I recently had one of the most revealing experiences in my adult life.  While attending a professional level avalanche training course in Canada, I was shocked at the amount of time we spent not talking about avalanches.  Instead we worked through a variety of exercises designed to improve group decision making.  Most of us work in some sort of group in at least one aspect of our lives, and the effectiveness of that group results in not only our productivity as a team, but more importantly, the satisfaction we derive from working with that team.It began with a simple simulation.  We were given a hypothetical scenario where we were forced into a complex survival situation.  We were told to rate the importance of each item that we possessed in the scenario for its ability to help us survive the situation.  After rating the items, we were assigned groups and we were told to rate the same items as teams.  Afterwards, we were given the actual answers, as per an expert in the field, and could then score our individual answers as well as our team answers.  We had six different teams working on the simulation.  The bottom line: while the overall approach to the problem differed dramatically, in every group, the team scored better than any individual member of that team. 

It’s here that things get a bit more complicated.  This is where the so called “human factors“, rear their ugly head.  This has been a buzzword within the avalanche education world over the last few years, largely because in the vast majority of  fatal avalanches over the last twenty years, the primarily error can be contributed to these human factors.  Some of the most common issues that come up are; different levels of risk that people are willing to accept, lack of confidence to speak up in a group, overconfidence, lack of leadership, safety in numbers, etc.  The list goes on and on. Thus we are left with the question of; how do we deal with these factors so we can take advantage of the strength of the group decision making power?
 
Well, one thing I didn’t mention above was that before we were assigned our teams, we had a discussion about what makes a good team.  More accurately, what we discussed was what makes a good team member.  Some of the most obvious things were; people’s ability to listen to others, maintaining a respectful tone, and accepting different viewpoints. These behaviors can be improved by summarizing and reflecting back members’ ideas, building on those ideas and offering up new ideas as appropriate.  Some of the less obvious points brought up were; the encouraging divergent points of view, questioning assumptions and dealing with any discrepancies that surface as a result. What became apparent to our class is that the devils advocate is lacking in many group situations.   In high risk situations, this can be a very healthy perspective.
So, if our goal is to make better decisions and take advantage of the group thinking power, we need to work as a team.  If you have partners that have similar levels of risk acceptance and open communication, you are off to a good start.   Now, everyone has to take some part in the responsibility of the outcome of the day.  This means making decisions as a team, voicing your opinion and not being afraid to express disagreement when you are feeling uncomfortable. Here is a simple example;
Skier 1:“Well, should we rip the couloir, or ski back down the ridge and drop into this bowl a few hundred feet lower?”
Skier 2: “either way, I’m easy”
Skier 3: “same here, I don’t really care”
Skier 4: “whatever everyone wants to do is okay with me”

Here is how an effective team would deal with the same situation:
Skier 1:“Well, should we rip the couloir, or ski back down the ridge and drop into this bowl a few hundred feet lower?”
Skier 2: “I have always wanted to ski this thing, you guys think its safe today?”
Skier 3: “We could drop that cornice into it, and see what happens”
Skier 4: “I‘m not sure I could ski that even if it is safe, I‘d personally rather ski the bowl.”
As a team member, you may find yourself having to play the role of facilitator.  This is especially the case when there is no obvious leader.   Asking questions like “what do you think the avalanche danger is today?”, “what is your preference here, in your ideal world”, or “what would you do if you were here by yourself today?”  These are the kind of questions that encourage open communication and can go a long way toward improving your group’s decision making ability.