Group survival
15/Jan/2007 21:11
We did one of
those survival exercises that are fairly common in
leadership development programs. Here's the scenario:
It is early October and we (the class) are passengers
on a small float plane that crashes in the subarctic.
The pilot was killed but the rest of us are not
injured. The plane drifts into deep water and sinks.
It is 2:30 p.m. We are approximately 35 air
kilometers from Schefferville, our destination. We
were expected to return to Schefferville from
northwestern Labrador no later than October 19. We
are all warmly clothed but we are wet from the waist
down. Collectively we have some money (bills and
coins), a pocket knife, one stub lead pencil, and an
air map. We were able to salvage 15 additional items
from the plane before it sank. The challenge is to
decide the relative importance of each of these 15
items.
The first
part of the assignment was to rank the 15 items
individually starting with the most important. Our
class then divided into smaller groups, each made up
of about 6 people. Each group had to come up with a
team ranking. We were then given an expert's ranking
so that we could evaluate our individual and team
performances.
This kind of survival exercise always proves to be interesting and engaging even if you have done it before. The idea is to come up with a survival strategy and then decide which tools (or tactics) would be most helpful in advancing that strategy.
Interestingly, my group spent very little time discussing the strategy and jumped immediately to the task of ranking the items. We did this by comparing individual scores and discussing the thinking behind these individual assessments with a view to reaching group consensus. Because this was a time-limited exercise, we moved quickly to decisions. Whenever anyone spoke authoritatively, the others in the group assumed that person was an expert. At no point did we do a go-around to see if anybody in the group actually had knowledge of northern Canada or survival know-how.
Our group would be dead if the situation had been real. We assumed, wrongly, that our best chance of survival was to make our way to Schefferville rather than stay put. A losing strategy, as it turns out. Not surprisingly, our ranking of items was way off as a result.
When asked to compare individual to team scores, almost everyone in the class reported they scored worse as individuals. The lesson: groups do better than individuals. The most successful groups are those that figure out how to build on the strengths and expertise of every individual on the team to find a winning strategy.
This kind of survival exercise always proves to be interesting and engaging even if you have done it before. The idea is to come up with a survival strategy and then decide which tools (or tactics) would be most helpful in advancing that strategy.
Interestingly, my group spent very little time discussing the strategy and jumped immediately to the task of ranking the items. We did this by comparing individual scores and discussing the thinking behind these individual assessments with a view to reaching group consensus. Because this was a time-limited exercise, we moved quickly to decisions. Whenever anyone spoke authoritatively, the others in the group assumed that person was an expert. At no point did we do a go-around to see if anybody in the group actually had knowledge of northern Canada or survival know-how.
Our group would be dead if the situation had been real. We assumed, wrongly, that our best chance of survival was to make our way to Schefferville rather than stay put. A losing strategy, as it turns out. Not surprisingly, our ranking of items was way off as a result.
When asked to compare individual to team scores, almost everyone in the class reported they scored worse as individuals. The lesson: groups do better than individuals. The most successful groups are those that figure out how to build on the strengths and expertise of every individual on the team to find a winning strategy.
|