Team growth
How do teams evolve over time?
We set out to learn: How our community defines a good partner and team and how teams change as they spend more time together.
SlabLab’s 2022-23 Research
Finding partners and building teams for the backcountry
Executive Summary
At SlabLab our goal is to help the backcountry community have days that are both fun and safe. We do this by listening to and addressing challenges voiced by backcountry travelers. We believe helping our community members navigate this dangerous environment starts with understanding their experience from their own perspective. We conduct qualitative research with backcountry users and professionals and offer the results of that work openly here for everyone to take, use and remix. We aim to help individuals gain new perspectives and tools for their own practices. We also seek to partner with educators, forecasters, brands and other industry members to design solutions rooted in the needs of backcountry travelers.
Opportunities
Ideas that are actionable now.
Right-sizing. Many teams don’t use proven risk management tools because they aren’t aware that the effort can be scaled up or down to fit the day’s tour. Learning to right-size planning, route selection and debrief can greatly improve team safety and performance.
Coming soon
A guide to right-sizing your debriefs.
Making the implicit explicit. In partner selection, planning and in the field, teams will be stronger for replacing assumptions and inference with direct, and sometimes frank, language.
Coming soon
10 better questions to ask potential partners than “have you taken avy 1?”
Insights
Patterns in behavior that can inspire new ideas.
We evaluate potential partners with intuition because it’s too hard to be direct. The questions we really want to ask are hard to articulate and sensitive, so we rely on gut feeling and little clues.
We continue to ask partners if they have taken AIARE 1, even when we know it’s a poor litmus test. It’s not asked as a question about someone’s knowledge or process. Instead, it signals a certain attitude towards the risks of the sport.
Flaking is simply a major part of meeting partners online. Finding a good partner online is a bit like a needle in a haystack, made harder by how often potential partners bail on plans for a tour.
Planning via text message is the norm. More tour planning is done via text than not, with implications for how teammates participate.
A “safety issue” is a clear line for speaking up in theory but ambiguous in practice. At all experience levels we have a hard time deciding whether something is worth sharing.
Debriefs are perceived as formal and for when things go wrong. Many skip them because they don’t know a way to debrief that isn’t long and serious.
People say they want vocal partners, but don’t speak up themselves. Valuing it in someone else doesn’t change our own behavior, but discussing communication before a tour can.
Shared vocabulary is a key element in strong teams. Professionals and close partners benefit from having more words for conditions, terrain and their own group dynamic.
Introduction
Why we do this work
At SlabLab our goal is to help the backcountry community have days that are both fun and safe. We do this by listening to and addressing challenges voiced by backcountry travelers. We believe helping our community members navigate this dangerous environment starts with understanding their experience from their own perspective. We conduct qualitative research with backcountry users and professionals and offer the results of that work openly here for everyone to take, use and remix. We aim to help individuals gain new perspectives and tools for their own practices. We also seek to partner with educators, forecasters, brands and other industry members to design solutions rooted in the needs of backcountry travelers.
This year’s focus: Partners
This is our second annual report. This year we’ve chosen to focus on partners and teamwork because in our research last year we learned that finding good partners is recreationalists’ single largest pain point in the sport. With partnerships and communication playing such a fundamental role in safe and enjoyable touring, we wanted to unpack what was behind this finding.
A note on terminology: Our work is for anyone traveling in the backcountry during winter regardless of their mode of transportation. We use “Tourers” or “Recreationalists” to refer to all user groups, both human powered and motorized. We use “participants” to refer to people who joined our interviews or other research activities.
What we did
In order to learn about how partnerships develop, this year we worked with a cohort of 7 individuals who we spoke with multiple times throughout the season about their tours and teammates. We also conducted additional interviews with other participants specifically on how they initially find new partners and conduct first tours. All interviews are transcribed, coded and evaluated for themes, pain points, key stories, and emotion. Read more about our recruiting limitations and goals for addressing them.
7
Cohort members that we interviewed three times over the course of the season to see how their partnerships progressed. They were diversified across experience, region and age.
128
Trip report questionnaires submitted, tracking team dynamics and satisfaction.
