Please feel free to contribute your thoughts to this one:
You are leading a group on a hut-to-hut tour in the Alps; the weather forecast for the next day is very mixed, with some heavy snow showers and a fresh breeze to blow it around. You are discussing the route with the group, who have been on the move for three days, some of which have been quite long and challenging, and some are showing signs of getting a bit tired. The group is split about whether or not to move on as planned or have a rest day at the hut. However, if there is a rest day, the next day becomes even longer and accommodation arrangements may need changing although the weather may improve. Those who do not wish to continue are quite strong characters and are arguing their case very strongly……
What would you do..?
Hopefully this will become a regular feature for discussion.
PezHolda
split the group, simple.
HenryBeakbane
This is a reply as a punter, not a leader.
As this is a group with a leader, it should not be split (unless there is a competent assistant guide, perhaps, who could lead the split). The leader and group needs to reach a consensus decision.
A bit retrospective, but the party members should have been clear about the standard required. If the grade is for hut to hut, then a bit of Alpine weather should be expected.
Except if there is a safety issue. If the “tired” members are genuinely unable; slightly injured; sick etc. so that reaching the next hut in difficult conditions could be dangerous, then there should be a rest day and the hut schedule re booked.
Otherwise, get your balaclavas and snow shells on, and get on with the job!
MikeHolmes
The level of responsibility on a leader in this situation shouldn't be taken lightly. Inevitably there will be differences in actual ability, but also perception/interpretation of the agenda and expectations within a group of individuals. Further to this, on a led tour, the objective abilities of each member will likely not be well known by the leader and within the group generally.
I agree with Henry's points.
Also I'd add that a general rule in group leadership is "go at the pace of the slowest". Willful individuals who may be in good form relative to the rest of the group, must have the self awareness to recognise their personal responsibility to keep the group as a cohesive, mutually supportive unit, unless a considered group decision is made to split the group. So, I'd suggest that having strong characters arguing for continuing would be a potentially more dangerous scenario than the other way around as posed.
Steve Lenartowicz
After three days, 'some of which have been quite long and challenging', it is not surprising that some of the group feel they need a rest day. Assuming that other considerations allow, then a sensible decision would be to reorganise accommodation and allow those who want it to have a rest day, but to offer a local day tour for those who want to do something.
Planning for a two-night stay every three nights or so during a hut-to-hut tour is a good strategy anyway.
DanCarron
Pressure to complete the trip is one of the biggest human factors risk I've encountered. I agree with Steve's point that planning a tour with a tight timetable places you in a vulnerable position and his planning suggestion is sound. Whilst changing plans as the tour progresses is almost inevitable it's a definite route for increasing risk, having some margin can help mitigate that risk.
It may also be a good idea to 'get your retaliation in first' by discussing the strategy for discussing options on how to manage differences in opinion at the first night briefing.
BarneyCrampton
Hi Peter,
I would be interested to hear your feedback to this.
1. Planning - perhaps 2 nights in one hut built in somewhere would allow a rest / day tour which otherwise could have prevented the problem. If a rest or day tour isn't in the spirit of the tour then this should be clear from the start (although it wouldn't eliminate the problem as some could be fitter 'in their head' than in reality).
2. If there is sufficient experience in the group, split it.
Thanks, Barney
EllySchierbeek
A hut height Alpine environment is not a safe place of travel for a group that includes people who for whatever reason are strongly arguing that they need a rest day. Peter’s scenario suggests simple tiredness. Perhaps more thorough vetting / fitness requirement at next selection, but eg an unknown bug can manifest as tiredness. If the tour objective did not include a programmed rest day, and the continuers in the group would prefer to aim for the goal rather than staying together as a group in this situation, I would check options for the tired members to finish their tour by skiing down (perhaps joining a guided group going down) and if that is possible, the others can decide to continue or stay in the morning based on weather/terrain/gps/bivi bag. If there’s no help for the stayers to go down, I’d abort the tour.
DominicByrne
Many good points made by everyone. The scenario states that some members are "showing signs of getting a bit tired". This is not unusual in any group but on the other hand "those who do not wish to continue are quite strong characters and arguing their case very strongly" suggests they are more than 'showing signs" of tiredness. It all demonstrates the importance of leadership from the outset that assesses fitness levels, manages expectations, stresses the need for flexibility in planning and encourages everyone to take a 'whole group' caring approach. Steve's approach seems sensible, especially if there is reasonable certainty that it is a poor weather day the next day and that it is for one day only.
SimonMorrissey
Useful thread. Splitting the group is almost never going to be the solution and would almost certainly get the leader in trouble if the other group ran into difficulty. Ultimately the plan has to be re jigged to accomodate the weakest member.