenging experiences, which increase
awareness 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. Asecond 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 members
participating 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 hypotheses
Is 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 is
expected 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.
To what extent does leadership style correlate with team performance?
It was expected that teamperformance 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. (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 threeor four) managetheir ownmanufacturingcompany, andtheyareabletofollowtheir
companys operations and material ows in real time, thus being provided with a dynamic and
transparent viewof causeeffects in business organisation. Simulation participants are immersed
in a realistic business environment where they buy materials, produce goods and compete with
other teams. Theyarechallengedbydifcult decisions suchas whichmarket toenter, at what prices
to buy and sell or how many units to produce. Meanwhile, they have to deal with cash-ow
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 and
interact 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 platformfor 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
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 simulation
game, 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 BioCounter manufacturers. Figure 1 presents the example of the RealGame BioCounter manu-
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 specied 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
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 unlled orders with
the amount of 150 BioCounters and the inventory includes only 13 units. The participants change the nal
assembly production cell to produce BioCounters instead of the BioCounter DLX model. At the same time
they also note that one of the production cells in the preceding production phase has run out of rawmaterial
Electronics. They order 10 000 units of Electronics from a supplier who promises to deliver the products
within 2 days.
10 AM: The company runs out of cash. The participants contact the bank and receive a loan of 2 000 000
euros, 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 ow 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. A
marketing campaign of 1 000 000 euros is started. They also note that this expense must be paid after 2
weeks.
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 remain
unchanged.
5 PM: Some customers in North America informthat BioCounter DLXdeliveries have arrived some 13 days
late. The participants change the auto delivery method fromShip to Air, which will increase the delivery cost
per unit by 55 euros but the deliveries should arrive 78 days faster. They also modify the promised delivery
time in their North American offers from 10 days to 5 days. This, they hope, will also increase demand for
their products. To compensate for the increased delivery costs the price of all products for North America is
increased by 3%.
6 PM: The participants run the real-time income statement and note that their Prot-% has increased by
1.2 percentage units compared with the prot 1 week ago. Also some other key gures (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 difculties 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 decision
implementer 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 protably as possible toTeams 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 selling Processors and Electronics
to these teams.
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 withTeams 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 Afor 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
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
proles. 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. They
were 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 2days 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 proles 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).
Analysis
Quantitative 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 KruskalWallis
H-test for three-group comparisons. Development from pretest to posttest within groups was
analysed using one-way repeated measures ANOVA. U and Z statistics from the MannWhitney
and the matched-pairs test were complemented with estimates of Cohens d. All analyses were
performed 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
coefcient .
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 rst
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 this
case, 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).
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 rst
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 specied in turn.
Team leaders and members leadership style opinions
This section starts with describing between-group differences in leadership style opinions of team
leaders and teammembers before and after gaming session; we thenreport within-group differences
that 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 not
differ. Because there were no statistically signicant 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 signicant 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 signicant differences between leaders and members leadership style opinions.
After the gaming session, however, signicant differences between team leaders and team
members emerged for transactional leadership (U = 28.50, p < 0.05, Cohens d = 0.87) and
passive/avoidance leadership (U = 27.00, p < 0.05, Cohens d = 0.89). These posttest ndings
indicate that the teamleaders self-rating was signicantly higher for the transactional leadership
category and signicantly lower in the passive/avoidance leadership category compared with the
team members peer ratings.
Correlation analysis of all participants showed that in the pretest, when participants expressed
their general leadership opinions, transformational and transactional leadership styles were
clearly separate dimensions, and there was no correlation between the subscales (r = 0.07). In
the posttest, however, when team members evaluated the behaviour of their team leader during
the simulation game, there was a moderate correlation (r = 0.49, p < 0.05) between the
subscales of transformational and transactional leadership. In team leaders self-assessments
in the posttest, there was a high correlation between the transformational and transactional
subscales (r = 0.72, p < 0.05). In both groups, there was a moderate negative correlation
Table 1: Mean scores and standard deviations by group and measurement time
Transformational leadership Transactional leadership Passive/avoidance
Pretest Posttest Pretest Posttest Pretest Posttest
M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD
Team leaders 31.50 4.87 28.50 6.80 10.75 3.06 10.88 2.95 2.38 1.99 2.75 1.90
Team members 30.56 3.96 23.11 6.11 9.83 2.12 7.56 2.38 3.22 3.19 5.83 3.07
All participants 31.03 4.42 25.81 6.46 10.29 2.59 9.22 2.67 2.80 2.59 4.29 2.49
between transformational and passive/avoidance leadership subscales, but it was only signicant
in team members data (r = 0.59, p < 0.05). It seems that the MLQ scale works differently in
these situations. When the scale was used in evaluating the concrete team experience during the
simulationgame, it was more difcult to make ne-graindistinctions betweendifferent qualitative
aspects of leadership and participants mainly differentiated between some kind of active leader-
ship or passive/avoidance leadership. Particularly difcult ne-grain distinctions existed in the
self-assessment of team leaders.