26
Qualitative interviews, conducted as hour long video calls.
5
Participants interviewed specifically on meeting new partners.
2
Expert interviews with corporate teamwork and therapy professionals. Additional feedback from avalanche pros.
Our methodology is known as Human-Centered Design (HCD). Complimentary to but distinct from other forms of research, Human-Centered Design is an approach to problem-solving that prioritizes understanding the needs and behaviors of end users to create innovative and user-friendly solutions. The research component of this work is known as Design Research. With roots in ethnography, it often centers around qualitative interviews, mixed in with observation, data and prototypes as appropriate. "Design Thinking" is largely a synonym for Human-Centered Design.
Get Involved
Our work can be applied to, and used by all facets of the backcountry community, including skiers, forecasters, curriculum designers, product designers and engineers. We want to have your voice heard in future reports. Reach out to us to learn of upcoming opportunities to contribute your experience.
Opportunities
Actionable ideas that are full of potential for better solutions, grounded in the needs of backcountry travelers.
opportunity #1
Right-sizing
Many teams could benefit from scaling their planning and other processes up or down to fit the tour.
There is a huge opportunity to introduce recreationalists to the idea of "right-sizing", meaning to adjust your effort and processes up or down as appropriate for the tour. We observed participants struggle to adjust their level of effort in the areas of trip planning, debriefing and route selection. The idea of right-sizing has the potential to improve habits in all of these areas.
Planning and debriefing with AIARE’s risk management framework and blue book are both seen as formal and heavy handed for most tours. Most recreationalists don’t leave their level 1 course aware that these processes can be scaled up or down as needed. Instead, they are perceived as being all or nothing. In some cases they are thought of as learning tools that you graduate from or reserve for the most demanding tours.
A team’s planning format can also benefit from the idea of right sizing. Teams often default to planning via text message. While text may be appropriate for some situations, many teams lack clear ideas for when to move to a call or in-person planning.
The importance of picking a suitable route for a given team and conditions is well understood, but still challenging for many teams. Framing route selection as a right-sizing problem can suggest mindsets and tools that make it easier, especially for new teams.
Planning and debriefing with AIARE’s risk management framework and blue book are both seen as formal and heavy handed for most tours. Most recreationalists don’t leave their level 1 course aware that these processes can be scaled up or down as needed. Instead, they are perceived as being all or nothing. In some cases they are thought of as learning tools that you graduate from or reserve for the most demanding tours.
A team’s planning format can also benefit from the idea of right sizing. Teams often default to planning via text message. While text may be appropriate for some situations, many teams lack clear ideas for when to move to a call or in-person planning.
The importance of picking a suitable route for a given team and conditions is well understood, but still challenging for many teams. Framing route selection as a right-sizing problem can suggest mindsets and tools that make it easier, especially for new teams.
Corollary: The Messy Middle
There is a pattern that exists throughout backcountry travel: decision making is easy at the extremes but challenging in the middle (where uncertainty is highest). For example, it’s easy to plan for both a low danger rating day and a high danger day, but much harder to plan for moderate. A very thin, cold snowpack will facet and a deep warm one will round, but it’s hard to be sure what's happening with a moderate snow depth. We call this the “messy middle”, and it plays a large role in backcountry behaviors.
opportunity #2
Make the implicit explicit
Many teams would benefit from keeping an eye out for moments where assumptions should be spelled out.
There is an opportunity for backcountry travelers to be more direct with both themselves and partners. Roundabout communication is a motif that runs through the sport: we look for little clues about new partners because our real questions feel too sensitive to ask. Similarly we ask if they’ve taken AIARE 1, when asking how they tour plan, how they communicate, and how they debrief would be more valuable. We are taught that every person’s voice should be heard but not the mechanics of how to make that happen. We aren’t clear about what we want from our partners in advance and during tours and therefore we sometimes end up being disappointed by partner behavior. We don’t communicate our true level of commitment to a planned tour, which leaves room for us to bail or leaves us disappointed when our partners bail.
There are myriad reasons that making the implicit explicit is hard. This skillset involves the willingness to speak up, but less obvious is having the language to articulate your thoughts and the self awareness to recognize you have a concern, need, or want.
