Leadership

[timmus]

I was once designated as the leader of group builted on internet, without knowing it. When things turned wrong, the group blamed me, and I was pissed off. Now I try not doing big hikes with groups, unless I know that the other members of the group don't really need leadership.

But I think sometimes it's a wise thing to designate a leader before the hike, in case that we get into an emergency situation. Someone who knows by experience that he is not going to panic, so wise decisions will be made.

This brings to mind the subject of hiker competance and the number on underqualified winter hikers in the woods these days. When I read some of the trip reports I think that some people are an accident waiting to happen, but that's another subject.

Underqualified hikers are going in the woods in order to get more experience. I don't see what's wrong with that.

 

[Zer0-G]

I think the assumption is that we're all experienced hikers who are capable of hiking our own hikes. A hike proposed on VFTT may have an instigator/organizer, but rarely a formal leader. Anyone who comes along should be prepared to make his own decisions about how fast to go, which route to take, and when to turn back. We join such a hike because we'd like some companionship and (maybe) a few more people around in case we do have an accident.

Anyone who is not yet confident of his own abilities, should join a formal club such as the AMC which offers organized hikes with trained leaders who commit to seeing that everyone makes it out of the woods safely.

I really try to sort out and get a sense of who might be joining me on a hike. Nothing is worse than being saddled by someone's inexperience or needing to "babysit" a fellow hiker on the trail.

Noting Bob's comments above, it seems to accept anarchy in an on-line organized trip. Having people run willy nilly all over the place when companionship and safety is the goal is unnacceptable. If they are going to come along and make there own decisions, it should be acknowledged at the trail head and expectations should be set. Is the goal to park all the cars together or walk together?
The potential to endure unfavorable scenarios in the on-line hiking world is great. I think that is the point that some of us have made here.

Seriously, I have enough of a time weeding out people on the hikes that I lead in other organizations as my hikes tend to be somewhat demanding.

I think, however now that this thread has scared the crap out of me, I am either going to have to not post trips, screen as effectively as I can or do special invite only.

Perhaps a VFFT rating system would be something to consider. Imagine the thread that would spawn !!!

 

[Zer0-G]

This brings to mind the subject of hiker competance and the number on underqualified winter hikers in the woods these days. When I read some of the trip reports I think that some people are an accident waiting to happen, but that's another subject.

Underqualified hikers are going in the woods in order to get more experience. I don't see what's wrong with that.

John, I have noticed that too. Most people I have met through VFFT are accomplished hikers. But there have been a few that definately need some education. It's no surprise and shouldn't be a problem. But, sometimes it is.

timmus, now, why is that a problem? I think people need to get out in Winter if they want to learn how to go safely where the snow falls in abundance. Experience is the best teacher and until the experience is gained, the inexperienced are an accident waiting to happen.

Now, as to why this is a problem in this context (VFFT).

With unscreened hikers showing up at trailheads to have an enjoyable day in the woods, all with different skill sets, there is no assurance that skills will be learned or taught. The few VFFT trips I have particpated in, have included a few inexperienced winter hikers. The groups ended up being fragmented with the more experienced leaving the less experienced either on their own, left in the powder or ________.

Personally, when I am hiking with a group and leading I like to keep the group together. Not breathing down each others necks, but in communication giving everyone an opportunity to catch up and not feel abandoned. But that's me. I haven't seen that in all of the hikes I have been on from VFFT.

I guess people should be able to take care of themselves, but that is not always the case when experience is lacking.

IMO, people who post hikes here need to be very clear and represent your skill level and expectations in an attempt to avoid the pitfalls of on-line hike posting.

My experience tells me that MOST people don't want to go on a hike knowing they are going to be left in the powder/dust or are going to want to feel like they are holding other hikers back and being a burden.

 

[spaddock]

With unscreened hikers showing up at trailheads to have an enjoyable day in the woods, all with different skill sets, there is no assurance that skills will be learned or taught. The few VFFT trips I have particpated in, have included a few inexperienced winter hikers. The groups ended up being fragmented with the more experienced leaving the less experienced either on their own, left in the powder

That's just sad. I think if you post your hike, or agree to join a posted hike you are saying you want a group hike. The group should function as a single group and not abandon somebody. To me that's just common sense.

