Plan.
1. Introduction.
2. Primary groups.
3. Role structure of the tourist group.
4. Psychological tactics for leading a tourist group.
5. About the development and improvement of communication skills.
6. On the system of moral and psychological training in sports tourism.
7. Literature.
1. Introduction.
Sports travel! How many impressions, pleasures and benefits they bring to those who set foot on the trail, got into a kayak, and started skiing! But not every trip brings joy. It is not always possible to achieve the intended goals. There are sorrows and disappointments. And it also happens that the “best vacation” turns into a tragedy. What does the success of a tourist trip depend on? Obviously, for many different reasons. This is, first of all, an interesting, well-structured route that matches the strengths and experience of the group. This, of course, is sufficient training for each participant - physical, technical, and for the leader - tactical. This includes thoughtfully equipping the group with everything necessary - equipment, food, medicine. This, of course, also includes strict adherence to safety rules along the route. To some extent, this is also favorable weather.
However, even with the most successful combination of external circumstances, with the most careful preparation, the trip may not bring joy to tourists if unhealthy relationships develop between them. Conflicts in a group can not only spoil the travel experience, but also lead to serious incidents. This means that the psychological climate in the tourist group should be named among the most important success factors. However, psychological factors are not always taken into account when organizing trips or training instructors. There is publicly available methodological literature on all other issues of tourism, and route qualification commissions and the control and rescue service carefully check the readiness of groups for upcoming trips according to the relevant standards. Each instructor or leader conducts only psychological training based primarily on his own experience and his own mistakes.
The result of an instructor’s work in creating a favorable atmosphere depends almost entirely on his personal characteristics and talent, and his actions are based on intuition. This does not prevent some instructors from achieving good results, but their methods, developed individually and intuitively, for the most part do not produce the same results in other hands, which emphasizes the need to deepen our knowledge of the psychological climate in order to understand how it is formed and why it is available to some influences and resistant to others.
So, the success of a trip is determined by a whole set of conditions. But the very concepts of “success” and “luck” express a person’s subjective attitude to events. What seems like success to one person leaves another indifferent, and for a third it looks like a failure. It all depends on what the person was expecting, how he imagined the event being assessed in advance. Naturally, everyone has their own view of things and everyone approaches their assessment with their own standards, which may not coincide with the standards of others.
This means that for a trip to be successful, it must, first of all, meet the expectations and satisfy the needs of all its participants. But even this is not enough.
Each person, going on a journey, along with hopes, has different
a kind of fear of unfavorable developments. If any of them are justified, it will reduce or completely eliminate success. In addition, reality can present something not expected by either hopes or fears. Depending on what kind of surprises occur - joyful or unpleasant - they will significantly shift the assessment in one direction or the other.
Thus, the conditions for a successful trip can be reduced to two general requirements:
1) the trip must not be lower than a certain level of positive expectations (hopes) of the participants;
2) the fears of the participants should not come true and no serious unpleasant surprises should happen.
Negative surprises, in fact, are related to fears: a person is aware of the fundamental possibility of unexpected turns of events and is afraid of them, although he does not know exactly what they may be.
E. Lynchevsky
“Psychological climate of a tourist group”
Introduction
Sports travel! How many impressions, pleasures and benefits they bring to those who set foot on the trail, got into a kayak, and started skiing! But not every hike is a joy. It is not always possible to achieve the intended goals. There are sorrows and disappointments. And it also happens that the “best vacation” turns into a tragedy. What does the success of a tourist trip depend on? Obviously, for many different reasons. Most of them are well known. This is, first of all, an interesting, well-structured route that matches the strengths and experience of the group. This, of course, is sufficient training for each participant - physical, technical, and for the leader - tactical. This includes thoughtfully equipping the group with everything necessary - equipment, food, medicine. This, of course, also includes strict adherence to safety rules along the route. To some extent, this is also favorable weather.
However, even with the most successful combination of external circumstances, with the most careful preparation, the trip may not bring joy to tourists if unhealthy relationships develop between them. Conflicts in a group can not only spoil the travel experience, but also lead to serious incidents. This means that the psychological climate in the tourist group should also be named among the most important success factors. It is unlikely that anyone will dispute this. However, psychological factors are not always taken into account when organizing trips or training instructors. There is publicly available methodological literature on all other issues of tourism, and route qualification commissions and the control and rescue service carefully check the readiness of groups for upcoming trips according to the relevant standards. Each instructor or leader conducts only psychological training, based primarily on his own experience and his own mistakes.
The result of an instructor’s work in creating a favorable atmosphere depends almost entirely on his personal characteristics and talent, and his actions are based on intuition. This does not prevent some instructors from achieving good results, but their methods, developed individually and intuitively, for the most part do not produce the same results in other hands, which emphasizes the need to deepen our knowledge of the psychological climate in order to understand how it is formed and why it is available to some influences and resistant to others.
So, the success of a trip is determined by a whole set of conditions. But the very concepts of “success” and “luck” express a person’s subjective attitude to events. What seems like success to one person leaves another indifferent, and for a third it looks like a failure. It all depends on what the person was expecting, how he imagined the event being assessed in advance. Naturally, everyone has their own view of things, and everyone approaches their assessment with their own standards, which may not coincide with the standards of others.
This means that for a trip to be successful, it must, first of all, meet the expectations and satisfy the needs of all its participants. But this is not enough.
Each person, going on a trip, along with hopes, has various kinds of fears of unfavorable developments of events. If any of them are justified, it will reduce or completely eliminate success. In addition, reality can present something that was not foreseen by either hopes or fears. Depending on what kind of surprises occur - joyful or unpleasant - they will significantly shift the assessment in one direction or the other.
Thus, the conditions for a successful trip can be reduced to two general requirements:
1) the trip must not be lower than a certain level of positive expectations (hopes) of the participants;
2) the fears of the participants should not come true and no serious unpleasant surprises should happen.
Negative surprises, in fact, are related to fears: a person is aware of the fundamental possibility of unexpected turns of events and is afraid of them, although he does not know exactly what they may be.
Therefore, the hopes and fears that constitute the expectations of the group members are the main instruments by which the success of the trip is measured. However, the role of expectations does not end there. They largely determine the behavior and relationships of individual group members, which in itself has important implications for how the journey will proceed and end. Thus, expectations play a dual role in the formation and evaluation of travel success. We will turn to them first.
Expectations of travel participants
People's passion for tourism, including sports, is growing before our eyes. People of all ages and professions, with different family and social status, significantly different in their cultural level and physical development, are involved in tourism. And everyone looks for and finds something different in tourism. But not everyone can clearly formulate what attracts them to tourism.
Interest in tourism plays a far different role in the lives of those who engage in it. The relationship between interest in tourism and other human interests is subject to very significant fluctuations both among different people and among the same person at different periods of life. The range of such oscillations is limited by two poles. One of them is the attitude towards sports travel as a possible recreation option (along with a trip to a resort, visiting relatives, an excursion trip on a boat, etc.). At the other pole is a fanatical attitude towards tourism, which absorbs all other interests and becomes the main meaning of life. Work, study, and everyday life are considered as pauses between trips. No matter who such a person encounters (in any field), he makes the same impression on everyone. So to the question “Do you know so-and-so?” The answer is always the same: “Ah, a tourist.”
Interest in tourism (regardless of the place it occupies among other human interests) is heterogeneous. The expectations with which a person turns to tourism are complex, multiple and, most often, not sufficiently realized. It is not difficult to verify this by comparing, for example, articles that appear from time to time in tourist and mountaineering almanacs, the authors of which try to answer the question: “Why do we go to the mountains?” So far no one has been able to give an intelligible explanation (for a person who does not suffer from “mountain sickness”), however, travel in the mountains is gaining more and more popularity.
Let's try to figure out what attracts people to tourism.
To simplify matters, we will set ourselves an easier task: to identify individual elementary expectations, from the combination of which each person’s holistic individual requests for tourism are formed. In this case, it will be necessary to take into account the intermediate position of tourism between “real”, “pure”, sports and entertainment, recreation. There was a time when tourism was not considered a sport. Some people still share this point of view. And although tourism has long been firmly established in the sports classification, the very specifics of tourism contrast it with all other sports.
People are attracted to tourism, as a sport, by the search for struggle, competition, and victory.
First of all, this is the desire to overcome natural difficulties. There are two directions in which such aspirations are developing. One sets the task of completing the route as rationally as possible, accurately, taking into account all its features (adapting to them as fully as possible). Proponents of this trend travel in a sophisticated, thoughtful manner and pay great attention to precision.
E. Lynchevsky “Psychological climate of a tourist group”
Introduction
Sports travel! How many impressions, pleasures and benefits they bring to those who set foot on the trail, got into a kayak, and started skiing! But not every hike is a joy. It is not always possible to achieve the intended goals. There are sorrows and disappointments. And it also happens that the “best vacation” turns into a tragedy. What does the success of a tourist trip depend on? Obviously, for many different reasons. Most of them are well known. This is, first of all, an interesting, well-structured route that matches the strengths and experience of the group. This, of course, is sufficient training for each participant - physical, technical, and for the leader - tactical. This includes thoughtfully equipping the group with everything necessary - equipment, food, medicine. This, of course, also includes strict adherence to safety rules along the route. To some extent, this is also favorable weather.
However, even with the most successful combination of external circumstances, with the most careful preparation, the trip may not bring joy to tourists if unhealthy relationships develop between them. Conflicts in a group can not only spoil the travel experience, but also lead to serious incidents. This means that the psychological climate in the tourist group should also be named among the most important success factors. It is unlikely that anyone will dispute this. However, psychological factors are not always taken into account when organizing trips or training instructors. There is publicly available methodological literature on all other issues of tourism, and route qualification commissions and the control and rescue service carefully check the readiness of groups for upcoming trips according to the relevant standards. Each instructor or leader conducts only psychological training, based primarily on his own experience and his own mistakes.