There are myriad reasons that making the implicit explicit is hard. This skillset involves the willingness to speak up, but less obvious is having the language to articulate your thoughts and the self awareness to recognize you have a concern, need, or want.
Insights
Patterns in behaviors and motivations that emerged across interviews. Insights can inspire new ideas and actions, and steer the design of human-centered products and services
Meeting new Partners
Why IS it so hard to find partners?
We set out to learn: Where recreationalists go to meet new partners, how early interactions go, and how people move towards their first tour together.
Insight 1
We evaluate potential partners with intuition because it’s too hard to be direct
Many participants say it requires relying on a "gut feeling” or “reading between the lines” to evaluate whether someone would make a good partner. It involves picking up little clues in words people use, how fast they text back, or how familiar they are with their gear. Rather than ask questions up front many recreationalists find it easier, maybe even necessary, to just “get to the snow” and see how it goes. Participants can describe very precisely what they like and don’t like about their existing partners but tend to use broad and vague terms when asked what they would look for in potential partners. We struggle to apply the lessons we learn from past teams when we approach new partnerships.
Tourers rely on this intuition-based approach because these criteria are often difficult to articulate and, even when they are clear, they are uncomfortable to ask about. Tourers worry about being seen as judgy and offending the other person. We all evaluate new partners before and during a first tour, but it’s uncomfortable to admit that we’re doing it.
Tourers rely on this intuition-based approach because these criteria are often difficult to articulate and, even when they are clear, they are uncomfortable to ask about. Tourers worry about being seen as judgy and offending the other person. We all evaluate new partners before and during a first tour, but it’s uncomfortable to admit that we’re doing it.
Recommendations
Reverse engineer your gut – If you get a good or bad feeling, ask yourself why. Then find ways to ask partners about that thing.
Build the muscle – The more you ask the questions you want to, the better you get at it and the easier it gets.
Right size the terrain – For first tours, pick a conservative route but one that you actually want to do.
I think asking about their fitness and their ski ability is kind of hard. You can kind of feel a little bit harsh and like a little bit of a jerk.
It’s a lot of gut feeling. You can't really make it a scientific checklist.
It's always the little things that tells me the story about somebody. As an example, if somebody comes with brand new ski boots I have to check, is he a beginner? If somebody deals with their equipment seamlessly, for me it's an indication that they know what to do.
Insight 2
We continue to ask partners if they have taken AIARE 1, even when we know it’s a poor litmus test
It’s almost universal to ask potential partners if they have taken an avalanche course and common to require they complete one before going touring together. Yet the same people who require it say a level one course offers little guarantee about someone's knowledge, skills or whether they use a decision making framework at all.
Last year we found that many recreationalists leave the course unclear about the AIARE decision making framework and its importance. Therefore when people ask potential partners about the course, they are not asking if the other person follows the AIARE framework. While taking a course does signify that someone has a minimal baseline knowledge and has practiced companion rescue at least once, this question is primarily a proxy for understanding the attitude and values of the other person. The fact that they dedicated the time and money to take the course is an indicator that they take the sport seriously and care about their role as a partner. It demonstrates a healthy appreciation for the risks and a commitment to safety. Asking if somebody has taken a level 1 course is a question about who they are, not what they learned.
Last year we found that many recreationalists leave the course unclear about the AIARE decision making framework and its importance. Therefore when people ask potential partners about the course, they are not asking if the other person follows the AIARE framework. While taking a course does signify that someone has a minimal baseline knowledge and has practiced companion rescue at least once, this question is primarily a proxy for understanding the attitude and values of the other person. The fact that they dedicated the time and money to take the course is an indicator that they take the sport seriously and care about their role as a partner. It demonstrates a healthy appreciation for the risks and a commitment to safety. Asking if somebody has taken a level 1 course is a question about who they are, not what they learned.
Recommendations
Unpack “AIARE 1” – Write down why YOU ask about it. Then ask about those things instead.
Practice rescue together – Maybe they are proficient at it, maybe not.
For EducatorsMake new partner questions an outcome – While it’s fresh. Maybe everyone reflects on one question to ask potential partners.