As for "pre-screening", to me that would be making the hike just a little too elitist. I don't mind waiting for other hikers sometimes. If I think the objective is too tough for some people then I'll usually just do it with a few close friends and not invite the world.

I think if you post a good description of the hike, with the distance, elevation, and perhaps the time you'd like to do it in most people will know whether they should be joining in or not. Like you said, nobody wants to join a hike knowing they will be the slowest.


-Shayne

 

[Zer0-G]

Well, yes, posting the description, distance, elevation and expected time duration is a solid form of pre-screening that I certainly agree upon.

As far as pre-screening being elitist, I understand your sentiment. I am sure there are many opinions on this. IMHO, I think it is not so much as being elitist as it is recognizing that some people are clearly at different levels than others. There is nothing wrong with that.

Example, I was speaking with a fellow VFFT'r on a hike recently, and on one of the hikes that we have done together we bagged three peaks over 16 miles in winter conditions, some buswhacking, icy trails needing crampons and navigational skills. We hiked for approximately 8 hours. At an easy pace for us.

My partner then remarked, that he was on another trip that was approximately 9 miles and one peak that took more than nine hours to complete in the winter crampons, snowshoes and navigational skills were not needed. Frankly, he had a good time but it was less enjoyable for him as he prefers a quicker pace.

I think it is smart to try to bridge the gap in skill levels by some type of pre-screening in order to maximize people's enjoyment of the outdoors.
Whether it be through verbal screening / online or by listing the trip itinerary as you suggested. The Intinerary method of pre-screening is probably the best way to accomplish this.

 

[Kevin Rooney]

As far as pre-screening being elitist, I understand your sentiment. I am sure there are many opinions on this. IMHO, I think it is not so much as being elitist as it is recognizing that some people are clearly at different levels than others. There is nothing wrong with that.

When Zer0-G references pre-screening this should be viewed within the context of the leadership training for organized mountain clubs. Among other things, the training urges leaders to determine whether an individual has the fitness level, gear and experience to do the hike in question. If that's in the affirmative, then the next question is whether this person skill level is commensurate with the others in the groups - sometimes they are either too skilled or too fast for the group in question. The leader has a responsibility to build a group with people of similar skill sets and fitness levels, and it takes alot of practice (at least for me) so that the process is inclusive and not exclusive. If there's a mis-match between skills/aptitude and a particular hike, many leaders will attempt to suggest hikes more in keeping with his perceptions of the person's capabilities.

It's a fine line, but the leader has a responsibility to the group as a whole. He/she also has a responsibility to himself, and to his family, that he also come off the mountain in one piece, not risking his life because he didn't want to hurt someone's feelings. It's not for everyone, and most doesn't want the responsibility/aggravation. Hiking organizations are always looking for a few good men and women.

 

[sleeping bear]

This was a bushwhack hike and routefinding was required. As the route was not evident, it took some navigating. Every one in the group seemed to have their own opinion and this resulted in many people just going the way they wanted. Furthermore, when I would suggest, lets go this way, and some others would go another way, that I knew was wrong, it would be frustrating. From my position, I felt uneasy confronting people that I barely knew. I was not the leader.

Whew, good thing I read this thread before going bushwacking with a bunch of strangers!

I have yet to go on an total bushwack through VFTT, but could imagine the above scenario playing out. I am reminded of a navigation course I took, very similar to what Nessmuk described in the "are you confident in your hiking partner" thread. We were in a group of 10, had designated leader and a designated routefinder. Since this was most of our first real navigational expereince, there was a lot of dissagreement in which way to go. We ultimately went the right way, but it was not so smooth. That was part of class, and a lot of fun, but I woulnd't be too happy if a weekend hike went the same way.

I agree with some of the other comments made about a leader being in the group, but emerging until a situation arises that requires leadership. Probably most VFTT hikes are in groups that function well as such and may never require a true leader. But for larger groups it might be good insurance to figure out who would take on that role before embarking on the hike. That way if something did happen, the leader would be quickly identified and then make necessary decisions or whatever. Without a predetermined leader a larger group... well, refer to the quote above.