The result of an instructor’s work in creating a favorable atmosphere depends almost entirely on his personal characteristics and talent, and his actions are based on intuition. This does not prevent some instructors from achieving good results, but their methods, developed individually and intuitively, for the most part do not produce the same results in other hands, which emphasizes the need to deepen our knowledge of the psychological climate in order to understand how it is formed and why it is available to some influences and resistant to others.
So, the success of a trip is determined by a whole set of conditions. But the very concepts of “success” and “luck” express a person’s subjective attitude to events. What seems like success to one person leaves another indifferent, and for a third it looks like a failure. It all depends on what the person was expecting, how he imagined the event being assessed in advance. Naturally, everyone has their own view of things, and everyone approaches their assessment with their own standards, which may not coincide with the standards of others.
This means that for a trip to be successful, it must, first of all, meet the expectations and satisfy the needs of all its participants. But this is not enough.
Each person, going on a trip, along with hopes, has various kinds of fears of unfavorable developments of events. If any of them are justified, it will reduce or completely eliminate success. In addition, reality can present something that was not foreseen by either hopes or fears. Depending on what kind of surprises occur - joyful or unpleasant - they will significantly shift the assessment in one direction or the other.
Thus, the conditions for a successful trip can be reduced to two general requirements:
1) the trip must not be lower than a certain level of positive expectations (hopes) of the participants;
2) the fears of the participants should not come true and no serious unpleasant surprises should happen.
Negative surprises, in fact, are related to fears: a person is aware of the fundamental possibility of unexpected turns of events and is afraid of them, although he does not know exactly what they may be.
Therefore, the hopes and fears that constitute the expectations of the group members are the main instruments by which the success of the trip is measured. However, the role of expectations does not end there. They largely determine the behavior and relationships of individual group members, which in itself has important implications for how the journey will proceed and end. Thus, expectations play a dual role in the formation and evaluation of travel success. We will turn to them first.
Lynchevsky E.E. "Psychological climate of a tourist group" "Physical Education and Sports", 1981
Content Introduction Primary groups Conflict relationships About the development and improvement of communication skills About the system of moral and psychological training in sports tourism Conclusion Psychological workshop Tasks Solutions Literature Introduction Sports travel! How many impressions, pleasures and benefits they bring to those who set foot on the trail, got into a kayak, and started skiing! But not every trip brings joy. It is not always possible to achieve the intended goals. There are sorrows and disappointments. And it also happens that the “best vacation” turns into a tragedy. What does the success of a tourist trip depend on? Obviously, for many different reasons. Most of them are well known. This is, first of all, an interesting, well-structured route that matches the strengths and experience of the group. This, of course, is sufficient training for each participant - physical, technical, and for the leader - tactical. This includes thoughtfully equipping the group with everything necessary - equipment, food, medicine. This, of course, also includes strict adherence to safety rules along the route. To some extent, this is also favorable weather. However, even with the most successful combination of external circumstances, with the most careful preparation, the trip may not bring joy to tourists if unhealthy relationships develop between them. Conflicts in a group can not only spoil the travel experience, but also lead to serious incidents. This means that the psychological climate in the tourist group should also be named among the most important success factors. It is unlikely that anyone will dispute this. However, psychological factors are not always taken into account when organizing trips or training instructors. There is publicly available methodological literature on all other issues of tourism, and route qualification commissions and the control and rescue service carefully check the readiness of groups for upcoming trips according to the relevant standards. Each instructor or leader conducts only psychological training, based primarily on his own experience and his own mistakes. The result of an instructor’s work in creating a favorable atmosphere depends almost entirely on his personal characteristics and talent, and his actions are based on intuition. This does not prevent some instructors from achieving good results, but their methods, developed individually and intuitively, for the most part do not produce the same results in other hands, which emphasizes the need to deepen our knowledge of the psychological climate in order to understand how it is formed and why it is available to some influences and resistant to others. So, the success of a trip is determined by a whole set of conditions. But the very concepts of “success” and “luck” express a person’s subjective attitude to events. What seems like success to one person leaves another indifferent, and for a third it looks like a failure. It all depends on what the person was expecting, how he imagined the event being assessed in advance. Naturally, everyone has their own view of things, and everyone approaches their assessment with their own standards, which may not coincide with the standards of others. This means that for a trip to be successful, it must, first of all, meet the expectations and satisfy the needs of all its participants. But even this is not enough. Each person, going on a trip, along with hopes, has various kinds of fears of unfavorable developments of events. If any of them are justified, it will reduce or completely eliminate success. In addition, reality can present something that was not foreseen by either hopes or fears. Depending on what kind of surprises occur - joyful or unpleasant - they will significantly shift the assessment in one direction or the other. Thus, the conditions for the success of a trip can be reduced to two general requirements: 1) the trip must not be lower than a certain level of positive expectations (hopes) of the participants; 2) the fears of the participants should not come true and no serious unpleasant surprises should happen. Negative surprises, in fact, are related to fears: a person is aware of the fundamental possibility of unexpected turns of events and is afraid of them, although he does not know exactly what they may be. Therefore, the hopes and fears that constitute the expectations of the group members are the main instruments by which the success of the trip is measured. However, the role of expectations does not end there. They largely determine the behavior and relationships of individual group members, which in itself has important implications for how the journey will proceed and end. Thus, expectations play a dual role in the formation and evaluation of travel success. We will turn to them first. Expectations of travel participants People's passion for tourism, including sports, is growing before our eyes. People of all ages and professions, with different family and social status, significantly different in their cultural level and physical development, are involved in tourism. And everyone looks for and finds something different in tourism. But not everyone can clearly formulate what attracts them to tourism. Interest in tourism plays a far different role in the lives of those who engage in it. The relationship between interest in tourism and other human interests is subject to very significant fluctuations both among different people and among the same person at different periods of life. The range of such oscillations is limited by two poles. One of them is the attitude towards sports travel as a possible recreation option (along with a trip to a resort, visiting relatives, an excursion trip on a boat, etc.). At the other pole is a fanatical attitude towards tourism, which absorbs all other interests and becomes the main meaning of life. Work, study, and everyday life are considered as pauses between trips. No matter who such a person encounters (in any field), he makes the same impression on everyone. So to the question “Do you know such and such?” The answer is always the same: “Ah, a tourist.” Interest in tourism (regardless of the place it occupies among other human interests) is heterogeneous. The expectations with which a person turns to tourism are complex, multiple and, most often, not sufficiently realized. It is not difficult to verify this by comparing, for example, articles that appear from time to time in tourist and mountaineering almanacs, the authors of which try to answer the question: “Why do we go to the mountains?” So far no one has been able to give an intelligible explanation (for a person who does not suffer from “mountain sickness”), however, travel in the mountains is gaining more and more popularity. Let's try to figure out what attracts people to tourism. To simplify matters, we will set ourselves an easier task: to identify individual elementary expectations, from the combination of which each person’s holistic individual requests for tourism are formed. In this case, it will be necessary to take into account the intermediate position of tourism between “real”, “pure”, sports and entertainment, recreation. There was a time when tourism was not considered a sport. Some people still share this point of view. And although tourism has long been firmly established in the sports classification, the very specifics of tourism contrast it with all other sports. People are attracted to tourism, as a sport, by the search for struggle, competition, and victory. First of all, this is the desire to overcome natural difficulties. There are two directions in which such aspirations are developing. One sets the task of completing the route as rationally as possible, accurately, taking into account all its features (adapting to them as fully as possible). Supporters of this direction travel sophisticatedly, thoughtfully, pay great attention to the accuracy of orientation, spare no time and effort on reconnaissance, and rarely take risks. They overcome nature tactically and technically, “intellectually.” The task of the other direction is to complete the route as quickly as possible, despite all the difficulties encountered, regardless of any features (subordinate them to your will). Such a journey takes place vigorously and energetically. Issues of orientation and tactics for passing difficult sections never come to the fore here and do not become an end in themselves. Proponents of this trend view intelligence as a manifestation of weakness and uncertainty. Only in exceptional cases is “reconnaissance in force” allowed. Significant deviations from the route, tactical mistakes, and loss of orientation do not bother anyone here. We are thus talking about a purely physical conquest of nature, which in its extreme form corresponds to the formula: “If you have strength, you don’t need intelligence!” Sports expectations should also include the desire to experience, know and overcome oneself. Competing with oneself, strengthening one’s own personality, self-affirmation occurs on two levels, inextricably linked with each other - moral and physical. The motives for such overcoming may, however, differ significantly. Thus, the tourist trail brings together those who are looking for where to put their inexhaustible energy, who are languishing from an excess of physical strength, and those who have so little of it that they simply need to prove their presence to themselves again and again, seeking out and overcoming different difficulties. Finally, sporting expectations include fighting with opponents. This is also a direct competition - be it special competitions at tourist camps (gatherings) or “correspondence” competitions, based on the results of conducted trips. This is also indirect rivalry - in the process of sports growth, when fulfilling standards and receiving the next ranks, ranks and titles ("tourist career"). Tourism as a means of recreation and entertainment (“Tourism is the best vacation!”) answers a very wide range of requests. Among them we can name the search for aesthetic pleasure from communication with nature, the craving for knowledge of the native land, other regions of the country, for all sorts of new impressions. Many are attracted by romance: bonfires, songs, even hardships. Others are looking for companionship. For parents, this may be a search for new ways to reach their own children. Sometimes the desire to be distracted, to get away from the monotony of a sedentary urban lifestyle