I think it's become this sort of dumb requirement. Having an AIARE 1 is something that people look for in partners, but I do think that it makes sense. It's just sort of a… you've put in the effort to learn. Even if you might be able to learn the same by reading, you put in the effort to go and take the course. I think it's like a good sign that someone spent that time.
I think it shows their commitment to me, the partner, because for them to take a rescue course, it's all about learning how to dig their partner out so they're showing that, yes, I want to be a good partner.
If you are not willing to do an AIARE 1 class, I would think really hard about whether or not I was going to go out and go out with you. Even though there's some stuff in AIARE 1 that might be like some theory that might be superfluous, I think if you've done that class then it's safe to assume, at least from my perspective, that you have a shovel, a beacon and a probe and you know how to use them.
Insight 3
Flaking is simply a major part of meeting partners online
It’s commonly understood that meeting partners online is a “numbers game” no different than online dating: If somebody posts looking for partners, a fraction of people who reply will continue to chat, a fraction of those will plan a tour, even fewer will get to the trailhead and a tiny amount will prove to be good partners. Yet what catches so many off guard is the number of people who will bail on a tour a day or two before the day that was agreed upon, often without reason. What’s notable is that the different parties have different expectations about how committed everyone was to the plan.
There is a low bar for backing out on somebody you met online because it doesn't carry the same social consequences as flaking on someone you know in real life. Some people flake because a better option came up or conditions changed, but other times it may be because as the tour draws near the would-be partner starts to think more realistically about the plan. Participants feel that people often inflate and misrepresent their abilities, especially online. They sign up for trips beyond their true abilities only to get cold feet and back out at the last minute.
There is a low bar for backing out on somebody you met online because it doesn't carry the same social consequences as flaking on someone you know in real life. Some people flake because a better option came up or conditions changed, but other times it may be because as the tour draws near the would-be partner starts to think more realistically about the plan. Participants feel that people often inflate and misrepresent their abilities, especially online. They sign up for trips beyond their true abilities only to get cold feet and back out at the last minute.
Recommendations
Confirm expectations – “Should I go ahead and hold that day or are we penciling it in?”
Connect as people – Phone or video make you more "real" than text and lead to less flaking.
Discuss riding abilities – "Have you skied something like this before? How far in or our of your comfort zone is this terrain?"
Half the time you're like, oh yeah, that's great. And then the night before they can't do it for X, Y and Z reason and have to bail.
On Pastimes [an app], there's a lot of people that talk big and then they flake out and never show up. Facebook is kind of the same thing.
If it's a random person you just met, a name and a photo on Facebook, unfortunately it's a lot easier to just kind of bail at the last minute because you just don't have the repercussions.
Where people go to look for partners
A key reason that it is so hard to find partners is because there is no good place to find them. People tend to like and trust those already in their lives but there are few of them. Online there are many people but it’s hard to filter to those you like and trust.
Real Life Connections
This is how most would prefer to meet their partners but the pool is limited. Skiing with a significant other, relative or friend also brings an outside dynamic into skiing, for better or worse.
Huts trips and
Backcountry huts and courses have their own dynamics. You get to see people on the snow. Generally, extra time together early in a relationship also gives it a huge boost.
Clubs
Where available, groups like the Mountaineers or Colorado Mountain Club stand out for their opportunities to meet lots of folks with similar interests.
Online
Facebook Groups are the primary places people go to look for partners but it’s lots of work to find compatible partners. The culture of judgement can also turn some off, especially beginners. One participant described their state Facebook group as“one of the most virulent and toxic places I have ever hung out”. As a result participants tell us they self-censor and don’t comment honestly about what they want in a partner or tour. Existing online networks are more conducive to “transactional” partners, meeting purely for the skiing, and less conducive for ongoing partners and friends. Smaller or female focused groups tend to be more supportive.
SlabLab
After two years of hosting virtual partner “speed dating” events, this season we’re are offering our own backcountry-specific network for meeting partners. It builds on our research to create better connections. All of that research is shared in this report and we’re happy to further support other community builders, apps, and group moderators.
Teamwork on Tours
How do teams operate in practice?