 

[Rick]

Kevin, your response was too long to quote it, but you are spot on!!!

 

[Zer0-G]

Kevin, your response was too long to quote it, but you are spot on!!!

Wow, a reply within a reply !!!

Kevin,
Agreed, especially with the part of getting back home safely as the utlimate goal. That is, after all, why we buy all this cool gear!!!

 

[ALGonquin Bob]

I feel that the trips organized through VFTT or any other internet site are merely providing an opportunity to hike with others, and there is no leader in charge.

I was part of the Santanonis attempt a week ago, but I don't even know who the organizer was. I showed up at the agreed upon time and started hiking. When I decided to turn around and bail, it was soley my decision, and there was nobody looking for me afterward. I consider these group hikes to be a group of individuals who are responsible for themselves and making their own decisions on the trail.

Sometimes there may be a hiker involved who depends on others for his or her well being. There are a variety of reasons that someone may want to link up with another hiker, and in that case I'll stay with that person and we will make decisions together. I still wouldn't consider myself a leader, but rather a hiking companion.

When I lead ADK outings such as my Catskills trip at the end of this month, I necessarily take on the role of leader. Besides organizing, I provide participants with information on the destination as well as recommendations on clothing and what to carry on the trail. Normally, I send an info sheet including a few questions to help me learn about the member's experience on the trail, and to inform prospective participants of basic health and conditioning requirements. That info, along with the ADK liability waiver, allows me some peace of mind about leading a trip with people who I have not previously met.

 

[ALGonquin Bob]

Regarding pre-screening, I favor it. Whenever I consider hiking with somebody new, I'm sure to mention that I'm a slow hiker. There is no point (or fun for that matter) in hiking with fast folks if I can't keep up. In that case, I'd rather go solo, as I usually do. There was a hike posted recently that indicated "fast hikers", and I appreciate that. Everyone has more fun if the pace of all the hikers involved is similar.

 

[Puck]

I like the phrasing "hiking together or parking the cars together"

A few random thoughts
- What would define a formal group. Are they splitting equipement, one carries the tent, another has the stove, etc. or is it a bunch of peole with the only thing in common is the destination, the trail head and pseudonyms
- If there is a leader then who watches the leader. Assuming the leader is human, they can get cold and hypothermic, they may get a sick. If there is a leader then others may slip into a comfort zone..."this trip is not my problem...everything is covered"
- I like the consensus approach.
-Seems that most people I have met on the trails or have hiked with are generous people. They have extra food, first aid supplies etc. they would help out someone in need.
- It is important to be upfront and honest about; trip expectations, ablities etc. It would be a great human to realize that a certain trip would be over thier head and graciously step out. They could put other peoples live's in danger.

 

[bill bowden]

Leading hikes and following on hikes

I've lead hikes for the NH AMC chapter for some years now (so you understand my prejudices) and have a few comments:

1. The liability waivers now required are a recent innovation, apparently driven by lawsuits against another outdoor organization where poor leadership decisions lead to serious personal injury. My (possibly incorrect) information suggests the suits were not filed by the injured parties but by heirs and/or insurance carriers. Personally I don't like the idea of waivers, but I had no choice.
2. As a leader you only have the authority that the other members of the trip delgate to you. Effective leadership involves a lot of things and among them are building group confidence and using the skills of mebers of the group. The vast majority of people want to help and are very decent and skilled hikers. You always have a lot of responsibility.
3. Some extraordinarily skilled and accomplished hikers are unsuited by temperament to taking the leader's responsibility.
4. There are a lot of "for fee" outdoor leadership programs available which can help a leader in understanding things. The vast majority of the information is "common sense" but open discussion and observation brings common sense much more to the front. My impression is that even comparatively low cost programs can help a great deal.
5. For VFTTer's contemplating hiking with a club, the level of formal training and experience required for a leader may vary enormously depending on the organization.

 

[spaddock]

When Zer0-G references pre-screening this should be viewed within the context of the leadership training for organized mountain clubs.

Absolultely. If I were to sign up for an ADK or any other group hike I would expect a leader, and a proper plan, and perhaps to be prescreened. My expectations are much higher for something I formally sign up for and especially if I pay for it.

