Multiplier Effect in Groups (Group Dynamics)

[Zaner01]

Those with skills tend to stick together and treat the skill-less with disdain. The skill-less resent their situation and often stop listening or get distracted.

This is one of the reasons I referred to the series Survive This -- that tendency is very much on display. The kids with skills band together and ignore the kids without them; the kids without skills tend to slack off.

Another thing that happened was that the kids with skills got into a rut of doing certain things, often taking easy jobs like gathering firewood and delegating more difficult tasks -- and then complaining when the kids lacking skills failed at the more difficult tasks.

The most important thing you can do to win trust, if you have skills, is to help people out. This didn't happen.

 

[Watchful]

Another thing that happened was that the kids with skills got into a rut of doing certain things, often taking easy jobs like gathering firewood and delegating more difficult tasks -- and then complaining when the kids lacking skills failed at the more difficult tasks.

Bullseye: that's what I was trying to describe about how the skilled folks can start to dump on the skill-less. If we expect better from the skilled folks, we can be easily disappointed.

Yeah, you can hate or despise or even merely roll your eyes at the skill-less for not knowing what we all know. But the facts are:

1. They didn't *choose* to be in the survival situation. You didn't either.
2. You're stuck with them, so get over yourselves.
3. Teach them an easy skill that helps the group somehow, but don't "teach them a lesson" or the whole group suffers.

Nice example, Zaner!

 

[Ravaillac]

Interesting and vast subject. Haven't much time, will try to developp a single idea.

I'd say group "chain of command" is about three competences:
* technical skills (of any nature- campcraft, orientering...)
* decision skill (tactics, strategy...)
* leadership skills (leading people)

Exemple of competences, say SAR expedition trying to find track a group of lost hikers. Say the lost hikers have separated in many groups.
* The expedition "technical expert" (tracker) might be the only one capable of aknowledging the group as separated but he might have no idea about what to do about it (follow one particular track, create two search parties...)
* The expedition "strategist" might be the only one capable to make the right decision about how to organize research but he needs right input from tracker and may not be capable of leading the group into his plan
* the expedition "leader" might be the only one with the "people skills' for motivating the group and giving clear directions but he probably can't read the tracks and may have no clue about what to do with intel.

For decision to work out correctly you need all those 3 steps. Failure in any of those might cause failure of the whole action.

 

[Raisedby wolves]

It's all about "The lord of the flies"

Isn't it.

 

[Mistwalker]

Good thread Kev. I have had a lot of experience in the past where I worked in a team environment where everyone had to work together to get the job done, there is always a "weeding" process when creating a team. However most of my time in the woods has been spent either with dates and I was, at least at first, the only one who really knew what to expect and what to do or I was out there alone. It's not so much that I prefer to be alone...ok yes I do, but anyway... I do a lot of wildlife watching and photography and conversations aren't conducive to getting close to wildlife. Only recently have I begun "operating" in a group environment working with young adults. I have found that I do much better with groups when I go into it not expecting them to act like mature adults but group dynamics is still a subject of interest for me. Thanks for the post, it gives me food for thought.