Within groups, there were statistically signicant differences for the measures before and after
the simulation gaming session. Table 2 presents all estimates. For all participants, there was
a decrease in transformational [F (1, 25) = 16.62, p < 0.001] and transactional leadership
[F (1, 25) = 12.06, p < 0.01], whereas there was an increase in passive/avoidance leadership
[F (1, 25) = 9.47, p < 0.01]. For team members only, there was also a decrease in transforma-
tional [F (1, 25) = 12.06, p < 0.01; Cohens d = 0.77] and transactional leadership [F (1, 25) =
4.77, p < 0.05; Cohens d = 0.58], while there was an increase in passive/avoidance leadership
[F (1, 25) = 9.92, p < 0.01; Cohens d = 0.79].
The differences in team leaders answers between pre- and posttest were not signicant.
The results support Hypothesis 1a. After the simulation experience, team leaders and team
members interpreted the success of the leading process differently. In line with previous studies,
the team leaders had a slightly more positive evaluation concerning the leadership style than did
teammembers. The results only partly support Hypothesis 1b. We assume that the teammembers
were sensitive to the situational features of the group dynamics and leadership during the simu-
lation game and changed their assessments. However, this seems not to have been the case among
team leaders, who tended to repeat their initial answers.
Leadership style and success in the simulation game
Team performance was assessed with two business key performance indicators (KPIs): turnover
and prot. In interpreting the results, it is important to take into account the fact that the
companies represent different elds of industry; companies 1, 2 and 3 were subcontractors (see
Figure 2). This might have an effect on the performance indicators. The KPIs of team perfor-
mance at the end of training are presented in Table 3. Leaders posttest scores of transforma-
tional and transactional subscales correlated positively with the KPIs. This indicates that
high proles in transformational and transactional leadership seem to imply better prot,
although the correlational data prohibit causal claims. Statistically signicant correlations
were between leaders self-assessments of transformative leadership and turnover (r = 0.71,
p < 0.05) and between leaders self-assessment of transactional leadership and turnover
(r = 0.82, p < 0.05). The correlations between team members passive/avoidance-leadership
assessments and game-performance variables varied from moderately negative to low positive
values, but there were no signicant relations. The results partly support Hypotheses 2a and 2b
but not Hypothesis 2c.
Table 2: Mean differences and standard deviations for the MLQ factors as a function of group
Transformational leadership Transactional leadership Passive/avoidance
M SD M SD M SD
Team leaders 3.00 6.85 0.13 4.76 0.38 1.51
Team members 7.44 7.75 2.28 2.78 2.61 3.52
All participants 5.22 7.30 1.14 3.77 1.50 2.52
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 ndings for
each of the eight teams are described separately.
Team1 consisted of three teammembers plus a satellite member. The teamwork was classied as
representing shared leadership.
In Team 1, shared leadership was noted and this team ended the game with the highest prot.
Based on our observations, we assume that the teamachieved 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. According
to 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 teamwas: Actually, my teammembers 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 nancial
performance. 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.
Team2 consisted of two team members plus a satellite member. The teamwork was classied as
representing shared and democratic leadership.
In this team, shared and democratic leadership took place and all teammembers 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 nal decisions. One of the team members opinions about the leader was:
Table 3: Team performance indicators at the end of the training
Prot Turnover
Team 1 13 375 111 35 203 150
Team 2 4 782 765 15 098 390
Team 3 4 772 368 16 690 550
Team 4 2 834 136 27 074 300
Team 5 2 426 983 27 854 600
Team 6 5 437 282 34 117 980
Team 7 4 337 704 36 400 250
Team 8 7 912 405 37 560 100
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 decisions
together 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 claried roles for each team member, the team
effectively managed the game company together due to a democratic decision-making process.
Team3 consisted of three team members. The teamwork was classied 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 and
another member took the keyboard and mouse in her hands and screamed at others who tried to cooperate.
She wanted to make all the nal 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 teamwas not effective as there was no clear distinction about what we were trying to do. We should have
communicated better. We should have had a clear goal and clear roles for people. We, as members, should
have 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.
Team4 consisted of three team members. The teamwork was classied 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 this
resulted in the team not being effective. The leader stated:
Considering myself as a team leader, I am not satised with the methods of leadership I was using. For
example, I felt a lack of ability to delegate tasks and distribute responsibilities. This led to the situation where
I 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 specic leadership could be
determined in the team, thus the teamwas classied as a teamwith 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 was
going on, he could not manage all risks related to the supply chain and the productive process, which caused
some trouble for the company.
