PaddleWise by thread

From: Rob MacDonald <robm_at_udl.com>
subject: [Paddlewise] Group Dynamics, and Leaving the Slower Behind.
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 17:14:28 -0700
As a hiker and paddler, and having been involved with Scouting for a looong
time, splitting up the group has always been an issue.

Going no faster than the slowest member is difficult, if not impossible.  It
detracts greatly from the enjoyment of the faster members, and not being
able to establish ones' natural speed and rhythm actually seems to make the
hike or paddle more tiring, not less.  Having the fast ones pestering the
slow to speed up doesn't make for a pleasant trip, either.  

Teaching and tuning as you go helps a lot.  Is that kid at the back so slow
because he is slow, or because his boots hurt his feet?  Is he afraid to sit
closer to the side of the canoe, so his paddle is hardly able to dip in the
water?  I have spent hours tuning packs and boots and strokes, and showing
simple little tricks and hints that make things easier.  Being on the small
side myself, I have noticed that my personal methods, whether it be hiking
or paddling, work well for young folk and women. I have learned to keep up
with the big guys, but not by doing things their way! 

But when all is said and done, there will still be the fast and the slow.
The best compromise I have found is what I call the half hour rule. Every
half hour, the bunch at the front stop and wait for the rest.  Depending on
conditions, (bad weather, rough terrain, etc.) this could be reduced to 10
or 15 minutes or nothing at all.  It is also a good idea to set clear
landmarks as designated stopping points, when situations such a Ralph's
shipping lane crossing come up.  

It is the group leader's responsibility to set these conditions at the
beginning of the trip.  If there is no group leader as such, then someone
should suggest it, and get the consensus of the group.  Those who do not
wish to abide by this practice can do as they wish, as long as they realize
the rest of the group doesn't feel any more responsible for them than they
do for the rest of the group.  

This isn't perfect, but it seems to work.

It also seems to allow for natural group dynamics.  It is natural for a
large group to split into a smaller "pods" of 2 - 5, partly because it is
hard to carry on a conversation with more than this.  There just isn't room
in the vicinity to get more into earshot! 


Rob.

***************************************************************************
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/
***************************************************************************
From: Jerry Hawkins <jhawkins_at_cisco.com>
subject: Re: [Paddlewise] Group Dynamics, and NOT Leaving the Slower Behind.
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 10:45:12 -0700
At 05:14 PM 07/13/2000 -0700, Rob MacDonald wrote:
>As a hiker and paddler, and having been involved with Scouting for a looong
>time, splitting up the group has always been an issue.

>...  It is also a good idea to set clear
>landmarks as designated stopping points ...
>It is the group leader's responsibility to set these conditions at the
>beginning of the trip.  ...
>Rob.

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.  They can easily be reversed to be a scout at the front and the leader, sweeping ... so long as the front group knows where to stop, and there isn't any possibility of anyone being abandoned or forgotten.  Lewis and Clark used this method, often splitting into 2 or 3 groups separated by up to a few hundred miles and never lost anyone, without electronics.

When the instructions are clear, and the group has confidence in each other, the fast group can dash off and explore additional areas, returning to the meeting point at the appointed time.  Set the regrouping points every hour for a distance the slower paddlers can do in 45 minutes, and most likely the fast people will have at least 1/2 hour to explore a mile off the path and back.  Trying to make the rabbits sit and wait is futile and boring.  

jerry.

***************************************************************************
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/
***************************************************************************
From: <Outfit3029_at_aol.com>
subject: Re: [Paddlewise] Group Dynamics, and NOT Leaving the Slower Behind.
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 15:56:03 EDT
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/
***************************************************************************
From: Rob Cookson <rob_cookson_at_mindspring.com>
subject: RE: [Paddlewise] Group Dynamics, and NOT Leaving the Slower Behind.
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 13:27:39 -0700
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-paddlewise_at_paddlewise.net
> [mailto:owner-paddlewise_at_paddlewise.net]On Behalf Of Outfit3029_at_aol.com
> Sent: Monday, July 17, 2000 12:56 PM
> To: jhawkins_at_cisco.com; robm_at_udl.com; PaddleWise_at_lists.intelenet.net
> Subject: Re: [Paddlewise] Group Dynamics, and NOT Leaving the Slower
> Behind.

>  The point that I am seeing is that their needs to be a leader.
> Leader and
> group consensus are not interchangeable


Having been in emergency situations as a guide I will tell you that I never
asked for a vote before making decisions.  In non emergency situations I
value the input of other guides, but when the s*_at_t is hitting the fan there
is no time for a committee.

After the situation there is plenty of time to second guess your decisions
to see if something could be done better the next time around.

Cheers,

--
Rob Cookson
"I like a little rebellion now and then. It is like a storm in the
Atmosphere." Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Abigail Adams, February 22,
1787.



***************************************************************************
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/
***************************************************************************
From: Kevin Whilden <kevin_at_yourplanetearth.org>
subject: Re: [Paddlewise] Group Dynamics, and NOT Leaving the Slower Behind.
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 21:00:34 -0700
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/
***************************************************************************
From: <Outfit3029_at_aol.com>
subject: Re: [Paddlewise] Group Dynamics, and NOT Leaving the Slower Behind.
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 19:07:56 EDT
In a message dated 7/17/00 8:26:52 PM !!!First Boot!!!, 
rob_cookson_at_mindspring.com writes:

<< Having been in emergency situations as a guide I will tell you that I never
 asked for a vote before making decisions.  In non emergency situations I
 value the input of other guides, but when the s*_at_t is hitting the fan there
 is no time for a committee >>

  Agreed.  If you are being paid to lead, participants are paying to follow.
  I believe that in an unpaid situation (ex. club trip or loose group) there 
still needs to be a leader.
  

   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/
***************************************************************************

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thu Aug 21 2025 - 16:33:15 PDT