We set out to learn: The processes and roles teams use before, during and after tours.
Insight 4
Planning via text message is the norm
With both long time and first time partners, chat is the default and primary format for planning backcountry tours. Participants describe moving to a phone or video call for “consequential tours” or if they are in a very large group, though they didn’t describe a clear threshold for when they would make that move. The initial suggestion for a tour is usually via text and the inertia keeps the conversation there. Texting is fast, tourers can reply on their own time, there is a history to look back at and the phone is where they are already reading the weather and advisory.
Tourers report messaging in advance about the route, hazards and conditions at a high level, but not in detail. More detailed discussion happens on the day of a tour, either in the car or the trailhead.
Planning over text is easy, fast, and convenient, and can be appropriate for many tours and teams. Texting can also make it harder to have a thorough plan, can lead to fewer people sharing their thoughts/concerns, and can leave each team member to do more individual planning. It takes more work to type your thoughts, mark up a map, and share a URL than it does to sit next to your partners, have a discussion, and point at a map. The combination of format and extra work can reduce what’s communicated and by extension, the comprehension of a plan. Texting can allow one person to overwhelm the conversation, and allows others to lurk and not truly communicate or contribute to the plan. Partners expect and assume their teammates have “done the work”; checking the weather, avy conditions and previewed the route. They may ask if a partner has checked, but texting doesn’t provide a great vehicle to confirm what was done, and to what detail.
Tourers report messaging in advance about the route, hazards and conditions at a high level, but not in detail. More detailed discussion happens on the day of a tour, either in the car or the trailhead.
Planning over text is easy, fast, and convenient, and can be appropriate for many tours and teams. Texting can also make it harder to have a thorough plan, can lead to fewer people sharing their thoughts/concerns, and can leave each team member to do more individual planning. It takes more work to type your thoughts, mark up a map, and share a URL than it does to sit next to your partners, have a discussion, and point at a map. The combination of format and extra work can reduce what’s communicated and by extension, the comprehension of a plan. Texting can allow one person to overwhelm the conversation, and allows others to lurk and not truly communicate or contribute to the plan. Partners expect and assume their teammates have “done the work”; checking the weather, avy conditions and previewed the route. They may ask if a partner has checked, but texting doesn’t provide a great vehicle to confirm what was done, and to what detail.
Recommendations
Check for conversational balance – Has everyone indicated they understand and agree to the plan? It's easy to be quiet in a text thread.
Right-size the planning format – Decide outside of a tour: What situations warrant text, Zoom, meeting up, etc…?
Hit that checklist – Making sure all topics are touched on can be especially helpful in text.
For EducatorsTeach planning via text – Your students are planning via DM. Create planning tools that work for text.
We coordinated over text and then just showed up and the vibes were good and I was like, cool
I know [my friend] can look that up on Gaia on her phone. So it's less of us texting a route plan and more like both of us discussing it and then maybe at the trailhead or the night before, pulling up one person's phone and being like, oh, that looks good, let's go there, and things like that. With [my friend], you can trust that she's done whatever she needs to do ahead of time to be prepared.
I then sit down [after texting] and really make sure that I understand what the tour is going to be like. And I go through trip reports and I go through CalTopo, and I think pretty intentionally about where I'm going to go. And that's all planning that I do personally by myself.
Insight 5
A “safety issue” is a clear line for speaking up in theory but ambiguous in practice
Voicing concerns and listening to all team members are highly valued practices in the backcountry community and advocated for by the popular AIARE curriculum. Still, in practice, speaking up is hard to do. Our participants express resolve to always say something when there is a “safety issue”, no matter how awkward, but in the field find it difficult to determine if something constitutes a safety issue. When participants shared examples of issues that always warrant speaking up they were cut and dry, like a partner showing up without a beacon. By contrast the real life moments when voicing an opinion was difficult were in the "messy middle", the gray area between obvious threats and obviously benign observations. Examples include a last minute addition to the team on a high danger day, team members getting far apart in the skin track, or observing a little more new snow than you expected. Those who see themselves as being vocal about safety were not immune to this challenge.
