Re: [Paddlewise] Group Dynamics, and NOT Leaving the Slower Behind.

Bruce brings up an interesting point that leaders often need to be only one 
person to be effective. The leader ought to be the person with the most 
experience and who is therefore likely to make the best judgements. If the 
non-leaders question the leaders judgment, they may do so out of ignorance 
and not necessarily good judgement of their own. This could delay the 
process significantly while the questioning non-leaders are explained the 
situation and convinced to follow the original proclamation. In some 
situations, this delay can have dramatic consequences. To avoid these 
dangerous situations (which you can never always predict), the only safe 
course of action is to never question the trip leader's judgment, as Bruce 
suggests. But... what if the leader's judgment was indeed incorrect? If 
people's lives are at stake, would you be willing to watch the leader make 
a bad decision?

This is a good opportunity for everyone who has ever led a trip to have a 
rousing, perhaps even inflammatory debate with themselves. First, imagine 
yourself as the trip leader. Would you want all the participants 
questioning your every decision? Probably not. You might tolerate it for a 
little bit if things are relatively low risk, but you would probably start 
thinking of ways to silence the skeptics through un-refutable logic, or 
failing that, trickery or even abdication. What are some ways you might 
accomplish this?

Okay, now imagine you are an experienced paddler, but another equally 
experienced paddler organized the trip and is thus the defacto leader. As 
the trip evolves, you realize that the trip leader is rather incompetent, 
but because you know what it is like to have unruly participants, you 
silence your criticism. As long as there are no serious consequences, there 
is no reason become a divisive force on the trip. But as soon consequences 
are serious and peoples live are at stake, do you remain silent and let 
people die? Probably not. This isn't the military. So there is some 
arbitrary line where you must start to question authority that contradicts 
your personal judgment. How do you define this line?

Does anyone have a concrete, black or white kind of answer to this problem? 
I certainly don't. But perhaps there is something that one can learn. There 
needs to be good communication between the leader and the participants. 
Even if a leader is extremely knowledgeable and competent, they can still 
make mistakes. A good leader will actively seek out the opinions of the 
other people in the trip, and perhaps even allow them to make non-life 
threatening decisions. By sharing the load, the participants will respect 
the leader and be more likely to listen without questioning if/when that 
serious situation arises. In the process, the leader will build the pathway 
for sharing of ideas that might be crucial to that leader making a good 
decision in the first place. Any leader that assumes they know everything 
better than the participants is not a leader at all in my book.

It takes time and experience as a leader to develop the ability to form 
rapport with the non-leader participants in the group. The person who is 
best at that skill should be chosen the leader of any group, provided they 
are competent at paddling in the area of the trip. If a leader doesn't know 
when not to be a leader, then they shouldn't be chosen to be a leader in 
the first place. How's that for a definitive, black and white statement?

Kevin




At 03:56 PM 7/17/00 -0400, you wrote:
>In a message dated 7/17/00 6:05:29 PM !!!First Boot!!!, jhawkins_at_cisco.com
>writes:
>
><< This is the point.  The leader, or the group consensus, need to select a
>series of regrouping points and they must be clear.  Generally you should
>have a leader at the front and a sweeper at the back.  >>
>
>  The point that I am seeing is that their needs to be a leader.  Leader and
>group consensus are not interchangeable.
>   One dynamic that I have witnessed in several training courses filled with
>professional outdoor leaders (Outward Bound Trainers, Raft Guides, WW Kayak
>Guides, etc.) is that the expressions "too many cooks spoil the stew" or "a
>snake can have only one head" prove themselves repeatedly.  I have seen
>committee decision making in emergency situations fail more often than not.
>Emergency suggests urgency.  This is when "one head" pays off.
>   A committee may plan the trip and select the route, but, they need to
>select a leader and stand behind the decisions of that leader once the
>adventure begins.  If a group chooses a leader or an individual accepts
>leadership with the attitude, " if it doesn't work out, we can change," then,
>the wrong choice has been made.  Being a leader is more than being first in
>line, it is accepting responsibility for your group.  For their health and
>welfare and the way that they treat the environment that you are traveling
>through.
>   If you split into two groups, you need two leaders.
>
>   Just my $. 02,
>   Bruce McC
>   WEO
>
>
>***************************************************************************
>PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - All postings copyright the author and not
>to be reproduced/forwarded outside PaddleWise without author's permission
>Submissions:     PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net
>Subscriptions:   PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net
>Website:         http://www.paddlewise.net/
>***************************************************************************


Kevin Whilden
Your Planet Earth
http://www.yourplanetearth.org
(206) 788-0281 (ph)
(206) 788-0284 (f)

***************************************************************************
PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - All postings copyright the author and not
to be reproduced/forwarded outside PaddleWise without author's permission
Submissions:     PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net
Subscriptions:   PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net
Website:         http://www.paddlewise.net/
***************************************************************************