What it measures, and how it maps to your framework
Six competencies, each observed from what the team did, not from what people remember doing. Below, each one is placed against the frameworks HR and L&D teams use, with the research the game is built on.
6competencies observed
5frameworks mapped
1short self-report pulse
Neverfor selection or appraisal
01
Learning objectives
By the end of the session, participants will be able to:
1
Understand: Explain how a fact that only one person holds changes a team decision, and what it costs when that fact arrives late.
2
Apply: Use questions to draw out information that teammates hold but have not shared.
3
Analyze: Identify what made it easy or hard to speak up about a risk, a symptom or a disagreement during the climb.
4
Analyze: Distinguish personal goals from the team goal, and point out where the two were in conflict.
5
Evaluate: Judge the quality of the team's decisions under incomplete information, competing goals and limited time, including whether it kept the rules it had agreed.
6
Create: Plan one specific change in how the team shares information, asks questions and makes decisions at work.
The objectives follow Bloom's revised taxonomy. Each one starts with an observable verb, and they rise from Understand to Create.
02
The six competencies
For each one: what it means in the game, what the game records about it, and where it sits in the frameworks. The framework numbers are the frameworks' own.
1
Sharing information early
Putting what you know on the table before the decision, not after it. In the game each role holds facts nobody else has; the team only decides well when they reach the board in time.
Observed by the game
Key facts put on the team board, and how long after they arrived
Facts that were on the board when each decision was made
SHL Universal Competency Framework2.2 Adhering to Principles and Values · 3.2 Persuading and Influencing
SHRM BASKEthical Practice · Leadership & Navigation
CIPD Profession MapProfessional courage and influence
4
Deciding under uncertainty and pressure
Choosing with incomplete information, a clock running and a summit in sight. Four decisions in the game have a best answer that the facts on the board point to; one has no right answer at all.
Observed by the game
Each decision against the best answer the board allowed
Whether the leader chose with or against the facts the team had put up
Time taken to decide, and whether the team used it
World Economic Forum, Future of Jobs 2025Analytical thinking · Resilience, flexibility and agility
5
Putting the team goal first
Each role has private goals worth points. Some pull against the team's one goal: everyone home safe. The game shows whether people said so, and what they gave up.
Observed by the game
Who gave up the summit to take a sick teammate down
SHL Universal Competency Framework6.3 Following Instructions and Procedures · 7.2 Coping with Pressures and Setbacks
SHRM BASKEthical Practice
CIPD Profession MapEthical practice · Situational decision-making
03
The frameworks
Korn Ferry Leadership Architect
38 competencies in four factors (Thought, Results, People, Self). The numbers above follow Korn Ferry's standard order. Source.
SHL Universal Competency Framework
Eight factors, 20 competencies and 96 skills. The numbers above are SHL's own. Source.
SHRM Body of Applied Skills and Knowledge
Eight behavioral competencies in three clusters, 2026 edition. Source.
CIPD Profession Map
Eight core behaviours for people professionals. Source.
World Economic Forum, Future of Jobs Report 2025
The core skills employers say they need most. Source.
DDI leadership competencies
DDI publishes its library to clients, not on a public page. The game aligns with DDI-style competencies such as building partnerships, decision making and courage; map them with your DDI partner. Source.
The mappings on this page are indicative alignments chosen by Learning Everest. Korn Ferry, SHL, SHRM, CIPD, DDI and the World Economic Forum have not reviewed or endorsed them. Framework names are the trademarks of their owners. If your organization uses its own leadership framework, the facilitator maps the six competencies to it in the briefing.
04
What the game is, and is not
A developmental simulation
Leading Everest is for learning and development only. Nothing in it is meant for appraisal, selection or any other decision about a person. It is not a psychometric test and has not been validated for selection, promotion or appraisal. Its results must not be used for any employment decision.
Observation, not rating
Most of what the debrief shows is logged behavior: facts put on the board, questions asked, concerns raised, the leader's choices, who went down with whom. The end pulse is self-report. Neither is a trait score.
One session, one snapshot
The game shows how a team behaved in one climb. It is an input to a conversation, not an assessment of an individual. Individual ratings need several exercises and trained assessors, which this is not.
What it sees
The game sees the team board and the buttons. It cannot hear the call. A fact said aloud but never shared is counted as never shared, and the facilitator knows to ask about it.
Who sees the debrief
The team, and the facilitator. The host chooses whether names, roles only or nobody is shown. Each player's pulse answers are private to them; the team sees only the average. Data is deleted after 30 days. How data is handled.
Levels of evidence
Reaction and learning are measured in the session. Behavior back at work needs a follow-up: the 30-day reminder and each player's written commitment are offered for that, and are not claimed as proof.
05
The research it is built on
Unshared information in group decisions
Every role holds facts the others do not have. The team board records which of them reached the team, and when.
Stasser, G. and Titus, W. (1985). Pooling of unshared information in group decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48(6), 1467 to 1478.
Lu, L., Yuan, Y. C. and McLeod, P. L. (2012). Twenty-five years of hidden profiles in group decision making: a meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 16(1), 54 to 75.
Psychological safety and speaking up
The symptom cards, the old condition and the concern button test whether the team makes it easy to say a hard thing. The end pulse asks each player how it felt.
Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350 to 383.
Edmondson, A. C. (2018). The Fearless Organization. Wiley.
Google re:Work (2016). Project Aristotle: what makes a team effective.
Teaming and learning in teams
Six strangers with different jobs have to become a team in a day. The debrief asks what they learned about each other and when.
Edmondson, A. C. (2012). Teaming: How Organizations Learn, Innovate, and Compete in the Knowledge Economy. Jossey-Bass.
Everest 1996: goal conflict, bias and system complexity
Private goals that pull against the team, a client who has paid a lot to be there, and a summit that is close: the conditions those papers describe are the conditions of the game.
Roberto, M. A. (2002). Lessons from Everest: the interaction of cognitive bias, psychological safety, and system complexity. California Management Review, 45(1), 136 to 158.
Kayes, D. C. (2004). The 1996 Mount Everest climbing disaster: the breakdown of learning in teams. Human Relations, 57(10), 1263 to 1284.
Commitment and escalation
The turnaround time is a commitment device set in calm conditions. The game records whether it held.
Bryan, G., Karlan, D. and Nelson, S. (2010). Commitment devices. Annual Review of Economics, 2, 671 to 698.
Staw, B. M. (1976). Knee-deep in the big muddy: a study of escalating commitment to a chosen course of action. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16(1), 27 to 44.
Evaluating the learning
Level 1 and Level 2 are measured in the session: the feedback box and the pulse, and the debrief itself. Level 3 needs a follow-up at work; the 30-day reminder and the commitment each player writes are the start of it, not proof of it.
Kirkpatrick Partners. The Kirkpatrick Model: Reaction, Learning, Behavior, Results.
A leadership and team decision simulation from Learning Everest.Played on Global HR World · games.globalhrworld.com