prevails, and perhaps to escape from a difficult situation. There is also simply “wanderlust”, a passion for “vagrancy”. Finally, one cannot fail to mention the resort to tourism without any deep personal interests: out of curiosity or as a tribute to fashion (“fellow travel”). All of the above expectations are inherent in people who came to tourism on their own initiative. But it happens that a person ends up on a trip without much initiative on his part. For example, they were persuaded by friends, awarded a free trip, wanted to go to a sanatorium or holiday home, but a tourist package turned up, etc. The expectations of these people, as well as their very turning to tourism, are random in nature, and therefore it is difficult to predict their behavior while traveling . The foregoing allows us to propose the following classification of expectations for tourism. Expectations of travel participants I. Sports. - 1. Overcoming natural difficulties: a) tactical and technical, b) physical. - 2. Overcoming oneself: a) moral, b) physical. - 3. Overcoming rivals: a) direct - competition, b) indirect - athletic growth. II. Entertaining. - 1. Aesthetic-cognitive. - 2. Romantic. - 3. Communicative (search for communication). - 4. Distraction. - 5. Curiosity, a tribute to fashion. III. Random. The expectations of each individual participant in the hike are made up of the listed elements and represent a complex, unique bouquet (which may undergo significant changes over the years). Depending on the presence and degree of expression (strength) of certain components, the following occurs: a) the formation of a personal probabilistic forecast; b) joining a group with some people and opposing others. The result of any trip or hike is assessed by each person depending on how satisfied personal expectations are. But the objective result of both individual travel and tourism as a whole goes far beyond the satisfaction of individual expectations. Thus, tourism develops many valuable personality traits (patriotism, collectivism, courage, love of nature, cheerfulness, etc.), forms new interests, and contributes to the development of strength and endurance. Moreover, this happens regardless of whether a person engaged in tourism sets himself a similar task or not. Travel forecast and its impact on human behavior A probabilistic forecast consists of positive expectations inherent in each person and fears that these expectations will not be met. Schematically, the forecast of a hiker can be presented as follows:
|
Travel participant |
|
|
hopes that |
fears that |
|
hiking route |
|
|
will be interesting and varied, quite difficult but feasible |
may be boring monotonous overly complex or too simple |
|
will be friendly and fun with common interests |
may turn out to be conflicting, dull, disunited |
|
leader (instructor) |
|
|
will be competent, sensible, tactful and self-possessed |
may be incompetent disorganized tactless unrestrained |
|
it will be good |
could be bad |
|
surprises |
|
|
only joyful, pleasant people will meet |
Unpleasant things may happen (emergencies, illnesses, insurmountable obstacles) |
|
travel program |
|
|
will be completed |
may fall apart |
The above list can be supplemented, but we are now interested in its structure, not details. Its essence lies in the fact that in each line of the diagram the same possibilities are presented, but taken with opposite signs. As a result, the left column (with all possible additions) forms a positive model of the situation in the human mind, and the right column forms a negative one. For each person, both models are formed on the basis of life experience and largely depend on personal characteristics. Both models as a whole and their components are included in the forecast with varying degrees of probability (hence the forecast is probabilistic). When faced with reality, a person evaluates it and compares it with both models. This happens (as well as the formation of the models themselves) mostly unconsciously. Let's take a closer look at how the assessment is made. Obviously, a situation that completely matches (or exceeds) the positive model will cause pleasure in a person. But reality rarely spoils us with full compliance with our expectations. Usually some of them come true incompletely or not at all. However, the overall travel experience can be positive, especially if what is not achieved is compensated by exceeding other expectations. This applies to all points of the scheme, except one - “surprise”. You can be satisfied with the hike, which took place in very bad weather, in which you were not able to see much or complete the entire planned program. You may enjoy the hike despite some unpleasant relationships in the group. And even a not very good leader may not spoil it. But if, with complete well-being on a trip, a person does not encounter pleasant surprises (no matter what exactly they will be expressed in) - such a trip will not bring joy or pleasure. It will be boring, ordinary. It is no coincidence that a hike that is exactly like the previous one does not bring the same pleasure, and often even causes disappointment. The situation can be compared to how a healthy person feels about his well-being: someone who is used to feeling healthy does not feel joy about this. He simply, without thinking, takes advantage of his good health. But let’s say events take an undesirable turn, and the situation approaches a negative model. In such cases, a person is not limited to simply stating facts. The options provided in the right column are not just probable - each of them is undesirable for a person. With the appearance of signs of their implementation, he becomes wary and - whether he wants it or not - prepares for defense. Behavioral skills (“patterns of behavior”) formed on the basis of previous experience serve as protection. Developed ideas about how to act in a given situation, based only on knowledge and not supported by personal experience, can also be used. However, if the nature of the danger is not entirely clear to a person, then he naturally cannot oppose it with a certain protective pattern. In these cases, a person is acutely aware of his unpreparedness for danger. Therefore, in a situation of uncertainty, fraught with the possibility of various kinds of unpleasant surprises, a person experiences a feeling of internal tension, confusion, and fear. As a result, in a state of anxious anticipation, readiness for action may be sharply increased or excessively inhibited. A person, in particular, can begin to act (and not in the best way) without sufficient grounds, in response to random circumstances that are not directly related to the matter. Moreover, along with reactions that to some extent correspond to the situation, relatively strangers can also be included (all this is reminiscent of the picture of a false start among athletes: one person breaks down ahead of time and drags the rest with him). Thus, having accidentally become separated from the group, an inexperienced tourist, instead of a sober analysis of the situation, often begins to act hastily and haphazardly, which leads to a final loss of orientation. In personal relationships, the source of violent or overly broad reactions is often someone else’s not entirely clear action or ambiguous statement (more on this will be discussed in the section on conflicts). The exact opposite behavior is also possible, when in a difficult, dangerous situation a person is inactive and even shows complacency due to insufficient inclusion or complete absence of defensive reactions. The implementation of any element of the negative model in practice is not final in nature, but only means the emergence of a new alternative, including positive (at this new level) and negative possibilities. The latter, in turn, may appear in the form of a new alternative. For example, an encounter with bad weather can lead to the gradual deployment of such a forecast chain:
Bad weather| | short-term long | | Protection is effective - Everything in the backpack got wet through and remained dry | | Managed to dry Organize drying is not possible | | Maintains good spirits Demoralization and high spirits (“Wet as never before!”)
At each new level, as such a chain unfolds, opportunities arise for satisfaction and even joy (in the case of the left option) or for alertness, defensive actions, including false start reactions. If several people have the same concerns, this dramatically increases their overall willingness to react with insufficiently justified reactions. There is an increase in the importance of random, vague, incomplete signs of a negative situation. Similar doubts of another person (especially several) seem to make up for the lack of reliability. Thus, the doubts of one or two participants: “Are we going there?”, expressed out loud and supported by someone else, can, without any additional grounds, turn into confidence: “We are clearly going the wrong way!” As experience is gained, the probabilistic forecast undergoes significant changes. For beginners, both models are very vague: poor in details, largely random. A very large place in each of them belongs to “surprises”. As a result, the positive model is easily “saturated” and overlapped. It is not surprising that the first trip in life usually leaves such a vivid impression. At the same time, the uncertainty of the negative model and the lack of a sufficient number of developed protective skills leads to the fact that newcomers are much more likely to be susceptible to various kinds of undesirable reactions (disorganization, panic or, on the contrary, complacency and frivolity in the face of danger). Over the years, both models have been fleshed out and updated with new details. The positive model shifts to the level of the best results of previous campaigns - without taking into account their shortcomings, which “enrich” the negative model. This is how the idealization of past experience occurs, which is used as a standard for evaluating subsequent campaigns. The more certainty there is in the forecast, the less room there is for surprises. And therefore the emotional coloring of subsequent campaigns is noticeably reduced. It can be supported by taking care of additional sources of positive surprises. For example, due to the newness of the area or updating the composition of the group, complicating the trip, changing responsibilities in the group (participation as a caretaker, joining the management), switching to another type of tourism, etc. Detailing the negative model of the situation is accompanied by an expansion of the arsenal of learned protective actions. Awareness of possible troubles and dangers, and being armed against them, eliminates excessive vigilance, as well as excessive carelessness. Acting competently (the share of unpleasant surprises in the forecast also falls), a person confronts troubles more and more confidently, calmly, and organizedly. Reactions to individual manifestations of a negative model acquire clarity and precision. Unjustified combination of reactions to different components of the model is eliminated. Unreasonable premature actions (such as false starts) are becoming less and less common. In other words, with experience, the influence of a negative situation model on behavior becomes less noticeable. Primary groups Note. In the socio-psychological literature, the term “primary group” usually denotes a variation of the broader concept of “small group”. Here we will use these terms as synonyms. Mutual understanding and sympathy are more easily established between people who have similar expectations. There is a rapprochement between them, unification into the so-called primary group. This group does not have an official structure and may be variable in size and composition. The larger the tourist group, the more small groups it forms. The identification of a primary group is facilitated by a territorial or functional association: a tent, a boat, a bundle, and sometimes a can of canned food given out for a snack. The relationships between the primary groups that are part of the main tourist group can be built in different ways. First of all, in each small group there is usually a contrast with the rest on the basis of the unification of one’s group, a division into “we” and “they”. Such demarcation - in the presence of a common common goal and in the case of the coincidence of some particular tasks and interests of different groups - does not at all exclude cooperation between them. Productive interaction of small groups is facilitated, firstly, by the emergence of interest, attention to other groups or their individual representatives and, secondly, by the desire to attract attention to oneself and impress others. Recognition from others and external prestige are a prerequisite for intragroup well-being. True, a group does not always fight for positive prestige: it is important what kind of group it is and who evaluates it. (Thus, the highest reward for a gang of hooligans is the condemnation of others who are outraged by their behavior and at the same time afraid of them.) The more lively the interest of small groups in each other, the higher the level of mutual respect is established and the more actively intergroup