 | | | | | | | |||||||||||||
 | |||||||||||||||||||
 | |||||||||||||||||||
 | |||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
|  | | |||
Copyright 2002 Team Building in the Wilderness
Decisionmaking Just as there are a variety of leadership styles, there are also a variety of what we may call decisionmaking styles, ranging from closed to open. With a closed decisionmaking style, the team does not know – or has to guess – why the decisionmaker made the particular decision; with an open style, the reasons for the decision are articulated sufficiently that the team, whether agreeing with the decision or not, at least knows why it was made. Sometimes, in emergencies, autocratic decisions have to be made quickly and with little explanation. When a team member falls into a crevasse, immediate action is required. An impending avalanche, a sudden thunderstorm, an overturned raft, or a tent on fire preclude extended discussion. However, apart from such sudden emergencies, there are benefits to an open decisionmaking style, even when the leadership style is – or has to be, under the circumstances – more or less autocratic. An open decisionmaking style, I think, has two features, which we can call consultation and transparency. A consulting decisionmaker actively seeks input. It is worth emphasizing that everyone has some expertise in something. A team member may, for example, be particularly committed to the principles of leave-no-trace camping. An open decisionmaker can utilize that expertise in selecting a proper campsite, allowing the team member to contribute an environmental impact statement to the choice of alternate locations. I have hiked and camped with people who knew the most remarkable things – geology, botany, meteorology, astronomy, zoology, hunting, trapping, massage therapy. An open decisionmaker values such consultation. Indeed, consultation is a way of defusing conflict. Siebert, discussing ways of dealing with negative, pessimistic people, recommends making them into a resource, antidotes to groupthink (1996, p. 121; on groupthink generally, see Scholtes, Joiner, & Streibel, 2000, p. 7-3). If a wilderness team has a member who is always predicting the worst, always prophesying failure, then the leader can make that person a consultant on unforeseen difficulties – "It is really helpful when you tell us about problems we've overlooked. What could go wrong with this plan?" If nothing else, team members can certainly be acknowledged as experts on themselves, and input can be solicited on that basis as well – for example, "We have a choice of setting up camp here, and having only the water we have carried, or gaining a thousand feet in altitude to reach a campsite by a spring-fed creek. John, you tend to get pretty tired by this time of day. What's your input?" Not only is all such input useful for the decisionmaking process, but it lets team members feel valued, and thus enhances cohesion. A transparent decisionmaker is one who articulates the reasons for the decision that is made – for example, "I have decided we should camp here. I think we have enough water for tonight, some of us are getting too tired to climb much farther, and I am a little concerned about those dark clouds to the west. I would hate to get caught out on that ridge in a thunderstorm with dark coming on." There are several advantages to transparent decisionmaking, even when the decision is made autocratically. It is hard to view a transparent decision as having been made arbitrarily or capriciously, since the factors influencing the decision are laid before the group. Similarly, team members can accept the decision as reasonable even while preferring a different result. References Siebert, A. (1996). The survivor personality. New York, NY: Perigee. Scholtes, P., Joiner, B., & Streibel, B. (2000). The team handbook (2nd ed.). Madison, WI: Oriel. | |||||
Back to the top
      
| |||||
