 | | | | | | | |||||||||||||
 | |||||||||||||||||||
 | |||||||||||||||||||
 | |||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
|  | |||
Copyright 2002 Team Building in the Wilderness
Introduction A team, according to Osborn & Southern, is “an independent, cooperative working unit that exists to accomplish a result. . . . A group qualifies as a team only if its members are actively involved in helping one another to achieve a shared mission” (2001, p. 3). According to SOLO’s Outdoor Wilderness Leadership School, four factors hold a wilderness group together – participation, responsibility, trust, and confrontation. A wilderness group that lacks these four factors – which is not a team – has a low probability of accomplishing its goals, or even of surviving in the face of sudden adverse circumstances. Turning a wilderness group into a wilderness team is not only educational and therapeutic; it can be a survival necessity. No short handbook can address all the issues of wilderness team development and group cohesion. Think, for example, of the widely differing dynamics of just three types of groups one might find in the wilderness – a group of friends, experienced in backpacking, going out for a week-long hike together; a group of adjudicated youth reluctantly participating in a month-long wilderness experience as an alternative to incarceration; and a group of paying clients, strangers to each other, on a guided canoe trip to a wilderness fishing area. A similar distinction is drawn in Priest & Gass among recreational, educational, developmental, and therapeutic programs in the wilderness (1997, pp. 23-24). Still, there is no denying both the interest and importance of team development in the wilderness. According to Gass (1993, p. 8), for example, the use of small-group development in adventure activities is a critical factor for behavioral change. Individual desires must be met, he writes, but they must be accomplished within the needs of the group. A true systemic perspective is taken as group members struggle with individual and group needs. Clearly, effective wilderness teams share characteristics with successful teams in the business and corporate setting. A successful wilderness team has clear goals, clear communications, well-defined decisionmaking procedures, balanced participation, accepted ground rules, and an awareness of the group process (Scholtes, Joiner, & Streibel, 2000, p. 6-10). Indeed, an important feature of the wilderness is that its problems offer real consequences. Success or failure is readily apparent, and feedback is immediate. Because the outcomes are consequential, the individual and the group learn to assume responsibility for their actions and choices (Kimball & Bacon, 1993, p. 21). References Gass, M. (1993). Foundations of adventure therapy. In Gass, M. (Ed.), Adventure therapy: Therapeutic applications of adventure programming (pp. 3-10). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt. Kimball, R., & Bacon, S. (1993). The wilderness challenge model. In Gass, M. (Ed.), Adventure therapy: Therapeutic applications of adventure programming (pp. 11-41). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt. Osborn, S., & Southern, N. (2001). Team building. (Available from Saybrook Graduate School and Research Center, 450 Pacific Street, San Francisco, CA 94107) Priest, S., & Gass, M. (1997). Effective leadership in adventure programming. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Scholtes, P., Joiner, B., & Streibel, B. (2000). The team handbook (2nd ed.). Madison, WI: Oriel. < Previous Next > | ||||
Back to the top
      
| ||||