contacts develop, the less dangerous the emergence of any contradictions or conflicts of interest. It is much more dangerous if this happens against the backdrop of neutral coexistence, when small groups show different goals, do not have common tasks and have no interest in each other. In such conditions, antagonism between groups can easily flare up due to conflicting interests or as a result of misconception (for more details, see the section on conflict situations). Antagonistic relationships between small groups can develop initially, from the moment the main tourist group is created. The general norms, style and “handwriting” of the entire group are formed from a combination of influences from each small group and represent, as it were, the “resultant” of the individual groupings. Exceptions are cases of antagonism, when one of the small groups, having won (or dominated) over the others, can impose its style and its norms on the entire group. At the center of each small group, a leader is more or less clearly identified - the most influential member of the small group, organizing its activities aimed at achieving common goals. A leader is a spokesman for group interests and evaluative opinions, a guardian of the norms adopted in this group. He can advance from within - from among the members of the group united on equal terms, or he can dominate from the very beginning, gathering the group around him. With normal relationships in a tourist group, the influence of one of these leaders can be recognized by the majority of participants, and then a common leader appears in the group (as a whole). This may be a permanent leader who maintains his position no matter what the group is doing. In other cases, each type of activity has its own situational leader. For example, on a march, one tourist dictates the pace, chooses the path, another conducts the bivouac work, a third sets the tone in the evening around the fire, etc. Depending on the character and style of the leader, two types of leadership are distinguished: authoritarian and democratic. An authoritarian leader is immediately noticeable in the group. He dominates the rest of the members, is confident in himself, and enjoys unquestioned authority. He is revered and admired. Such a leader often does not take into account the opinions of others and is not even interested in them. But all this is possible only within certain limits, as long as his activities serve the benefit of the group, and the group itself accepts and supports such a system of relations. Otherwise, the small group falls apart, because membership in it, as well as subordination to the leader, are based largely on voluntary principles. The activities of a democratic leader look different. It is not so easy to recognize him in a group. It even happens that he himself does not know about his leading functions and does not recognize them for himself. A democratic leader does not issue ready-made decisions, never appeals to his own authority, and does not suppress the initiative of others. On the contrary, he promotes the highest activity of each member of the group, and he himself primarily manipulates their proposals and opinions. However, these proposals and points of view themselves often turn out to be the result of the leader’s tactful, unnoticed influence on the group. Thus, the essence of authoritarian leadership lies in subordinating the activity of everyone to the single will of the leader and - for this purpose - in suppressing or limiting personal initiative, leveling individual characteristics. The essence of democratic leadership comes down to the harmonious unification of the efforts of everyone and - for this purpose - to the maximum development of personal initiative, to the fullest expression of individuality. What type of leadership should you prefer? Note. It would seem that everything that is said here about the leader would be more correctly attributed to the leader of the group. But this requires that the manager be a leader. The relationship between management and leadership will be discussed in more detail later. This question seems unnecessary, because the advantages of democratic leadership are obvious. However, there are situations when democratic leadership (in its pure form) turns out to be untenable. Thus, in a critical situation, when there is no time and conditions for reflection and debate, undivided faith and complete submission to the person who has taken upon himself the leadership of the actions of others may be required. A leader of a democratic type may not have high personal authority. He sometimes lacks determination, self-confidence, will and energy. Democratic leadership is effective only when the level of development of group members is sufficiently high. So the optimal leadership option is a combination of both types in proportions that would correspond to the situation, the personality traits of the leader himself and the specific composition of the group. The concept of a “small group” includes any association of people when direct personal contact is established between them. Therefore, each person is simultaneously a member of several small groups: this is a circle of colleagues with whom he prefers to communicate and work more closely, this is a group of peers with whom he keeps in touch after studying, these are comrades who share his passion for tourism, with whom he goes hiking, this is finally a family. Belonging to each of these groups is quite significant for a person. He is far from indifferent to what they think of him, how the other members of any of these groups will treat him. The group whose opinion a person values, and whose membership he tries to maintain, is called a reference group (or reference group). The importance of groups for their members may vary. For example, the principles of a peer group, learned in childhood in the process of upbringing (successful or vice versa), can have such a strong fusion on each participant that they become his personal internal norms for the rest of his life. At the same time, there are also completely random groups (for example, people in a queue, passengers in a compartment). In such associations, people usually care little about the impression they make because the level of importance of communication in these cases is very low. Groups influence their members and ensure their compliance with group norms, that is, they exercise social control. For this, different means are used: positive - such as general recognition, respect, veneration, approval, and negative - sanctions, starting with surprise and banter and ending (this happens too! ) physical impact. A person who finds himself in a group whose norms do not fully correspond to his personal ones adapts to being in it in different ways. He can consciously, purposefully temporarily accept group norms, maintaining an internal commitment to his own principles in a disguised form. The person turns to the group with only a few of his facets, the rest remain in the shadows and do not stick out. To some extent, this is a necessary condition for normal relationships, harmony, of course, if hypocrisy is not allowed, one’s own principles are not betrayed. Otherwise, we are talking about outright opportunism. Another option for adapting to group demands is a spontaneous internal (sincere!) rejection of previous personal norms in favor of new, group norms, which, however, can just as easily give way to the next ones. A person belongs entirely to the group, but can easily exchange (along with his principles) belonging to one group for belonging to another. However, a person does not necessarily conform to group norms. If he cannot (or does not want) to give up his principles or if the opinion of the group and the sanctions it has are not significant for him, then the person directly ignores group norms and does not accept the expectations placed on him. Thus, a person compares his actions with two standards: with his internal personal norms and with the prevailing ones accepted in this particular environment. Figuratively speaking, the described mechanism can be compared to two sieves, which represent two components of self-control. The first component is the internal sieve, which a person always has with him. It's like it's part of himself. This is his personal idea of what is proper and what is permitted. The second component is the sieve that the environment gives a person. Each group has its own sieve, the size of the holes depending on the norms and expectations accepted there. Having assessed the conditions and possible consequences, a person either accepts or rejects the external sieve offered to him. Its behavior under specific conditions ultimately depends on which of the currently operating sieves is “smaller”—internal or external. If a person’s personal standards are high enough, then he will behave with dignity, regardless of any conditions and circumstances. A person who does not share established moral standards will also behave quite decently in a significant situation, demonstrating his commitment to generally accepted principles. However, this behavior poses a certain burden for him. A person has to “wear a mask,” which gradually tires him. He is ready, through force, to remain in this mask at work, in the circle of “necessary” acquaintances, where the impression he makes can have important consequences for him. But when he gets on a tram, goes to a store, or goes on a trip with strangers, he is relieved to reveal his true face. And if here he is presented with the same expectations, if he is called upon to follow the “general” rules, then he will not simply reject these proposals, but will meet them with irritation, the greater the more alien these norms are to him. A planned tourist group is a temporary and most often completely random association of people: a voucher, i.e. a place in the group, is purchased by each participant for the duration of the trip and independently of the other members of the group. Only sometimes do people go as ready-made companies. The randomness of selection determines the very unstable average norms that are established in such a group. The above applies to a large extent to an amateur group that gathered through advertisements in a tourist club or in some other way united shortly before a trip and only for the sake of this trip. Of course, for the majority of participants, the tourist group has sufficient reference, and people try to adapt to each other, at least for the duration of the trip. But there are also people who do not want to accept even “lighter” norms. The remaining participants are not significant persons for them. The application of serious sanctions in tourism is unlikely and is limited to cases of very gross violations of order. Without caring about the impression made, without fearing the undesirable consequences of his actions, a person behaves as freely as possible and reveals his true essence. Moreover, contrary to popular belief, this happens to a greater extent not at the moment of overcoming natural difficulties (when mobilization of forces, self-affirmation and, perhaps, even narcissism are possible), but when coming into contact with the little things of tourist life. How does a person behave at a rest stop, how does he behave in a bivouac during camp work, when distributing food? How is he on duty, how much space does he take up in the tent? It is these similar questions that make it possible to quickly and reliably recognize the character of people in tourist conditions. Role structure of the tourist group Any joint activity requires a division of functions between the participants. There is a dual distribution of roles in the tourist group. First of all, there are roles that ensure the functioning of the group and the achievement of its main goals. They express typical official (or “formal”) relations and represent nothing more than a contractual distribution of responsibilities (for the entire duration of the campaign or occasionally): the leader and his deputy (instructor and headman), supply manager, medic, photographer, treasurer, chronicler, the closing one and, finally, the attendants. All these roles can be called functional. They are the same in almost all groups, although, of course, their execution largely depends on who exactly gets down to business and how. In the process of joint activities of specific participants, individual personal (or interpersonal, “informal”) relationships arise between them, which have a significant impact on the mutual placement of people in the group. Despite the diversity and uniqueness of the combinations that arise, it is still possible to note some more common options, typical combinations. This allows us to highlight the roles of the second type. They are not as defined as functional ones, are not strictly distributed and can be hidden even from their performers. Roles of the second type can be called positional, since they largely depend on the status of a person in the group, that is, on the position that he himself occupies and that others assign to him. The essence of functional roles is well known, and we will not dwell on them. Let's move on to positional roles and first of all emphasize that most of the role