Another team member stated: This was not a very good team in general in terms of cooperation
and efciency. All of us were involved in every task but we did not divide responsibility.
Thus, without dividing clear responsibilities between team members, the team could not be
successful during the gaming sessions.
Team5 consisted of two team members plus a satellite member. It was classied as representing
shared leadership.
In this team, shared leadership was elucidated and, again, this teamproved that role division was
needed during the game in order to achieve good nancial 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 efciently.
However, he did not consider himself as an inuential 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 teammember: I think the teamwas 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 gure that: In my opinion, he was not a mature leader and did not
possess 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 the
main mistake of our leader was that he did not distribute the roles in the team. And everybody tried to do
everything.
Summarising, the lack of role divisioninthe teamcaused the teamnot to succeed inthe game and
they had the lowest business results of all the other teams.
representing 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 teammembers 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 team
member 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 nancial results were not spectacular.
Team7 consisted of three teammembers plus a satellite member. The teamwork was classied 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. One
team 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 kept
happening. 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.
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 teamhad a great teamspirit, and the teammembers 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.
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 efcient 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 rst, 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 fromthat and we tried to avoid the same mistakes next time. Since we
did not know each other well, our leader could not arrange our own assignments very well. Some of the
teammates 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 results
According 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 inTeam 2, shared and democratic leadership was evidenced. InTeam 3 and Team 4, no
clear leadership style could be determined, thus these teams were classied as teams with passive/
avoidance leadership. In Team 5, shared leadership, and in Team 6, democratic leadership was
noted. InTeam 7, shared leadership, and inTeam 8, transformational and post-heroic leadership
was evidenced.
Discussion
The goal of the study was to evaluate if teamwork in a simulation-game environment would
provide participants with experiences that could be benecial 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 team
leaders 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; Siewiorek et al, 2012). It
can be concluded that gaming sessions increased teammembers awareness of different aspects of
leadership and the difculties 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 reection and can be a powerful
experience to be used in leadership training (Johnsen et al, 2009).
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 signicant 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 reect
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 ndings 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 nancial
measures was due to the team leaders ability to divide the responsibilities in the team and gain
extra effort from team members. It was difcult for one person to handle the simulation game
without the team members support. Thus, the division of roles in teams during both gaming
sessions, 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 the
division 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 nancial 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 digital
computer 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 ndings emerge in non-technological simulation games.
In spite of the limitations of the study the ndings 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 were
able to reect. 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 benecial for leadership training in the
future, more reective 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.
References
Adobor, 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.). NewYork: 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: Mind
Garden.
Bass, B. M. & Avolio, B. J. (2005). Multifactor leadership questionnaire feedback report. Palo Alto, CA: Mind
Garden.
Bass, B. M. & Bass, R. (2008). The bass handbook of leadership: theory, research, and managerial applications
(4th ed.). NewYork: 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. NewYork: AMACOM.
Bryman, A. (1992). Charisma and leadership in organizations. London: Sage.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. NewYork: 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. SanFrancisco, CA: Jossey-Bass
Publishers.
Crevani, L., Lindgren, M. &Packendorff, J. (2007). Shared leadership: a post-heroic perspective onleadership
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). Scientic 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 leadership
practices 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.
Fleischer, H. (2012). What is our current understanding of one-to-one computer projects: a systematic
narrative 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 Erlbaum
Associates.
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 to
learn 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 time
lag on performance self-efcacy and transfer of training: a longitudinal meta-analysis. Educational
Research 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).
NewYork: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.
Greenblat Stein, C. (1988). Designing games and simulations: an illustrated handbook. Newbury Park: Sage
Publications.
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 Saddle
River, 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 efcacy beliefs and transfer. In N. Rummel, M. Kapur,
M. Nathan & S. Puntambekar (Eds), CSCL 2013 proceedings Vol. 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. In
B. 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 fromconstructing
and applying a dynamic business simulation game. In Turku School of Economics, Series, Vol. A-5: 2003.
Retrieved May 13, 2013, from http://info.tse./julkaisut/vk/Ae5_2003.pdf
Lainema, T. (2004). Redesigning the traditional business gaming processaiming to capture business
process 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.
Leemkuil, H., de Jong, T., de Hoog, R. & Christoph, N. (2003). KM QUEST: a collaborative Internet-based
simulation 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 innovative
course 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. Educational
Research 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), Handbook
of leadership development (pp. 438464). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital game-based learning. NewYork: 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 management
education. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 8, 4, 559573.