I see no problem prescreening by putting a lot of detailed information in your "Lets go hiking" post. Putting as much info in the post lets others know what to expect, and what they are getting into. Where I see it getting elitist is if you were to turn down somebody who replied they would like to go after having read all the info. It would be like not getting picked for baseball at recess. But I know what you're saying about different abilities. If you really want to bag those 4 peaks it's a bummer if you have to turn around because of slower people in the group.

Going solo is really the only way to guarantee everybody has a good time...


-Shayne

 

[Kevin Rooney]

If you really want to bag those 4 peaks it's a bummer if you have to turn around because of slower people in the group. -Shayne

Shayne -

You've brought up a good point here, and perhaps one you didn't intend to, but here's an admonition for anyone signing up for a hike, whether it's the AMC, ADK, GMC, Sierra Club, etc, and it's this: find out if the leader(s) have a private agenda for the hike. For example - while the peak is the stated objective of most hikers (but not always), whether or not the trip leader "needs" the peak for his/her own personal list is something you should know. On those types of hikes the leader(s) may take chances with weather, push harder, etc, than if he/she didn't "need" the peak. This is a tough point to make "out loud", and it's a bit controversial to discuss this publicly, but it does present a quandry. The quandry is that the hike may not have occurred if the leader(s) didn't "need" the peak, so is the hiking community better off for at least getting a shot at a peak? Is the safety margin in these hikes acceptable?

This is a tough question, and there are no pat answers as much depends upon the individual leader(s), but I'd suggest people know whether the leader needs the peak. That mutual knowledge will help ensure a higher level of group safety.

 

[ALGonquin Bob]

My experience in hiking with others is that common sense abounds. For example, I think that nearly everyone on last week's failed Santanonis hike "needed" one or more of the peaks, but every one of the 20 some hikers made the sensible desision to turn back after the weather conditions deteriorated.

My own upcoming ADK outing is for 3 of the Catskills fire tower peaks that I need for my list, but I made it clear in the published description that the trip is part of the "Fire Tower Quest". I don't mind turning back from my goal if conditions dictate that decision. Actually, my goal is to return safely; the peak is secondary - as it should be.

 

[Zer0-G]

Where I see it getting elitist is if you were to turn down somebody who replied they would like to go after having read all the info. It would be like not getting picked for baseball at recess. But I know what you're saying about different abilities. If you really want to bag those 4 peaks it's a bummer if you have to turn around because of slower people in the group.

DISCLAIMER: - Spaddock, it is going to sound like I am going off on you, I'm not. I agree with your statement above. I'm just generally spewing below...

It appears to be a difficult issue. Hikes posted here are informal. That's why one needs to set expectations in trip descriptions. Believe me, I don't enjoy turning people away at the trailhead. I have yet to do so.

However, all of my leading experience, except for two trips with VFFT, have been in organized clubs.

Being a graduate of AMC's OLTP, I truly value the importance leadership and a team approach to group outings.

Posting the hike, and setting expectations and screening as best as one can are the only way to ensure that everyone has the best chance for an enjoyable trip. People do this stuff to enjoy themselves and have fun.

Hypothetical: (Not really because it did happen to me) I was on a trip once, an organized trip. It was a snowshoes required trip. If you didn't have snowshoes, you were not going to leave the trialhead with the group. One individual decided, even though he brought along his snowshoes. To leave the trailhead last, when everyone was out of site, he put his snowshoes back in his car. Well, we needed the snowshoes much later in the day, and when we got to camp, we asked him why he wasn't wearing his snowshoes, he said he left them in the car. He had a very large pack, none of us suspected he left them behind because we saw him with them at the trailhead.

Well, one of the participants became ill, we had to rush him out the next day as quickly as possible as a hospital visit was required. We had to wait an inordinate amount of time, almost two hours, for the snowshoe-less individual to make it back to the trailhead. As we needed his car to be able to get the sick one into treatment. It was very cold, single digits all day, it was a bad scene.

What if, one self (not you specifically spaddock) knew when starting out on a hike, that another individual that showed up was poorly prepared and inexperienced and would put everyone at risk or ensure a bad time and on top of that you knew that if this individual attempted to go all or part of the trip alone, they would be in over their heads?

