Wilderness Drum > Wilderness Writings > Team Building

Team Building in the Wilderness
Walks Slowly

Introduction
Campfires
Conflicts
Confrontation
Cooking
Council
Darkness
Decisionmaking
Development
Drumming
Followership
Leadership
Meetings
Stress
Trust
Wilderness Ethics

Conflicts

Even if a wilderness team is made up of old friends, there will inevitably be conflict. In a corporate team, unconstrained conflict can be disruptive; in the wilderness, it can be fatal. We can distinguish two basic types of conflict in a wilderness team – what we can call decisional conflicts, where there is disagreement about what the group should do; and interpersonal conflicts, where two members of the group have such difficulty getting along that group processes are disrupted.

Decisional Conflicts

Here is an example. A forest fire breaks out in the Daniel Boone National Forest. A wilderness hiking group, camped on top of a ridge, can see the smoke and flames approaching their position. They are studying the map to determine the best way to get down into a valley, skirt the fire, and make it back to the trailhead. One of the group members starts to shout, “We’ve got to get out of here! We’ve got to move,” and starts putting on her backpack. Other members of the group say they are going as fast as they can, that they have to make a good decision about the best way to go, but the one group member starts off down the slope by herself. How does the group handle this conflict?

Here is a less dramatic example. A group is hiking on a ridge when the clouds signal that a thunderstorm may be moving in; but thunderstorms in this area are unpredictable, and often veer off in unexpected directions. The group has to decide whether to push on to the campsite they had picked for that night, despite the chance of a thunderstorm; or stop and wait where they are to see what weather develops; or find a sheltered spot and set up camp for the night. One group member believes strongly that to stop is to be a quitter; other group members are perfectly content to break early and set up camp. But even here it is important to note that the decision is not free of serious consequence. The group does not want to be caught on an exposed ridge when there is lightning. How does the group handle this conflict?

A number of processes have been proposed for resolving such conflicts (see, for example, in the context of business team development, Scholtes, Joiner, & Streibel, 2000, pp. 7-1 to 7-24; in the wilderness context, Drury & Bonney, 1992, p. 53; Graham, 1997, pp. 122-135). Bolton makes a helpful distinction between the emotional and substantive aspects of a conflict (1979, p. 217), and proposes a two-step approach – first, dealing with the emotions; then, second, collaboratively seeking an elegant solution. Dealing with the emotions can use any of the interpersonal conflict resolution methods we discuss here, such as confrontation, dyadic council, or talking staff. Bolton condenses the principles into three – treat the other person with respect; listen until you experience the other side; and state your views, needs, and feelings (pp. 218-231). He then gives the six steps of the collaborative problem-solving method (pp. 239-251; see also the similar discussion in Graham, 1997, pp. 130-132):

Define the problem in terms of needs, not solutions The classic example here is two people arguing over who will get to use the car, when the problem is how both will get to their appointments on time. This step requires that both participants be able to assert their needs and listen reflectively to the needs of the other. One may want the window open and one want it shut. But if the first can articulate a need for fresh air and the second a need to avoid a draft, the problem has been set up for both to meet their needs.
Brainstorm possible solutions Once the problem has been properly defined, the search for solutions can begin. In brainstorming the goal is quantity, not quality. Seasoned brainstormers recognize that most of the ideas generated will be excluded in later stages of the process. Right now they are after high volume. Guidelines for brainstorming include: Don’t evaluate or criticize. Don’t clarify or seek clarification. Go for zany ideas. Expand on each other’s ideas. List every idea (Bolton, 1979, pp. 243-245; Scholtes, Joiner, & Streibel, 2000). The participants must avoid solution rigidity, or the attitude that there is only one adequate solution to the conflict (p. 4-14). When the floodgates open, it is remarkable how many elegant and ingenious solutions appear.
Select the solutions that will best meet both parties' needs and check possible consequences When potential solutions have been generated by brainstorming, each participant can select those that seem the best. Frequently the choices will coincide. Sometimes it may require further discussion to select the most workable solution; but note that the problem solving has now become collaborative rather than hostile. When both have selected the same solution as best meeting their individual needs, they have achieved consensus.
Plan who will do what, where, and by when Now the participants can work together on the details of the proposed solution. It may be a good idea to write down the solution, in order to avoid conflicting memories and interpretations later. An action plan can be jointly developed, and tasks can be assigned.
Implement the plan Each participant fulfills the tasks assigned. Where tasks are not completed, the participants can review the agreement they reached. Constructive confrontation may be appropriate.
Evaluate the problem-solving process and, at a later date, how well the solution turned out It can be useful for the participants to discuss the process of collaborative problem solving – what worked and what did not, what could have been done better, what each one liked and did not like. Also, at a later time, the participants need to check the working of the action plan, and make adjustments as necessary. The participants – in fact, the entire team – can celebrate having worked through a difficult situation with success.