Saunders, D. (1995). Introducing simulations and games for business. In D. Saunders (Ed.), The simulation
and 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 inuence of leadership style on team perfor-
mance during a computer game training. In K. Gomez, L. Lyons & J. Radinsky (Eds), Learning in the
disciplines Vol. 1 (pp. 524531). Chicago, IL: International Society of the Learning Sciences.
Siewiorek, A. & Lehtinen, E. (2011). Exploring leadership proles 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 simulated
business environment. Computers & Education, 58, 121135.
Smith, B. N., Montagno, R. V. & Kuzmenko, T. N. (2004). Transformational and servant leadership: content
and 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-efcacy in strategic management: the relative
impact 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. NewYork: Simon & Schuster.
Winn, W. (2002). Current trends in educational technology research: the study of learning environments.
Educational Psychology Review, 14, 331351.
Appendix A
Appendix A1
Game session
Pretest for all participants
1 Imagine that you are placed in a team where there are four other people and you are a leader
of this team. How would you behave as a leader? In your opinion, you as the leader would:
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. Go beyond self-interest for the good of the group
2. Express satisfaction when others meet my expectations
3. Focus attention on irregularities, mistakes and exceptions
4. Emphasise the importance of having a team mission
5. Help others to develop their strengths
6. Express condence that the teams goals will be achieved
7. Keep track of all mistakes
8. Suggest new ways of looking at how to complete tasks
9. Treat others as individuals rather than just as a member of the team
10. Talk optimistically about the future
11. Avoid making decisions
12. Display a sense of power and condence
13. Consider the moral and ethical consequences of decisions
14. Seek differing perspectives when solving problems
15. Fail to interfere until problems become serious
16. Wait for things to go wrong before taking action
17. Provide others with assistance in exchange for their efforts
18. Delay responding to urgent questions
2 Describe yourself as a successful team leader (please write at least three characteristics; eg,
respected, trusted and so forth)
3 Describe your dream-team leader. How would he or she behave in a crisis situation?
Appendix A2
After the game session
Posttest for team members to assess their leaders
1 Has the leader of your team:
0 1 2 3 4
1. Gone beyond self-interest for the good of the group
2. Expressed satisfaction when others met his or her expectations
3. Focused attention on irregularities, mistakes and exceptions
4. Emphasised the importance of having a team mission
5. Helped others to develop their strengths
6. Expressed condence that the teams goals would be achieved
7. Kept track of all mistakes
8. Suggested new ways of looking at how to complete tasks
9. Treated others as individuals rather than just as a member of the team
10. Talked optimistically about the future
11. Avoided making decisions
12. Displayed a sense of power and condence
13. Considered the moral and ethical consequences of decisions
14. Sought differing perspectives when solving problems
15. Failed to interfere until problems became serious
16. Waited for things to go wrong before taking action
17. Provided others with assistance in exchange for their efforts
18. 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.
Appendix A3
Game-session results
Posttest for leaders to self-assess their leadership
1 Have you as a leader of your team:
0 1 2 3 4
1. Gone beyond self-interest for the good of the group
2. Expressed satisfaction when others met your expectations
3. Focused attention on irregularities, mistakes and exceptions
4. Emphasised the importance of having a team mission
5. Helped others to develop their strengths
6. Expressed condence that the teams goals would be achieved
7. Kept track of all mistakes
8. Suggested new ways of looking at how to complete tasks
9. Treated others as individuals rather than just as a member of the team
10. Talked optimistically about the future
11. Avoided making decisions
12. Displayed a sense of power and condence
13. Considered the moral and ethical consequences of decisions
14. Sought differing perspectives when solving problems
15. Failed to interfere until problems became serious
16. Waited for things to go wrong before taking action
17. Provided others with assistance in exchange for their efforts
18. Delayed responding to urgent questions
2 Have you as the leader of your teamused 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.
Appendix B
Leadership Style Classication
1. Transactional leadership 1. Transformational leadership
costbenet exchange between leaders
and their followers
contingent rewards
active management by exception
inspiring and stimulating followers
idealised inuence
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 inuencedispersed leadership role
members participate in the decision-making
process
members full tasks traditionally reserved for a
hierarchical leader
members offer guidance to others to achieve
group goals
B) Coercive leadership B) Democratic leadership
leader demands immediate compliance
with his orders
leader dictates each step taken
drive to achieve, initiative, self-control
leader encourages group decisions, participation
and discussion
leader builds consensus through participation
leader shares leadership to some degree with
members
leader builds organisational exibility

Bjet 12084

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bjet 12084

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The effects of computer-simulation game training on

participants opinions on leadership styles

You might also like