names given below are purely illustrative in nature, often with a humorous touch. Using them requires a lot of tact. The purpose of these names is to help figuratively imagine the role being described and make it easier for the leader to analyze (for himself!) the composition of the group. Particular caution should be exercised against publicly using these terms as labels to refer to specific people. It is completely unacceptable to tell someone in a group that they are a “clown”, or a “consumer”, or “the last” (or to say something similar to others in his absence). The first and main role group leader(all of them, not just one of the small groups). To what has already been said about leadership, it should be added here that for the success of the journey, who gets this role is very important. The optimal and fairly common option is the group leader (instructor) in the role of leader. But, unfortunately, this does not always happen. The separation of management and leadership dramatically complicates the situation in the group and can lead to dangerous consequences. This will be discussed in more detail in the section on psychological management tactics. In almost every group there are several enthusiasts voluntarily and with pleasure take on any task. Sometimes, however, some of them are much more active on the route, while others prefer to work in the bivouac. This gives grounds to talk about “route” and “bivvy” enthusiasts. But more often than not, such a division does not occur. The positive role of enthusiasts is obvious. But in their activity they often suppress the initiative of other tourists, giving rise to freeloading sentiments among some of them. Excessive activity of the more experienced makes it difficult for the less experienced to increase their qualifications, many of whom would be. It’s very interesting and useful to figure out the difficulties of the route yourself (of course, under the supervision of a leader), and gain experience in camp work in unusual conditions. They would love to get involved, but they remain on the sidelines because enthusiasts do the job faster and better. As a result, those who were forced to settle for a passive role may be left with serious dissatisfaction, lack of confidence in their abilities, and even loss of interest in tourism after such a trip. There is another option for the unwanted influence of enthusiasts on the group. Impressed by the ease and simplicity with which experienced tourists cope with everything, beginners may underestimate the difficulties, overestimate their capabilities and have the illusion of being prepared for more serious travel. There is also a danger for the enthusiasts themselves. Against the backdrop of the inept actions of inexperienced participants, they may develop an element of narcissism, the impression of their own indispensability, and a feeling of superiority over others. This leads directly to an unhealthy atmosphere in the group. Looking ahead, we will define the tactics of the leader (instructor) in relation to enthusiasts. Of course, they are his main support. Using their energy is easy and convenient, but you should not base your entire campaign on this, remembering what was just said. This does not mean that you need to directly restrain the activity of enthusiasts: “Stand aside while H. lights a fire.” This way you can deprive the enthusiast of pleasure, but for H. the joy will be dubious. The activity of enthusiasts must be kept under control and directed in such a way that it leaves the possibility of natural, spontaneous involvement in responsible actions (at the direction of a leader or on their own initiative) and other tourists who do not have the skill, experience or strength. Let's say, at the time of setting up a bivouac (if emergency is not required), send enthusiasts on reconnaissance. Sometimes it is enough to ask an experienced tourist (preferably face to face) to try to teach others more and do less himself. Such a request, expressed tactfully, will only please him. Under no circumstances should enthusiasts be pitted against incompetent novice tourists. You can give an example of the action of an enthusiast: “Learn to do it like A does.” And then follows an analysis of exactly how to do it. But not: “Well done, our A., not like you...” Elder" - the most authoritative and independent member of the group. This role is close to the role of the leader (they can coincide), but the “elder” may not show any activity and limit himself only to remarks, which, however, are very significant for each member of the group, including for the leader (if he himself does not play this role, which usually happens when the leader is much more experienced than the participants and has the appropriate personal qualities). It is also possible to combine the roles of “elder” and enthusiast in one person. If there are two “elders” in the group and more, and their positions do not coincide, then their authority drops sharply, and based on personal differences between them, a conflict may arise that can lead to a split in the entire group. It is rare that a group can do without a humorous leader. This may be " jester", creating fun through his actions, actively acting as an object, a target for jokes and other people's wit. Another type of humorous leader is " wit", who gets laughter with the help of his own wit and wit. He prefers to joke about situations or at other participants. More often in a group one of them or both of them are in one person. The presence of two contenders for the role of humorous leader usually leads to competition between them with the loss of a sense of proportion. The hike turns into a variety performance, which creates a large additional burden for all participants. The bulk of the group consists of " consumers", using the products of the performers of the above-mentioned roles. With their reactions and general recognition, consumers give satisfaction to the leader, enthusiasts, "jester" and "wit". Being under the great influence of the "elder", they give his statements and assessments the character of public opinion. They support the emerging distribution of positional roles, reacting to the actions of their performers in the prescribed manner (as established in this group). From the very beginning, “consumers” can form two primary groups or more with their leaders, and in a critical or conflict situation it is easy to lose the unity of action. In the previous section we they said that the tourist group may include people with low personal standards who do not care about the impression they make on others. They can be called " self-determining", because in their behavior they are guided only by their own interests and do not take into account the opinions of others. Although they do not strive for popularity and do not try to win support in the group, they can still cause resonance and even sympathy among part of the group. This greatly strengthens them position. It’s even worse if there are several of them in a group and they manage to find common ground. Then they form their own primary group, sharply isolated and opposed to everyone else. negative leader. Such a small group is internally fragile, since all its members are extreme individualists. But they are cemented by a general negative reaction and the activities of a negative leader. One should distinguish from “self-determining” people who violate accepted norms of behavior or safety rules (sometimes very rudely) in order to attract attention or impress someone. Most often this is a demonstration of one’s courage, bravery, strength, dexterity, independence or some other qualities in front of the opposite sex. This behavior can usually be managed fairly easily. An authoritative manager (leader) will be able to do this in a gentle way - by exhortation, explanation face to face. However, sometimes it is necessary to resort to more effective measures, for example, revealing to everyone the sexual implications of such behavior. In every case, someone always remains last. It’s good when different people get into this position in different episodes, in different cases. But it happens that in the last position in all respects (or in most respects) one of the tourists is firmly entrenched in the group. Note. In social psychology, this role is designated by the term omega (the last letter of the Greek alphabet). This is a person who is constantly lagging behind, weak technically and physically, and not adapted to tourist life. In critical situations, such a participant may pose a serious danger to himself and others. He often becomes the object of ridicule and even bullying. More often than not, this happens against his wishes. But in self-defense, he can expose his inferiority by taking on the role of a “jester.” The envy and negative significance of the role of “last” for the group are obvious. But such an assessment of this role turns out to be incomplete. If the “last” in the group is clearly defined, this dramatically improves the position of the “penultimate” and the participants close to him. They gain inner peace, confidence, and organization. If the place of the “last” had not been taken, one of them could have found himself in this role in an even more deplorable state. It happens that the “last” contributes to the unity of the group: people are united by their common reaction to his actions - be it ridicule of his failures or a common desire to help him and provide support. There are examples when, in such cases, the departure of the “last” from the route, against expectation, did not improve, but worsened the psychological climate in the group. It turned out that he served as a kind of core on which the unity of the group rested. The position of the manager in relation to the “last” is complex and ambiguous. The leader usually suffers more than others from the actions of the “last”, but he should not join the general negative reaction, should not support the group, much less appeal to it. This issue is discussed in more detail in the appendix in task No. 2. And finally, one more, very important role. Its conventional name is " disorg" - represents an abbreviation of the word “disorganizer.” We denote by this term a fairly authoritative tourist who has an independent point of view and actively defends it. As a result, some part of the group begins to think and act like him. For example, “disorganizer” can sow distrust to the leader, proving that the group is going in the wrong direction, or can carry away part of the group (or even the whole) by undertaking some maneuver - in his opinion, necessary and correct, but contrary to the instructions of the leader. "Desorg" differs from " self-determining" in that he primarily cares about the interests of the entire group (as he understands them), and not about his own. He is far from indifferent to the opinions of other participants and their attitude towards him. And therefore he does not just act in his own way (as act as “self-determiners”), but persistently tries to win over other tourists to his side. He often succeeds in this, and he receives occasional or constant support. A threat arises to the unity of the group’s action. However, if the “desorg” and his supporters do not take unauthorized actions, but only stand up for their proposals, they cannot be assessed negatively. When disciplined, they can provide a useful opposition that helps to establish the truth. "Desorg", thus, increases the tone of the leader and makes his decisions more responsible. One of the participants may become entrenched in the role of “diszorg,” but more often in different situations it moves from one performer to another. An “elder” or an “enthusiast” can easily become a “Desorg.” And - paradoxically - even the leader himself may find himself in this role. How this combination of roles occurs and how to avoid it will be discussed in the section on leadership tactics. Conflict relationships People go traveling for recreation, entertainment and many other things that were mentioned earlier. But it happens that they also (or instead) quarrel with each other. And sometimes it happens that a quarrel that arises overshadows all other interests of a person and subordinates all his goals. There is a misconception that as the travel situation becomes more complex and obstacles arise, the likelihood of conflict increases. In reality, in more difficult conditions, people have a growing sense of responsibility, reserve forces are mobilized, and physical and moral tone increases. All this - to a certain extent, which occurs in extremely complex, extreme situations - contributes to the unity of the group by combining creative efforts and smoothing out many minor contradictions and roughness in relationships. However, the possibility of conflicts (often based on previous minor domestic clashes) remains in difficult conditions, and their consequences become much more dangerous. This gives reason to talk about the greater significance of conflicts in a complex journey (and not about an increase in their frequency). Often an erupted conflict gives the impression of a spontaneous, uncontrollable phenomenon. In reality, any conflict develops according to its own laws and never arises out of nowhere. The open, explicit expression of a conflict is always preceded by a period of hidden maturation, a state of “readiness for conflict.” If we talk about ordinary everyday conflicts, then the numerous reasons that predispose a person to clash with other people can be combined into three groups. 