On a my recent trip to Snowdonia we encountered some challenging weather conditions (strong winds and cold conditions), as one of two group leaders we decided to carry on up onto the top of the Glyders. This was a questionable decision as conditions were bad and going up into them could of been avoided, we could of decided to go back down to lower more sheltered ground to practice low level micro navigation. This may of benefited the group more, as they would would have been in a better environment and state of arousal to learn new skills.

This relates to the Adventure Experience Paradigm by Priest and Gass (1997) their theory suggests that when people go out on an adventure experience they can go through 5 stages in depending on the amount of risk encountered combined with the amount of competence they have. Stage 1 exploration and experimentation, 2 adventure, 3 peak adventure, 4 misadventure and 5 devastation and disaster. They state that to get the most of the situation and be at a peak level of learning a person must be in a stage of peak adventure. Here is the model that Priest and Gass created.

                                             Priest and Gass (1997)

Before we hit the bad weather some group members were already at a state of peak adventure, this meant that when we hit the bad weather it pushed some members to reach a state of misadventure. As I had more competence I could deal with the higher level of risk putting myself in a state of peak adventure, therfore pushing me into the peak level of learning, and having to take a pro-active leadership role to navigate the group out of bad weather. To make sure the group didn't become to cold and exhausted then becoming pushed into a state of devastation and disaster, we decided to find a more sheltered place to get the bothy out so the group could get something to eat, warm up and prepare themselves for the next leg of the trip before dropping back down into sheltered ground. This brought the members that were in a state of misadventure back into peak adventure, and hopefully they learned about methods to warm up and shelter on the mountains using equipment they can carry. This relates to Senninger (2000) he stated that to learn you have to be taken out of your comfort zone, but not pushed into your panic zone.

 

Senninger (2000)

On the mountain in the bad weather the group were pushed out of their comfort zone into their learning zone (some of the group may of been pushed to far into the panic zone) then they learned how to shelter and keep warm on the mountain bringing them back into comfort zone, to then be pushed back into their learning zone/ peak adventure when we got out the bothy into the bad weather to navigate and find the route back down to sheltered ground.

Through being pushed into my my peak adventure/ learning zone I tested my abilities to lead a group and navigate through bad weather conditions. I learned that just because we had a set route to do,  we didn't necessarily need to carry on the planned route if we think the conditions are to bad and don't think the group will benefit enough.

Reference
Senninger. (2000, cited in ThemPra, ca 2008) The Learning Zone Model. [Online] Available at: http://social-pedagogy.co.uk/concepts_lzm.htm [Accessed: 8.12.11]

 

Priest and Gass (1997, cited in Neill, 2007) The Adventure Experience Paradigm. [Online] Available at: http://wilderdom.com/philosophy/PriestAdventureExperienceParadigm.html [Accessed: 8.12.11]

To be marked

Critically analysing my leadership experiences using theories

Moorhead and Griffin (1998) defined leadership as “the use of noncoersive influence to direct and coordinate the activities of group members to meet a goal”. Overall I think that my leadership experience in Snowdonia was a good one, and I feel that myself and the other group leader made some good decisions when we needed to. However there is always room for improvement so using various theories I am going to analyse my experiences.

Chelladurai (1993) said that leadership requires decision making, however if the factors allow it is possible to let group members do some of the decision making. I agree with this as I think it is important to let the group explore and make decisions to aid their learning, especially as they will be leading next year. I feel that on one of the days we didn't give the group enough chance to do the decision making when we could of done. Chelladurai gives 6 factors in which decision making can be shared between leaders or group depending on the situation:

• Time pressure: decisions that need to be made quickly will be made by the leader, if time allows the group can be given the decision. On this particular day we didn't have a strict schedule and we were making good time so we should of handed over sections of the navigation and decision making to the group to allow them to expand their knowledge.
• Decision importance: If the decision requires one clear answer then the leader should make this. At one point we had to cover some very steep ground with scree and scrambling, this required us to take the safest, easiest route. We were right to take control over which route to take, as we had more experience of working on that type of ground.
• Information location: The person with the information regarding the decision should make the decision. Most of the group members had a map and compass therefore having the information needed to make decisions regarding navigation. Therefore we could of handed over the decision making to one of the group, only stepping in if we knew that they had made an error in their decision.
• Problem complexity: the more complex the problem the more likely it is that the leader would make the decision. One of the group decided that after 10 minutes of walking that they didn't feel up to walking that day due to illness, however they said that they would try to carry on. We knew that due to the route planned that there would be no easy escape routes during the day, so to avoid making the situation more complex We suggested that maybe it would be a good idea to head back then. They decided that they would be happy to walk back by themselves, but due to the problem complexity because they were feeling ill, and as leaders we know we should never let a member separate from the group and walk by themselves in case of an incident, we decided that they would have someone accompany them back to the bus.
• Group acceptance: the group are much more likely to respond positively to decision making if they accept and respect the leader. To allow the group to trust and accept us as a leaders we had to prove to them that we could make decisions responsibly, they could have confidence in our ability, and experience. We did this on the first day by doing a lot of the decision making and providing a successful experience for them.
• Leaders power: the greater power/ experience the leader has over the group the more likely they are to make the decisions. We only have one year more experience than most of the group, so we could of left the decision making to one of the group only giving input if we felt necessary, but having that extra experience allowed us to have a greater influence on the decision making than the group members.

Next time I can use a more democratic style of leading rather than autocratic (lewin et al 1939)

Reference:

Chelladurai (1993, cited in Jarvis 1966) Sport Psychology A Students Handbook. USA: Routeledge

Lewin et al (1939,cited in Jarvis 1966) Sport Psychology A Students Handbook. USA: Routeledge)

Moorhead and Griffin (1998, cited in Jarvis 1966) Sport Psychology A Students Handbook. USA: Routeledge

To be marked