In this post, Dr Matjaz Vidmar and Prof Jamie Fleck discuss an educational role-play exercise designed to simulate the challenges and complexities of collective decision-making processes. This immersive exercise provides participants with a platform to experience the group dynamics in executive context and associated power structures, as participants are briefed to assume various roles within a fictional (company) scenario. In addition to exploring the context of technology adoption and collective responsibility of an executive team, the students also experience and develop insight in the influence of interpersonal skills, emotional investment, and conflict management in decision-making. This post belongs to the Group Work series.
When we think about adopting new technologies in the workplace, it’s easy to focus solely on the technical requirements and forget the human elements involved. However, understanding the human aspects such as group dynamics in decision-making processes [1], and interpersonal conflicts is crucial for successful integration of technical knowledge into our increasingly complex work and personal lives. From a pedagogical point of view, such complex situations are often hard to rationalize and present as a structured content, which is why an experiential learning approach through simulations and role-play exercises, become invaluable educational tools [2].
This particular role-play exercise was originally designed for Technology and Innovation Management teaching – and is still used, with modifications, 30 years later! At its core, its timeless design is less tied to a specific case of technology adoption, realizing that any such endeavour rests on reconfiguring meanings, materials and processes / practices [3] that in turn are conditioned on flows of information, power (im)balances and diverging interests.
The exercise requires a group of six to nine individuals who assume key roles within the management suite of the fictitious furniture manufacturers company, Oakland Furniture Ltd, to debate the adoption of Enterprise Resource Management (ERM) systems [4] – such as ‘our own’ People and Money. This technology integrates data flows using IT systems with core enterprise processes, and the role-play is structured to reflect potential conflicts arising from different interests and knowledge bases within the team. This set-up exposes participants to the nuances of workplace dynamics and power structures that significantly impact decision-making.
The exercise is started by students selecting (or being allocated) one of the nine roles within the team – eight company staff and an external technology vendor. Each participant is given a role brief, where they receive general information about the company as well as more detailed information about matters (data, layouts, processes) within their competences. The objective of the exercise is for the participants to have a meeting (or a few) in which to hear the technology vendor pitch Enterprise Resources Management system to the company and then discuss if and how to adopt this new technology. Outcomes asked of participants vary depending on the context – from simple meeting minutes, to a memo to the rest of the company or a full report.
Surfacing the key dynamics of the role-play exercise
Here are some of the key dynamics that surface during the exercise, based on the observations students made:
- The power of roles: Individuals carry inherent expectations about the behavior of people in certain roles, which they can easily and convincingly play out, thus impacting outcomes as social actors rather than just as individuals.
- Emotional commitment: Participants often become deeply emotionally invested in their roles during the exercise, experiencing a range of emotions from frustration to satisfaction. This illustrates the substantial influence of psychological and social forces in technological innovations.
- The importance of status and power: Roles like the Managing Director dominate decision-making due to their power, despite lacking specific technical knowledge. This highlights how real-life power dynamics can overshadow informed decision-making.
- Time pressure: Participants report frustration with the rapid passage of time and the pressure it brings, mirroring real-life time constraints that complicate thorough discussion and decision-making in management.
- The flow of information: The exercise reflects real-life scenarios where information – accurate or not – circulates and influences decisions, underlining the importance and strategic use of information control within decision-making processes.
- Role of cognitions: Perceptions and beliefs significantly affect how information is valued and used in decision-making, showing how cognitive biases can overshadow the relevance of objective data.
- Managing external relations: The role-play underscores the complexities of managing relationships with external technology suppliers, who have vested interests that may not align with the company’s goals.
- Other issues: The exercise reveals various additional topics depending on context, such as team dynamics, ethics, and cultural influences, serving as an integrating tool within educational settings to address pertinent management and organisational behavior issues.
These dimensions can be explored flexibly as the exercise structure offers varying depths of engagement. It can be scaled from a brief two-hour session to an extended, semester-long project, accommodating various group sizes and experience levels.
The emerging issues highlighted by this exercise can also be directly the subject of assessment, providing a crucial bridge between experiential learning from the role-play, the change / technology / innovation management literature and students’ original critical thinking. We have argued elsewhere that such assessment is also reasonably robust against the current threats of Generative AI [5], and can provide a meaningful and stimulating opportunity for students to situate their learning in the context of (best) professional practice.