1. A real threat of infringement or dissatisfaction of any interests of the subject (i.e., the person whose view of things we take as a basis). Thus, while traveling, a person may be dissatisfied with the distribution of cargo, duties or duties; the place he got in the tent; a menu compiled without taking into account his taste; the daily routine or pace of movement, etc. In this case, the interests of the subject suffer from certain actions of other participants or the group leader. 2. Erroneously attributing to someone a position directed against the subject. Incomprehensible or ambiguous actions, statements of others can receive an unambiguous distorted assessment of the subject, especially if he has some fears through the prism of which he perceives what is happening. (Let us remember the probabilistic forecast and the negative model of the situation.) For example, people with increased self-esteem and heightened pride, having acquired some tourist experience, often begin to react painfully to the advice of experienced tourists. Advice or a hint (especially if it is not given very tactfully, and especially in front of everyone) is perceived by such a person as an action, the main purpose of which is to expose his weaknesses, to highlight his shortcomings. Another example is the participant’s reaction to the manager’s refusal to fulfill some of his requests. Let's say the leader did not allow a tourist to go on reconnaissance, and then did not allow him to leave the parking lot. Without knowing the true reasons, a person can accept these and subsequent refusals from a manager as an expression of an unkind attitude towards himself and react to them accordingly. 3. Psychological intolerance. Prejudicial attitude towards a person in connection with his way of thinking, interests, geographical or social origin, nationality, gender, age, clothing, hairstyle, voice, speech, gait, manner of eating, drinking, laughing, snoring and many other characteristics - even smell (even perfume, not to mention socks). Intolerance occurs in a subject when some properties or actions of another person begin to cause unpleasant associations or become annoying in themselves. The source of intolerance can also be such actions that, although not directly related to the subject, still expose his weaknesses and demonstrate his shortcomings. If, say, the next person on duty cleaned out a boiler that the previous one was unable to clean completely, or someone found a passage where the subject could not find a way before him - in both cases, a more fortunate tourist may have a drop of envy in the less fortunate one , irritations, which will then develop into intolerance. Finally, intuitive prejudice may arise without clear grounds. Readiness for conflict is experienced by the subject as a state of mental discomfort and irritation. Moreover, all this does not exist on its own, but is more or less clearly connected with the personality of a specific person - an opponent who opposes the subject and to whom the subject will direct his actions during the transition from readiness to the implementation of the conflict. The opponent is not always aware of the conflict. Thus, a tourist dissatisfied with an instructor can be polite, restrained in his presence and not express any complaints, but behind the instructor’s back, vilify him in every possible way, make skeptical remarks about him and thereby significantly undermine his authority in the group. The instructor, not knowing anything about this, does not take any response. In such cases, the opponent acts only as a target to which the subject directs his reactions. The opponent remains passive and does not enter into the conflict himself. We will call such a conflict - with one active participant - one-sided. A model for such a conflict can be I. A. Krylov’s fable “The Elephant and the Pug.” Much more often, the opponent does not remain indifferent, but responds in some way to the actions of the subject and becomes a “full-fledged” participant in the conflict. If we now take his position as a basis, then we can repeat about him everything that was previously said about the subject. Thus, in a bilateral conflict, one can identify any of the two subjects, depending on from whose position the conflict is analyzed. Conflicts can be divided into homogeneous and complex. If the prevailing grounds for conflict for each of the subjects belong to the same groups (out of the three just discussed), we will consider such a conflict homogeneous. Three types of homogeneous conflicts are possible: 1) true conflict - with mutual infringement of interests; 2) misunderstanding - with a mutual mistake: 3) psychological incompatibility - with mutual intolerance. We will call a conflict in which the subjects have different reasons complex. So, let’s imagine that one of the tourists felt that the supply manager unfairly distributed the cargo or unevenly unloaded the participants. The tourist expresses his doubts to the caretaker and in response “receives” a violent reaction. What is such a conflict? For a tourist, the source of conflict is a mistake. A tourist's remark, if expressed without sufficient tact, could hurt the caretaker's pride, i.e., harm his interests. Another option is also possible: the caretaker, for some reason, had previously felt a hostile feeling towards the tourist who made the complaint. And the tourist’s remark addressed to him (even in a tactful form) served only as an impetus that revealed the psychological intolerance of the caretaker in relation to this tourist. Combinations of both of these options cannot be ruled out. One way or another, the stormy reaction of the caretaker may actually affect the interests of the tourist, which will cause additional defensive actions on his part, which will lead to further escalation of the conflict. The conflict becomes multi-layered. The readiness for conflict, even with very high tension among the subjects, does not always turn into an open clash. The moment of transition depends on a combination of many factors. Among them, one can highlight the personal properties of those in conflict (place in the range between restraint and aggressiveness, courage and cowardice), the probabilistic forecast of each of them (what promises him the development of the conflict). Particular emphasis should be placed on the role of external conditions and, in particular, the presence and position of significant persons. If at least one, and even more so both people, who are prone to conflict, feel the support of others and the approval of people significant to them, an open clash becomes almost inevitable. On the contrary, an atmosphere of general condemnation and especially a disapproving attitude of significant persons can slow down or even prevent the development of a conflict. The development of the conflict that has begun (its implementation) occurs in different ways. 1. Progressive, logical, or “game” development. The conflict seems to be played out by opponents. Each of them takes turns making moves, adhering to some rules, restrictions and prohibitions (sometimes each their own). The actions of the participants in the conflict remain in touch with the situation and are quite consistent. There is a certain logic in them. As a model of the progressive development of the conflict, we can cite I. A. Krylov’s fable “The Crow and the Fox.” In tourist practice, an example of the logical development of a conflict is the dispute between a leader and a “disorganizer” when discussing the group’s next actions. The competition between the two humorous leaders of the group proceeds in the same spirit. In the latter case, the “playing out” of the conflict can drag on for the entire campaign, with significant intervals between individual “moves” with careful consideration of the enemy’s steps. 2. Rapid, avalanche-like development. Having sometimes begun with insignificant disputes, the conflict rapidly gains strength, grows and becomes uncontrollable. The actions and statements of the participants (or one of them) lose connection with the cause that caused them and do not correspond to it in scale. They are straightforward, oversaturated with emotions. The interlocutor’s answers are practically not comprehended, but are used only as steps that ease the path to the top of the conflict. Unilateral or mutual self-inflation of subjects occurs. The conflict quickly reaches a maximum, followed by a final or temporary decline), devastation. A model for such a development of a conflict can be the quarrel between Ivan Ivanovich and Ivan Nikiforovich - the heroes of the story by N. V. Gogol. In tourist practice, all sorts of showdowns often lead to avalanche-like conflicts. “Self-determining” people often respond with violent manifestations to attempts by the leader and other tourists to somehow limit their freedom and put them within the proper framework. 3. Explosive development. The conflict immediately, almost instantly, reaches its maximum. The actions of the subject (usually only one) are characterized by globality, destructiveness, and completeness. This development option sometimes occurs after a long, hidden gestation of the conflict, but it can also follow without special preparation, especially if the subject is distinguished by his temper and lack of self-control. In the latter case, drinking alcohol sharply increases the “explosiveness” of the subject. As a model for the explosive development of a conflict, you can use I. A. Krylov’s fable “Demyanov’s Ear.” While traveling, the reaction of the “last” to the ridicule of other tourists can take on an explosive character. An explosive reaction that erupts over a trifle and causes bewilderment of others often turns out to be a manifestation of hidden psychological intolerance. The given options for the development of the conflict may coincide or diverge for both participants. Transitions from one method to another and mixed options are possible. How do acute conflicts end? Let us list the following outcomes. 1. Complete resolution, extinction of the conflict. This is most easily achieved during a random one-sided conflict, when the subject receives an unhindered opportunity to react, to give vent to accumulated irritation. In a homogeneous true conflict, this is the victory of one and the defeat of the other participant or a compromise between them. In case of misunderstanding, clarify positions and eliminate the conflict. 2. Decline, transition to a chronic state (“burning turns to smoldering”). It is observed in more complex conflicts, when it is not possible to completely overcome contradictions or eliminate other sources of mutual tension. “Smoldering” conflicts usually have a playful, logical development interspersed with avalanche-like or explosive episodes. 3. Return to a state of readiness for conflict. It usually occurs when some circumstance (often external) interrupts the conflict that has begun, but does not change anything in the relationships between the participants. Whether a person appeared in front of whom the brawlers preferred to remain silent, or there was not enough time to finish the argument - one way or another, the rivals stop their actions with the desire to resume them at the first convenient moment. But this moment may never come, or while waiting for it, passions will subside and the desire to continue the argument will cool down. In this case, the conflict ends, as it were, without being resolved in essence. 4. The imaginary way out of the conflict is to distract from the problem without overcoming it. Among the means of such distraction one can name some kind of random joint interest, self-deception, drinking together, and in sexual relationships - bursts of violent passion. In all these cases (unlike the previous outcome), people’s sense of conflict tension disappears. However, in the future, this often turns into an aggravation of the conflict, because the opponents return to the conflict situation unexpectedly, after the illusion of its resolution (and sometimes even their own victory and the retreat of the opponent). And then the simple preservation of the previous position by one of the participants in the conflict appears to the other as a stubborn return to the old. Let us now dwell on the methods of overcoming conflicts and their application in tourism practice. 