This was true across experience levels but for different reasons. Beginners may be unsure if an observation or concern is relevant enough. Highly experienced tourers were more surprising. Ironically they often describe holding back their thoughts to create space for others in the name of “listening to all voices”, and hope someone else makes the comment they have on their mind. Experienced tourers don’t want to turn into accidental guides, and they may shut down if they feel like less experienced group members are taking advantage of them.
This was true across experience levels but for different reasons. Beginners may be unsure if an observation or concern is relevant enough. Highly experienced tourers were more surprising. Ironically they often describe holding back their thoughts to create space for others in the name of “listening to all voices”, and hope someone else makes the comment they have on their mind. Experienced tourers don’t want to turn into accidental guides, and they may shut down if they feel like less experienced group members are taking advantage of them.
Recommendations
Set the tone beforehand – Vocalizing that you want to hear all voices goes a long way towards making it happen. Let less experienced partners know you care what they think.
Frame your ambiguity as a question – You don't have to raise your observation as concern. It may be easier to ask the group if they think it's significant.
If I thought Barry was f***ing up, I would tell him straight to his face for a safety concern, like something that I actually think is an issue. But when it's on the edge, like, “are we bringing radios or not?” I'm still trying to get to a place where I can voice that need.
I can be a diplomat, but I also have a hard line when it comes to safety.
The same skier later said:
I needed to speak the f**k up, and I needed to trust myself. To trust the wind report and to trust me reading it.
There are two dynamics working in my head. There's a dynamic that I don't want to be incredibly vocal on the team because there might be people on the team who are less vocal and I'm taking up bandwidth and then the other side is, like, I see a hazard. […] I add an amount of deference to my language. And so it's almost like there's a threshold [below] which I will try and allow there to be space.
One time a guy showed up without shovel beacon probe […] It's like, dude, you can sit in the car. You can't come. Definitely, when something as egregious as that has happened.
The same skier later said:
Once we're on the snow and it's beautiful, it'll be fine, right? You don't really want to say no to [your friend inviting an unknown person last minute], but it's also like… dude, it snowed four feet in the last four days. We got to be on our A game. It's like, no f**k up conditions today.
Factors that enable or inhibit speaking up
We looked through every story and trip report to capture what helped someone voice a concern when it was difficult or, conversely, keep it inside when they later regretted it. This list is not meant to be comprehensive. We engaged outside experts but this is clearly an area that could benefit from further discussion with professional psychologists and other experts. The focus of our 2023-24 research is in this area.
Inhibitors
Enablers
WIDE DISCREPANCY IN EXPERIENCE
A halo effect is a well documented trap where the more novice blindly trust the more experienced.
A wide discrepancy in experience can also make it easier to speak up, if the novice or team have a paradigm that all questions are good questions.
NEW PARTNERS
For some personalities it's harder to challenge someone you barely know than someone you're comfortable with.
For others, the perceived consequences of upsetting a stranger are lower than upsetting a friend.
LONGTIME PARTNERS
Usually when you have a long history with your partner you worry less about disappointing them.
group size
For most it’s harder to say something in a large group.
A small group usually makes it easier.
self-image
Identifying as the kind of person who speaks their mind or asks questions reduces the risk you see in the social consequences.
travel style
Loose travel styles where groups are split up don’t allow the opportunity to talk.
Staying close or thoughtful check-ins provide occasions to sync up.
getting invited
If you are invited and feel like you're on someone else’s trip it’s easier to take a back seat.
scarcity vs abundance mindset
A sense of scarcity about ski days or great conditions, or a ton of sunk effort pushes you to see a trip through.
A long term view where you keep your whole ski career in mind makes it much easier to risk losing one day.
talking ahead of time
Setting expectations for the communication you would like ahead of time makes it much more likely to happen in the field.
Insight 6
Debriefs are perceived as formal and for when things go wrong
All major American avalanche curriculums recommend some form of team debrief at the end of each tour. Recreationalists almost always talk about their tour with their partners but don’t usually consider it a "debrief" or do it with the goal of extracting lessons. Their reflections are lightweight and social whereas people report thinking of debriefs as formal, structured and reserved for when things go wrong or especially challenging tours.