Reflecting on the exercise
Overall, such role-play exercises serve as a microcosm of real-world decision-making and can be an eye-opening experience to the complexities of its dynamics, which are often difficult to explain in rationalised and structured teaching. As facilitators, we have found that group size of six to nine provides just enough challenge in coalescing around a shared agreement that the issues of information sharing and power dynamics emerge, as described above. We also noted that such direct experience also makes participants (more) eager to discuss the underpinning phenomena in change management, be it through insightful discussions or as part of reflective writing and analysis. Finally, feedback from students indicates they notice increased ability to navigate complex interpersonal landscapes, a better understanding of what it really takes to be a ‘team player’, and how fragile collective cohesion is when diverging interests are at stake, whether in personal or workplace settings.
References
[1] E.g. see: Zhao, Y., Liu, T., Han, X., & Gui, H. (2024). Team Decision-making Interaction and Performance: A Behavioral Process-based Relationship Study. Small Group Research, 55(6), 919-952. https://doi-org.eux.idm.oclc.org/10.1177/10464964241265295
[2] E.g. see: Humpherys, S. L., Bakir, N., & Babb, J. (2021). Experiential learning to foster tacit knowledge through a role play, business simulation. Journal of Education for Business, 97(2), 119–125. https://doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2021.1896461
[3] See: Fleck, J. (1994), ‘Learning by trying: the implementation of configurational technology’, Research Policy, 23, 637-652.
[4] For more on ERMs and their history, see: Pollock, N., & Williams, R. (2009). Software and organisations : the biography of the enterprise-wide system or how SAP conquered the world. Routledge.
[5] See: Vidmar, M. (2024). Is ChatGPT spelling the end of take-home essays as a form of assessment? Teaching Matters blog. https://blogs.ed.ac.uk/teaching-matters/is-chatgpt-spelling-the-end-of-take-home-essays-as-a-form-of-assessment-part-1-the-principles/
Acknowledgements
This post is to precede a more comprehensive updated publication of this role-play exercise material, which was originally developed by James Fleck (University of Edinburgh), Harry Scarbrough and Jacky Swan (then at Warwick Business School) for the UK ESRC Innovation Training Materials Initiative of 1996, with special thanks to Peter Moles (the University of Edinburgh Business School) for helping with the financial statements. The ESRC Programme on Information and Communication Technology (PICT) supported previous research by James Fleck upon which the Role Play was based.
We are also grateful to Arthur Francis at Glasgow University, Andrew Friedman at Bristol University, and Sue Newell at Warwick University, and all their students, for piloting the original exercise and providing valuable refinements and improvements. Additional thanks go to many classes of students from the University of Edinburgh Business School (taught by Inger Seiferheld) and the College of Science and Engineering / School of Engineering for participating and suggesting improvements over the years; and groups from industry, including managers from the Rover Group, for taking part as Executive Education participants and providing practical business insights.
Matjaz Vidmar
Dr Matjaz Vidmar is Lecturer in Engineering Management at the University of Edinburgh and Deputy Director of Learning and Teaching overseeing the interdisciplinary courses at the School of Engineering. He is researching the collaborations within Open Engineering by bridging technical and social dimensions of innovation processes and (eco)systems as well as futures, strategies and design. In particular, he co-leads The New Real programme, a collaboration between the Edinburgh Futures Institute and Alan Turing Institute, experimenting with new AI experiences, practices, infrastructures, business models and R&D methodologies, including the flagship Open Prototyping. He is also the Deputy Director of the Institute for the Study of Science, Technology and Innovation and is involved in many international initiatives to develop the future of these fields, including several start-up companies and an extensive public engagement programme on interplay of STEM, arts, and futures literacy. More at www.blogs.ed.ac.uk/vidmar.
Jamie Fleck
James Fleck is currently Honorary Professor in Technology Development, Innovation and Enterprise at the University of Edinburgh Business School, and is Editor-in-Chief of the international journal, Technology Analysis & Strategic Management. He was formerly Director of the University of Edinburgh Management School, Dean of the Open University Faculty of Business and Law, and has carried out research on early AI, industrial robots, ICT and innovation more generally, holding many grants and providing consultancy to governments (the US OTA; Japanese MITI, and UK DTI) and business.