There are several ways in which a decisional confrontation should not be resolved. Bolton lists five – denial, avoidance, capitulation, domination, and compromise (1979, pp. 233-238). Scholtes, Joiner & Streibel give a similar list of inadequate conflict resolution strategies – avoiding, smoothing, forcing, and compromising (2000, pp. 7-4 to 7-5).

Interpersonal Conflicts

Sometimes two people just do not get along, or have unresolved issues that create tension between them. Of course, they can be encouraged to use with each other the same sort of conflict-resolution techniques discussed above for decisional conflicts. Sometimes this works; frequently, however, some more formal conflict resolution technique must be brokered by the team as a whole. In this way, the antagonists can be brought to realize that their conflict has systemic consequences – that the team has a stake in resolving their dispute.

One way of handling such interpersonal conflict is with a dyadic council, one of a number of variations on the basic council format. In this type of council, the only council speakers are the two antagonists, and the rest of the group function as witnesses. The role of the witnesses is to observe and, if called upon, comment on the process, not to comment on the content, which remains solely between the two council speakers. All the council rules apply. The antagonists listen and speak from their hearts, spontaneously and concisely – including the preference for I rather than you statements.

Another technique to handle interpersonal conflict is sometimes called the clearing staff. This is very much like a dyadic council, but more structured – indeed, structured very much like constructive feedback. One of the two persons in conflict calls for a clearing, plants a staff upright in the ground, and announces to the group the intention of dealing with the interpersonal issue. The staff may be a plain piece of wood or may be carved or decorated in any way that seems appropriate; it may be kept ready for use at the campsite, or might be made especially for the occasion by the speaker. The staff itself is symbolic of the serious nature of the proceedings, and sets the actions off from other, more ordinary activities. The clearing itself has six parts, and the speaker clearly sets out before the group the following:

Intention The speaker announces the intention of clearing things with the other person.
Data The speaker sets forth the specific actions and behaviors that manifest the interpersonal conflict.
Judgment The speaker then asserts a judgment about the actions of the other person – for example, that they are disruptive, or intrusive, or intentional, or careless.
Feelings The speaker articulates the emotional response to the specific behaviors – anger, annoyance, hurt, fear.
Associations The speaker reveals the personal meanings of the behavior – for example, that the other is behaving just as the speaker's father did, or that the speaker remembers being treated the same way in high school.
Requests The speaker addresses the other person or the group with specific requests for changes in behavior.

Then the other person has a chance to stand with the clearing staff and address the group in the same format. Again, variations are possible, especially if the group has become accustomed to the use of a particular constructive feedback formula.

References

Bolton, R. (1979). People skills. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Drury, J., & Bonney, B. (1992). The backcountry classroom: Lesson plans for teaching in the wilderness. Old Saybrook, CT: Globe Pequot.

Scholtes, P., Joiner, B., & Streibel, B. (2000). The team handbook (2nd ed.). Madison, WI: Oriel.

Graham, J. (1997). Outdoor leadership: Technique, common sense & self-confidence. Seattle, WA: The Mountaineers.

< Previous Next >

Back to the top
Return to Writings Page