For most people it's binary: you either debrief or you don’t. There aren’t different sizes or levels of gravity. Debriefing successful tours isn't considered as important. Some tourers report a feeling that they “should” debrief more often.
Common reasons we heard for skipping debriefs include:
- Not wanting to make others wait in a cold parking lot
- Getting caught up in post-tour socializing and not wanting to change the vibe or simply forgetting
- Fear of judgment for saying something others find silly
- Discomfort asking more experienced partners to do it if they don’t initiate it
- Feeling like everything notable was discussed in the moment
- Not wanting to be seen as the overly rigid or patronizing friend
- Wanting to avoid hurting someone who "messed up"
- An idea that debriefing taints the freedom and leisure that people seek in mountains
Recommendations
Right-size your debriefs – Have a few flavors of debrief you can pick from depending on the day, the team and the time you have.
Plan for it ahead of time – This means logistically and setting expectations. “I’d love to leave a few minutes to chat after if we can”.
Learn from the good too – If you had a fun day, take a note so you're more likely to make it happen again!
Build the muscle – The more you debrief the faster, easier and more effective they get
For curriculum developersProvide multiple debrief models – Include both quick debriefs and more rigourous versions
If folks who I perceive as more competent than I am aren't suggesting it, it does feel uncomfortable to break in and push for things like debriefs, which feel, like, pretty formalized.
I think sometimes it honestly feels kind of random [when we debrief]. I think the times when it feels less random are when we have pushed closer into riskier terrain and want to debrief our decision making around that.
Yeah, we'll usually quite informally talk about the day. Just naturally. Not necessarily "let's make sure we talk about the day" but just like, "oh, that was really fun. I really like that line. Those turns looked really nice. The snow was good, bad, whatever."
And I keep thinking, God, I need to remember [to debrief]. But I get blown out in the endorphins and drinking a beer and hanging out, often having somewhere else to go to after.
insight 7
People say they want vocal partners, but don’t speak up themselves
Even tourers who are strong advocates for the practice of listening to all voices find that there are many times they don’t speak up themselves. Participants report that some of the most significant trust building experiences of their partnerships are the moments when their teammates challenged an idea or suggested bailing on the intended objective or descent. Yet this reflection doesn't make it any easier to speak up themselves. They fear the social consequences of saying something even when the reality is that their partners would likely appreciate it. This blindspot persists across experience levels. Valuing the practice of speaking up doesn’t make it easier to do.
The strongest teams accept this as a part of human behavior and plan ahead. When participants, especially professional and highly experienced participants, describe their best teammate it's someone with whom they have preemptive discussions about how they communicate before they enter the field. We heard stories about professionals actively thwarting the expert halo by warmly inviting junior recreational partners to challenge them, spouses anticipating how their domestic issues might show up in the field, and partners sitting down to discuss the habits that annoy each other. In all cases these partners recognize that speaking up is inevitably hard but make it easier by creating an environment ahead of time to enable communication in the field.
The strongest teams accept this as a part of human behavior and plan ahead. When participants, especially professional and highly experienced participants, describe their best teammate it's someone with whom they have preemptive discussions about how they communicate before they enter the field. We heard stories about professionals actively thwarting the expert halo by warmly inviting junior recreational partners to challenge them, spouses anticipating how their domestic issues might show up in the field, and partners sitting down to discuss the habits that annoy each other. In all cases these partners recognize that speaking up is inevitably hard but make it easier by creating an environment ahead of time to enable communication in the field.
Recommendations
Know that your partners want you to be vocal – Believe it, internalize it: You’d want your partner to say something. They want the same.
Set expectations beforehand – Communicating about how you’ll communicate goes a very long way towards making it easier.
“I'm scared right now. I don't know why, but I'd like to bail.” If my partner can say that they go way up [in my mind].
The first [characteristic of a strong team] that comes to mind is a team that communicates well. I think what that means for me at least is that like, everyone is like willing to voice their opinion and then everyone else is willing to hear the other opinions
The same skier later said:
Yeah, I didn't say anything at the time. I just wasn't as comfortable saying something. I don't even know if that's so much the group dynamic as it was just, like, me having too much motivation and too little experience.
