In the survival situation, leader of the group should act at all the time like he knows exactly what he is doing (even if he doesn't) and never ever ask for opinion or help from others since that can undermine his position.

What you guys think?

Matt

I would say true and false. If a group scenario presents itself, there will always be a natural leader who will rise to the top and take control, whether he wants to or not. Whoever that is, he does need to remain calm, coo,l and collected. Even if he has no clue where he is in the world, he still needs to look as though he knows the area like the back of his hand. This will have a calming effect on those around him and will put them at ease. Fear is the mind killer.

BUT, one should never refuse the advice of others. Unless it is totally out to lunch, most people have something good to add to the situation. Your postion wont be undermined by asking for and listening to the advice of someone else.

I have never been in a real survival situation, but I am a Marine and have spent quite a bit of time in situations where I really had no clue what was going on, but if I let that show, I would have upset the Marines around me and caused stupid mistakes. I always ask for the advice of those around me, but in the end, I am the one who is paid to make the decisions.

So to wrap it up, true and false. A surival leader needs to have an air of being in control, but it never hurts to ask for help, and it wont undermine your position.

Garrett

Leader needs to maintain lead and command but must be humble enough to acknowledge that he isn't expert in all skills needed. If there are others with better specialist skills work of that nature should be delegated to them. The FEMA Incident-Command training courses make clear one rather successful approach to this problem.

There is the incident management aspect and the ongoing survival management issues. For example if there is a plane crash / ship-wreck in which one of the crew survives then the crew member with highest rank is naturally expected to become the leader. They should accept this responsibility gladly and immediately. They may not have the best medical training in the group. First act that they should take is a skills inventory of the group. The person with the best medical training should be put in charge of dealing with traumas. The person with the best outdoors training / experience should be put in charge of shelter, warmth, orienteering. In issues of resource contention between groups / individuals the leader should be judge / arbiter / leader. The leader should not meddle in issues that have been delegated and should not accept any questioning of his / her authority and leadership. By delegating to the greater skill in specialities the leader properly empowers those who may naturally become his opponents and instead makes them his allies. Also, in a true emergency, this delegation will keep such individuals engaged and too busy with their speciality to bother with trying to direct the group as a whole. The leaders role is more of a coordination role than a boss role.

Without such leadership tragic mistakes may happen. If there is a lot of trauma and everyone gets involved in dealing with trauma because it is impressive then you may stabilize more patients and then lose everyone because no-one was bothering to build a fire and erect a shelter. Allow the most medically skilled to apply triage and provide him with as many helpers as he can direct while reserving enough man-power and expertise to erect a tarp, dig a snow-cave, etc to move the wounded into as quickly as possible. The leader needs to be aware of all aspects of the scenario and needs of the group but not so involved in accomplishing anyone of these needs that they lose perspective.

Well ... no. Some guy back in the late 1930s tried doing it like that, he had bad hair and a tacky mustache, and look how HE ended up - badly barbecued after gulping down some cyanide.
About the only situation you will find in modern times where that might apply is in the captain of a naval vessel, "master alone before God" and all of that.
Otherwise, I tend to adhere to the philosophy, "An expert is someone who knows when to call in the experts."

Leadership issue is never black and white. And your question is on the very grey side. A good leader is the one who knows how to listen and who knows how to convince the team members. If you ask your team members and respect their answers they will bond to you further. Specially ask the the questions with answers already known by you and complete their sentences before they do. Asking questions on regular basis will get your team members accustomed to it. This is good when you need to ask a vital question for your decisions they will think it is part of the regular. They will not be suprised. Some specially directed questions will help you on your leadership as they lead your team members into supporting your decisions.

The worst thing is a team member challenging you. You can prevent this by asking him lots of questions.

You should be concerned but not emotional, alert but not excited, quick but not hasty and if you add a reasonable plan on this than no one questions your decisions.
When your decisions are undermined it is very dangerous. If you make your team members part of the decision they do not undermine themselves:) You should have sharp diplomatic skills for that and diplomacy is the ability to tell a person to go to hell in such a way that he looks forward to the trip <img src="images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Burak

No one has all the answers and pretending that one does will lead to withdrawel and possible resentment from other potential contributors. Not a good idea in a team effort at any time, military situations aside.
Asking for input, evaluating it and forming a decision or action plan are attributes of a good leader.

Good leaders are not the ones with all the right answers, but more the ones with the right questions and the ability to put the answers into an action plan to be implementd as needed.

Having said, this, I am in a strong believer in my father's philosophy of "It ain't gonna get done if we stand here looking at it, let's go!"
"When total confusion reins, someone has to TAKE CHARGE to get things moving in the right direction."

A good leader knows when to lead and when to manage.

I was asking for a reason that we had this conversation yesterday about member of our team who even if in doubt will choose the course of action. It may not be the best choice and sometimes even risky than other choices but there is no waiting time or indecisivness. He never asks about stuff even if team memebers are younger and sometimes better trained. In his eyes any leader who asks jeopardises his leadership position.

I want to lead or follow, it means no difference to me but lately I've been put on the spot many times where I had to take over. I'm always open to suggestions and take course of action that assures safety of my team (partner), bystanders and victims. I have no problem with people voicing their opinions. I'm firm when it comes to orders but I give them out after they are tought over. I never give order just to give it so people get occupied sometimes in sensless work. I just want to be a good leader and advice given by by the older guy didn't sound too kosher.

Matt

I think difficulty arises when a decison is made, direction/orders are given, and someone starts to question them. THAT is a problem, not with the leader, but with the person who will not take direction.
The difference might be how questions to the directions are posed; in front of the group, victims, etc, and the attitude used.

80% of a problem can be the way it is voiced and not the problem itself.

seeming indecisive and uncertain will jeopardize your authority as a leader. Whether that is displayed by asking questions or by simply hesitation in the face of urgent need. There are times and situations that require immediate action and if you are to maintain leadership through means other than rank then you will have to be seen as acting in those situations. To stop and evaluate, plan, discuss, hold a meeting, attempt to attain a consensus at a time like that will get you disrespect if not revolt. The leader should have enough experience to deserve the position of leadership. If they do then they will have an action response to urgent situations. Certainly techniques are being refined all the time and someone with the latest training may have some techniques that are better - that doesn't take into account the need to maintain a central point of authority and direction in an emergency situation. Better that everyone is following ONE plan than that any one individual is using the BEST technique. (within limits of the protocols and standard of care). If you find any individual who is using out-dated technique or sloppy practice that is something that needs to be addressed - but not at the scene. At the scene everyone does their best - indians stay indians and chiefs stay chiefs. If the indian spots bad technique or sloppy practice by the chief they should immediately bring it to the attention of the individual after the incident and if that isn't well received then the issue will need to be escalated. It is often possible to raise such issues non-confrontationally by asking the leader to teach you why and under what circumstances they prefer the older techniques to the newer ones. Sometimes simply asking the question will cause the individual to reconsider their practice. Don't expect them to do anything other than justify their actions in the conversation. But if you thank them for their time and expertise and let things drop you might find that they behave differently next time.

Never, Never, Never undermine the Incident command. If necessary to save a life that has been tiraged into your responsability you may consider disobeying silently - even that is fraught with difficulty because not only are patients triaged but also are supplies and if your disobedience uses supplies needed elsewhere you may have caused more harm than good in the bigger picture.