1. Mediation in a conflict by a third party - on his own initiative or at the invitation of one of the parties. The mediator's task is to help the parties find a compromise or clarify positions and eliminate misunderstandings. It happens that the subject of the dispute is completely obvious and a seemingly insignificant concession is enough to peacefully disperse or reach an agreement. But each fears that the other will interpret his concession as weakness, retreat and take advantage of it. And that’s why no one wants to take the first step. It is another matter when the initiative comes from a third party or through this person the terms of “peace” are agreed upon. Then it is much easier to agree. This especially applies to multi-layered conflicts, when personal hostility is added to the initial clash of interests, and as a result of insults and insults inflicted during the dispute, a desire arises not only to achieve one’s own, but to certainly gain the upper hand over the enemy, humiliate him, and cause him more trouble. Well, if the conflict arises as a result of a misunderstanding and the subject of the dispute is not clear from the very beginning, then it is almost impossible to agree among ourselves. And only the intervention of a third party can break the deadlock. However, the mediator can fulfill his role only if he has the trust of both parties to the conflict. To do this, he must remain impartial and neutral. The mediator's interest in the outcome of the case, the slightest bias in his position, will immediately turn one of the conflicting parties against the mediator, who in his eyes will be relegated to the level of the opposite side in the conflict. In other words, a biased mediator is considered by one of the conflicting parties as an accomplice of the enemy. If the one who undertakes to mediate the dispute has high authority or is endowed with power (say, the leader of the group), then he becomes an arbiter. An arbitrator can not only help the parties balance their positions, but also judge them. The arbitrator's decision is usually accepted for execution even if he showed bias or bias. But then the one who obeyed perceives the decision as arbitrariness and injustice. His mood deteriorates, resentment and bitterness arise. All this can be avoided if the arbitrator takes care of the impartiality of his position and the conviction of the verdict for both participants. However, the arbitrator should not (at least in the acute period) get carried away with searching for the truth or analyzing the mistakes and guilt of those in conflict. This is a thankless task, because people in conflict often lose objectivity, self-criticism, and a sense of justice. It is much more useful to take a constructive approach: to find a non-standard, unexpected solution that will distract or surprise the disputants and make them think. Or move from words to action: give those who have quarreled some kind of assignment (a joint one that will force them to act together and help them find a common language, or, conversely, an independent one for each to distract them from each other). For example, two people who happen to be on duty together cannot come to an agreement with each other and quarrel endlessly. The instructor releases them from duty and appoints them as permanent dishwashers. If the balance of power between the disputants is unequal, the arbiter can moderate the ardor of the attacker by taking a share of the blame of the defender upon himself. For example, one of the tourists furiously accuses another of laughing loudly the night before and disturbing the inhabitants of the neighboring tent. The manager intervenes: “It’s my fault - I said funny things.” The activity of the “accuser” subsides, and it becomes possible to restore normal relations. 2. Separation of conflicting parties. The essence of the technique is clear from the name. It can be used in addition to the previous one, when the leader, who intervened in the conflict as an arbiter, resettles, seats, or otherwise separates the discordant participants from each other. This is an organized separation. But emergency separation may also be required if the conflict develops in an avalanche-like or explosive manner, in which mediation, as a rule, turns out to be unrealistic. The disputants are somehow isolated from each other, deprived of common ground and the opportunity to continue the conflict. 3. Favoring the free development and completion of the reaction. This technique is appropriate for avalanche-like and explosive development, if the conflict, by its nature and scale, does not pose a threat to the unity of action, security and well-being of the group. The two previous techniques are suitable for outside intervention. This method can only be used by one of the participants in the collision. Essentially, it comes down to turning the conflict into a one-sided one. There is no point in arguing or explaining anything to an agitated, agitated person. This only increases the intensity of his emotions and prevents him from understanding the situation. It is much more useful to let him express everything he wants, without interrupting or limiting him, even if the essence of his claims has long ago become clear. Of course, silence should not be defiant or demonstrative. Without encountering objections and without receiving new food from the interlocutor to inflame passions, a person calms down and either completely switches off from the conflict or becomes available for a productive discussion of the situation on the merits. The described technique is sometimes used by a leader who finds himself in conflict with one of the participants. An inexperienced, unconfident leader is extremely reluctant to do this, fearing that silence in front of a participant shouting at him may undermine his authority. And he tries to gain the upper hand at any cost. In fact, the calmness, restraint, and self-esteem inherent in a qualified leader will not allow him to descend into market squabbles. An experienced leader will not engage in petty bickering or defend his prestige by shouting. He will find a way to do this calmly and convincingly later, when passions have subsided. 4. Suppression of conflict. Mandatory for any type of it, if there is a threat of loss of unity or the security of the group is otherwise affected. Suppression can be carried out by one of the participants in the conflict, vested with power, or from the outside. The essence of the technique is the immediate unconditional cessation of any conflicting actions. This can be achieved on the basis of the high, unquestioned authority of the leader, combined with a sufficient level of discipline. If there is neither one nor the other, and the conflict is of an avalanche-like or explosive nature, it can only be stopped with the help of collective, clearly organized, coordinated actions. We must remember that attempts to call disputants to order or shout them down most often not only do not produce results, but only add fuel to the fire. You need to act calmly, but at the same time decisively and energetically, justifying your demands not with personal considerations, but with general interests and existing rules, i.e. the argumentation must be strict and official. If it is not possible to stop an overly active debater (or two), “forceful pressure” may be required: gathering and demonstrating superior forces, and if necessary, then using them. The absence of a tangible superiority of forces calls the success of “forceful pressure,” and therefore the suppression of the conflict, into question and forces greater patience and perseverance in the search for other ways to overcome it. The considered methods for overcoming an emerging conflict should be supplemented by general principles that make it possible to prevent an impending clash while the parties have not yet begun open action, but remain in a state of readiness for conflict. These principles thus serve to prevent conflict. But with their help, it is also easier to get out of the conflict that has begun. We will group them in pairs. 1. Objectivity and compliance. When interests clash, open conflict can only be avoided through compromise. It is much easier to achieve it if you call on the above principles for help. While a person is focused only on his own interests, any retreat from his position looks like a defeat for him. But it’s worth looking at the matter more broadly, trying to understand and take into account the concerns and motives of those who were faced with circumstances, and the same retreat may receive a completely different assessment. The search for a compromise is more likely to be successful if it is led along the path of renouncing part of one’s claims, rather than putting pressure on the opponent’s claims. Refusal of any demand on your own initiative is always less painful than under force. By putting pressure on a potential enemy, the subject risks turning an impending conflict into a real one or aggravating an existing one. If the initiative to make concessions is taken, the tension usually softens. And there are many chances that this initiative will be supported by the other side. An illustration of one of the possible options for using objectivity and compliance in tourist practice can be the “Unnecessary reconnaissance” task. 2. Clarity and friendliness. It is easier to see in the words or actions of your interlocutor a meaning that is not intended in them, to make a mistake in deciphering the behavior of another person, the more complex the situation and the more vaguely this person expresses his thoughts and intentions. But an error cannot be ruled out even with completely clear and unambiguous statements, especially when there is reason to doubt the sincerity of the words or the demonstrated attitude. Taking into account other possible interpretations of other people's words or actions and checking the reliability of one's own impression makes it possible to identify the one-sided or mutual delusion underlying such clashes. It is also important to separate subsequent layers from the initial misconception and either reduce the situation to a true conflict (using the previous principle), or clarify the misunderstanding and eliminate the conflict. Here is a practical illustration of what has been said. The planned route was coming to an end. Tomorrow is a ceremonial meeting of the group at the base. And today bad weather broke out. The base is very close. It’s not too late, and one of the participants suggested: “Why bother, let’s get to the base!” He found like-minded people. The instructor listened gloomily to the discussion of the details of the “proposal”, and then suddenly exploded, said harsh words and left. The tourists were left perplexed: “What’s wrong with him?” The more experienced explained that such a proposal meant running away from the route and that it was offensive to the instructor. It was not at all difficult to dissuade supporters of a return to base. If the instructor had not taken the momentary weakness of inexperienced beginners personally and regarded it as his failure in front of the group, he could well have avoided unpleasant experiences and conflict. The principle of clarity is used by some groups, resorting to open discussion of relationships in the event of conflict. Such a tool can be useful, especially if there is a person in the group who enjoys general authority (preferably the leader himself) who can take on the role of arbiter. But a prerequisite for success is a friendly attitude towards each other. An attempt to achieve clarity without goodwill contributes to escalation of the conflict rather than a way out of it, because all sorts of clarifications of circumstances and relationships, as well as unfriendly critical remarks (“truth-womb”), only strengthen a person’s defensive reactions. Many researchers, who were in conditions of forced very close communication, came to the conclusion that the only acceptable way to maintain a normal psychological climate was freedom of self-criticism and a complete ban on any comments to each other. Note. See, in particular, Bozhko A. N., Gorodinskaya V. S. “A Year in the Starship.” M., “Young Guard”, 1975; Repin L. B. “Three on a Desert Island. M., "Thought", 1976. Goodwill, in turn, requires clarity. It is difficult to be friendly to a person whose behavior is incomprehensible and therefore alarming. However, even in cases where, by all indications, the opponent’s position is assessed as hostile, if there is the slightest possibility, it is necessary to interpret his behavior in the most favorable light and be sure to let him understand this. The fact is that actions can have multiple meanings not only for an external observer. Sometimes the person himself does not fully understand the meaning of his actions or is ready to change their interpretation. A person is able to significantly change the further course of his behavior depending on how his actions are understood and accepted by others. A soft, friendly response to a challenging remark, turning a provocative question into a joke, etc. can give a person a favorable prognosis of the situation and positively influence his further behavior, while accepting his initial tone would strengthen his negative prognosis and increase his readiness to conflict. 