Now, 3/4's of the year, this scene may have more options. In the winter time, things can go bad very quckly.

I would have no problem telling the individual, "Sorry, I'm not going walking with you today in these conditions. You can do what you want to. I suggest you go home. I am leaving this trailhead without you and I hope I don't read about you in the paper on Tuesday."

I am sounding really hard line and I am not hard line.
90% of the time, even with informal trips organized here on VFFT, this is not an issue.

But, sometimes, every once in a while, it happens where you have to be smart and selective. It's not discrimination. Look, I want to have a good time. Life is short and all that other stuff. I want my time in the outdoors to be quality time so I can get back to the "real world" refreshed and happy. Playing with my 3 year old kid and enjoying my wife's company etc...

If telling someone they can't go on a trip because I don't think it is a good fit for them (for various possible reasons) AND it is my honest assesment AND meant to be for their own good and the groups good as well as my own, I'm good with that.

There will be pleny of other enjoyable trips in that persons future, I'm sure.

 

[Kevin Rooney]

My experience in hiking with others is that common sense abounds.

Let's be careful to differentiate that we're probably discussing three different group scenarios here and drawing parallels between the scenarios can be shaky. As I see it, there are:

1) Formal club-sponsored hike where there are named leaders, everyone is screened, may involve signing a liability waiver. In this scenario the participants voluntarily subordinates much of their individuality/decision-making to the leaders.

2) An arranged hike among friends/families/known individuals - in this scenario leadership is a shared responsibility, and in most cases is little more that organizing the mechanics of the hike. Members hike together for the comraderie/fellowship and shared safety of the group.

3) Classified ad hike - someone suggests a hike, and people show up to share little more than trailbreaking tasks. No one's responsible for much of anything more than themselves. If you make a peak, get down OK, etc, only matters to you and your family.

 

[Zer0-G]

My experience in hiking with others is that common sense abounds. For example, I think that nearly everyone on last week's failed Santanonis hike "needed" one or more of the peaks, but every one of the 20 some hikers made the sensible desision to turn back after the weather conditions deteriorated.

My own upcoming ADK outing is for 3 of the Catskills fire tower peaks that I need for my list, but I made it clear in the published description that the trip is part of the "Fire Tower Quest". I don't mind turning back from my goal if conditions dictate that decision. Actually, my goal is to return safely; the peak is secondary - as it should be.

yeah, I think those peaks will be there next weekend too.

A good leader, even if the goal of the trip is part of a personal agenda, should and in my case will never put that goal ahead of the welfare of the group.

If I were going solo, I certainly wouldn't put it ahead of my own safety and well being.

I've turned back quite a few times. Like I said, it is highly likely the peak will be there next weekend.

 

[Mike P.]

I like pre-screening but people signing up for a trip should also be screening the leader/organizer to see if they are a good fit for them too. If you think the leader is a we are going to summit this or die trying type, don't go if you are not.

One of the things I find leaders are balancing is their goal (assuming many of them are doing a particular peak for their lists or because the summit views are great, come on who leads a Cabot trip or a Mt. Field trip because they love the views?) with the groups goals/safety/sticking together, etc.

Some leaders are better at this than others.

I've done my share of planning trips, depending on the group chemistry & experience, the group (or just 2 or 3 of us) vary from friends who happened to meet online & someone (me) said lets hike this peak this weekend or I may feel a need to be more vocal or decisive in group decisions depending on how I perceive the others.

I've done enough solo's so if I misjudge the group, I can retreat on my own if necessary. So far I have not been involved in any incidents where decisions in bad weather & conflicting opinions have surfaced. Some of that may be luck or planning alternatives so you don't find yourself high above treeline in the Presidentials when all the weather forecasts say that is a bad idea after noon.

I've been part of groups that hiked together & parked together only, usually people get paired off with people of similar ability. Being one who typically lags behind, I feel better if the faster people are ahead than I would if I had someone who I thought might be struggling behind me. You'd have to poll the fast people to see if how they feel about that.

Communicating before hand is important, just saying, hey, I'll meet you guys at the trailhead, leaves you open for a possibly less than fun time. Now I have to send a PM to someone I may be hiking with on Saturday.