My favorite thing that happened on Saturday was he got a little weirded out by some exposure and told me. Thank God. I didn’t notice what was happening because I was comfortable. I was like, thank you. It's just like that kind of constant communication before and during the tour so that we can keep accountable to each other and what we're finding.
Insight 8
Shared vocabulary is a key element in strong teams
The strongest partnerships we heard about share a common trait: a large and precise shared vocabulary. Close teams have taken time to make sure they have the same meaning for key words. A shared vocabulary allows for both efficient and effective communication, and engenders a sense of trust. This trend was clearest among professional participants and those with outdoor education training. They bring a vast lexicon from the operational context to their recreational tours.
Team vocabulary spanned three domains: conditions, terrain and group dynamics. Conditions includes both snow quality (“wind buffed”, “cream cheese”) and snowpack observations (“cleaned out”, “cycled”). Terrain means highly specific names for features and zones or a robust topographic lexicon. Group dynamics includes human factor frameworks (“entrenched mindset”, “spontaneous motivator”) and shorthands for referring to the team’s own habits or quirks. Giving a name to a group dynamic not only creates a shared understanding, it can suggest shared values (such as “EGGS”, a tool for prioritizing group needs against individual needs) or provide healthy distance from difficult moments (we’re just “storming”).
When teams have conversations about their dynamic outside of tours it can result in new ways of speaking to each other and sometimes even new monikers for common situations. For example, a romantic couple might discuss how their daily patterns could show up in the field or longtime friends might sit down to explain what's behind the behaviors that always annoy the other. These conversations, and the resulting understanding and language, help teams stay aligned and keep more mental energy on the task at hand.
Team vocabulary spanned three domains: conditions, terrain and group dynamics. Conditions includes both snow quality (“wind buffed”, “cream cheese”) and snowpack observations (“cleaned out”, “cycled”). Terrain means highly specific names for features and zones or a robust topographic lexicon. Group dynamics includes human factor frameworks (“entrenched mindset”, “spontaneous motivator”) and shorthands for referring to the team’s own habits or quirks. Giving a name to a group dynamic not only creates a shared understanding, it can suggest shared values (such as “EGGS”, a tool for prioritizing group needs against individual needs) or provide healthy distance from difficult moments (we’re just “storming”).
When teams have conversations about their dynamic outside of tours it can result in new ways of speaking to each other and sometimes even new monikers for common situations. For example, a romantic couple might discuss how their daily patterns could show up in the field or longtime friends might sit down to explain what's behind the behaviors that always annoy the other. These conversations, and the resulting understanding and language, help teams stay aligned and keep more mental energy on the task at hand.
Recommendations
Confirm key terms – Does “avalanche terrain” include the runout zone? Ask your partner.
Take a photo and point – Learn to describe topography precisely. Until then avoid confusion by taking a photo and showing your partner the feature you’re describing.
Read up on group dynamics – Outdoor educators and psychologists, among others, have lots of useful terms. Naming a pattern is powerful.
For INDUSTRY PARTNERSDevelop a human factor glossary – There's room to create something like the avalanche.org encyclopedia for human factors
You could be in one place and you can move 10ft to your left and have a totally different name for that place. Having that language … all these names that [professional patrollers] can throw around with each other and be really keen into where we are on the mountain and what we're talking about .
We're both committed to talking about our relationship and talking about ourselves and how we relate to each other. […] The first time he took me touring, it was a s**t show. And now we've vocalized all the different things that come up, and we have words to talk about them and recognize them in real time.
There are a lot of times where I'll say something that he didn't think was right and he makes sure the terminology we're using when we're describing stuff aligns. When we're talking about, like, cross loading on a slope that we know what cross loading is and that it's the same definition in mind.
Watch this space
With the release of this report we're soliciting the input of mountain and teamwork professionals to get their insights on what makes great teams. We will update the report to incorporate this.
If you have a perspective to share on what makes great teams, whether as a pro or a recreationalist, reach out.
If you have a perspective to share on what makes great teams, whether as a pro or a recreationalist, reach out.