At some point during an Outward Bound course (and in courses run by many similar groups), the students show that they have learned enough to run their own expedition - that they can keep each other physically and emotionally safe - and the instructors step back to let students take over. On the eve of this transition, I like to facilitate a discussion about how the group will make decisions now that the instructors aren't calling the shots. I have seen many groups that were outstanding during early course which then fell apart when the instructors stepped out! All because they had weak leadership or too many strong leaders and they fell to bickering. Anyone see a possible connection to survival situations yet?

We teach the students that there are three basic methods for group decision making: autocracy, democracy, and consensus. We don't teach that one method is always right, rather that each has its pros and cons and should be used appropriately.

Autocracy (dictatorship): One person is appointed to make a decision, and everyone goes along with what they decide.
+ Decisions are made quickly without a lot of debate
- The decision could be poor, some people will not like the decision and may not support it.
* Appropriate uses - autocracy can be very useful for situations where expediency is more important than details. In our groups, for example, we move camp every night. One person is delegated to scout each new camp, decide where tents will go, where to build the fire, etc. Unless they miss a significant safety issue (e.g., widow maker), why spend an hour every day debating these details?
* Autocracy might also be appropriate if one person is imminently more qualified to make that decision (e.g., medical expertise).

Democracy: The group votes and majority rules
+ More people are likely to be happy with the decision
+ Less chance of obvious mistakes
- The majority could still be wrong
- Some people (the minority) could still be unhappy with the decision and not very motivated to support the resulting plan
- Takes more time than Autocracy.
- The debate between alternatives A and B may obscure a choice C that never gets mentioned.
* Good middle of the road process, especially if the majority is respectful of minority rights.

Consensus: The group meets to discuss alternatives until they arrive at a compromise that everyone can support
+ The decision is more likely to be fully supported by the entire group (which may compensate for the longer decision-making process)
+ The discussion and resulting compromise might result in a better idea than either of the alternatives the group initially thought of.
+ Because alternatives are discussed until everyone agrees, one person with strong convictions has time to convince the group (and maybe they are right!)
- The most time consuming of the three processes.
- Louder voices may crowd out quieter (perhaps more knowledgeable ones) without good facilitation.
* Consensus is a useful process for decisions that do not need to be made quickly, especially when the decision will have profound impacts on the group's future.

"A taser gun CAN be your friend... "

...not in the hands of an RCMP 'death squad' in the vancouver airport.