3. Distance and self-control. Increasing the distance does not interfere with any complication in the relationship, and self-control is useful in all cases of life. But both are especially important in the case of psychological incompatibility, because in conflicts of this type (or in case of one-sided intolerance), the main source of the subject’s irritation lies in himself, in his internal properties. The opponent only “manifests” these properties, and by his very presence opens the way for reactions formed on their basis. The above applies equally to both participants in case of incompatibility or only to one of them in case of unilateral intolerance. In these cases, one cannot count on a compromise or clarification of the situation, since neither one nor the other practically changes the internal mood of the parties. Here, it is most effective to increase the distance between participants and reduce points of contact. (For example, to place incompatible people in different tents, separate them into different crews, groups; finally, there are cases when people who have good relationships in urban conditions, for the sake of preserving these relationships, it is better to simply not go on a hike together.) But it is not always possible to increase distance. This remedy is effective only at the time of use, but does not guarantee against relapse at all. In addition, psychological incompatibility very often does not appear in its pure form, but complicates some other conflicts that need to be resolved rather than avoided. A more effective, although more labor-intensive, means of protecting against such situations is mastering your reactions: developing various skills to extinguish or restrain them. To do this, first of all, you need to get to know yourself well, learn to conduct impartial introspection, and then create a kind of “psychological drainage” that relieves you of tension and irritation. All these problems can be solved, in particular, with the help of autogenic training, which is a system of special exercises that allow a person to regulate his mental state through physical influences. You can master autogenic training in a group under the guidance of a psychotherapist or on your own. Note. Of the significant number of manuals on this topic that have appeared recently, we will name: Levi V.L. “The Art of Being Yourself,” ed. 2nd. M., "Knowledge", 1977; Lynchevsky E. E. "Issues of trading psychology." M., "Economics", 1976; Chernikova O. A. "Competition, risk, self-control in sports." M., "Physical culture and sport", 1980. Greater support in the development and timely activation of self-control can be provided by a trusted person, or “referent”, from whom the subject finds understanding and sympathy. The referent allows the subject to freely express his dissatisfaction, indignation, vent unpleasant feelings, and give vent to brewing undesirable reactions. Taking advantage of the subject's disposition and trust, the referent has the opportunity to stop his comrade at the right moment or moderate his ardor. One group had two poorly compatible participants. The debate between them began gradually, but, gaining momentum, acquired a “malignant” character and almost always turned into insults and quarrels. Only the friend of one of this couple could save the situation. It was enough for him to call his comrade by name and add: “Stop!” And he instantly fell silent, like a vacuum cleaner unplugged. The role of the referent is close to the role of the mediator, but the referent can quite successfully perform his functions in contact with only one participant in the conflict (as in the above example), while the mediator cannot do without interaction with both, and he must have authority with each of them. Everything that has been said about conflicts between individuals can be extended to unhealthy relationships between small groups. In other words, the subject of the conflict can be either an independent person or a group of people who are in one or another association with each other. Of course, variants of conflict between the individual and the group are also possible. For example, when a tourist group as a whole opposes “self-determination” or when a leader fights against a small group that is acting incorrectly. The latter, as a rule, can be avoided, because a psychologically competent tactful leader usually refrains from participating in the conflict as one of the parties. Skillful actions and restraint help the leader, in a clash between individual participants or small groups, to retain the position of arbiter. The exception is the case when “self-determining” people are united in the primary group. Their norms and behavior often pose a threat to safety, and the manager cannot wait or observe the development of events from the outside. He has to intervene vigorously, and then a conflict develops along the line of the leader (and those who support him) - the leader of the “self-determining” (at the head of his group, which can be joined by all those dissatisfied with the leader). The leader must act in such a conflict calmly, confidently, and at the same time decisively and wisely, remembering that the success of the trip, as well as the safety, and sometimes even the fate of the participants, may depend on the outcome of the conflict. The following tactical paths can be recommended. Try to disunite, divide the opposing group by increasing the distance between its members or exacerbating contradictions between them. Discredit the leader in the eyes of his followers or the entire group (for example, give him an impossible task, say, an inexperienced tourist - to light a fire in the rain; put a bad, uncertain person first for a while, etc.). An important fundamental decision to make with the group in the absence of a negative leader, having previously sent him on some errand. Of course, all these and similar actions can be justified only in extreme circumstances by security interests. The use of such measures by a leader unless absolutely necessary or to win a personal conflict is immoral. Psychological tactics for leading a tourist group The leader and instructor of a tourist group constantly has to solve many different problems. How to navigate them? Which ones should you give preference to, and which ones can you put aside without harm to your business? The result in tourism, as in any collective sport, can only be achieved through joint organized efforts. And group disunity is one of the main prerequisites and almost a prerequisite for most emergency situations. This means that in order to achieve the goal, as well as for accident-free operation, it is necessary, first of all, to achieve such behavior of the entire group and each of its members, which ensures its existence and functioning as a single whole, and in case of temporary separation guarantees reliable reunification. In other words, the task of maintaining the unity of the group’s actions should be considered the main, strategic one. And all actions, all decisions of the leader must be subordinated to it. An important condition for unity of action is group cohesion. How is it determined, what does it depend on? At first, until common goals and common values and norms for all members of the group have been formed, two important factors can be named that are in close interaction. Firstly, these are the personal properties of the people gathered in the group: how conscious and disciplined they are, what their moral character is. Secondly, the relationship that arose between them. If we talk about adults, then already established people with established personal characteristics come to the group, which, by the way, are not always immediately visible to others. Moreover, it often happens that some characteristics of a person are hidden from him. Thus, a coward or an alarmist in a strong cohesive group will strive with all his might to maintain unity, because with such a group he feels calmer and more confident. And no one, including himself, may not know that he is prone to panic, whereas in the absence of confidence in his comrades or leader, the same person in a difficult situation may begin to act individually and put both himself and the group in a dangerous position. During the short period of travel, the leader often does not have the opportunity to get to know each member of the group deeply enough. And even more so, to re-educate any of the adult participants in planned or random amateur groups. (This does not mean that tourism does not have enormous educational value. But the influence of tourism on a person occurs through all activities, and not through the direct arbitrary influence of one person on another.) So, the leader has only one reliable way to achieve overall cohesion - through relationships in the group. How can we take control of them and by what means can we regulate them? And in general, is it necessary to strive for this? Isn’t it enough to make sure that the group is “normal”, and that means the laws of the collective should arise in it, which themselves will ensure unity and cohesion in any conditions? This is a widespread and dangerous illusion. The fact is that a group of tourists who have come together on package tours from different places or who have accidentally come together on an amateur trip (based on recommendations, through advertisements in a club, etc.) are distinguished from a real group by two important features. First of all, this is the absence of a single socially significant goal. We have already talked about how different the interests and expectations of people who find themselves on a hiking trail can be. Accordingly, the travel goals for each of them will be different. But even if the main interests of the participants coincide, when they have a common goal that is the same for everyone, this goal, as a rule, is not socially significant. After all, the specific goals of individual groups most often do not go beyond the interests of the members of these groups. The exceptions are expeditions exploring new areas, solving scientific or research problems, sports teams with a high level of official organization (for example, groups at instructor training camps), as well as similar groups that are established sports teams. For the majority of groups, a tourist trip is just a solution to the problem of how best to spend their next vacation. Of course, society is interested in a favorable solution to this problem. But how exactly it will be decided for each specific person (whether he will go to a holiday home, a village, a dacha, or go on a trip and which one) is of no fundamental importance. Thus, without being subordinated to a single socially significant goal, the personal goals and interests of members of the tourist group turn out to be the main regulator of people’s behavior. In these cases, as long as no clashes or contradictions arise, everything goes well. The aspirations and efforts of the participants coincide and add up together. It is not uncommon here for the strong to support the weak, to provide mutual assistance, to show attention and sensitivity to each other. But this unification is accidental and fragile. There is no single connecting link in it. In such a situation, nothing will force a person to give up his own interests if they begin to diverge, much less collide with the interests of other members of the group. This means that if disagreements arise, wait for confusion. Another feature of a tourist group is the short duration of its existence. People who were previously unknown or who do not know each other well are united for the duration of the trip, after which they are again independent of each other. This circumstance determines the low level of mutual importance of the travel participants and the low referentiality of the tourist group for many of its members, which has already been discussed in more detail (see page 17). There are other differences between a mass tourist group and a collective in the strict sense of the word, which we will not dwell on. It is important to emphasize, however, that all of the above does not mean that the tourist group should not be treated as a collective. On the contrary, the above-mentioned features of a tourist group force us not to expect that unity will develop on its own, but from the first moment the group is formed, to constantly take care of establishing the spirit of collectivism in relationships. The leader will be able to compensate for the initial fragility inherent in the tourist group, avoid confusion, achieve self-restraint and submission from each participant to established norms of behavior and rules only if all participants realize the need to maintain unity of action and understand that without it there cannot be even partial satisfaction someone's interests. It would seem that this is an elementary truth. But precisely because it is obvious to everyone in whose hands the organization of travel is, people sometimes forget to introduce it to those who are getting acquainted with tourism for the first time, and those for whom it has not yet become unshakable. Moreover, proving common truths is not so easy. It is easier to wait until those who doubt them are convinced of their validity from their own experience. But such waiting is sometimes too expensive. The idea of unity of action must not only be proclaimed in words. From the first steps of preparation for the trip (group meeting, pre-trip training for amateur tourists, days of stay at the base before going on the route for planned ones), it should run like a red thread through all the activities of the tourists themselves and everyone who works with the group, so that All participants in the journey, even before it began, had a conscious internal attitude (orientation) towards cohesion, towards maintaining unity of action in any circumstances. As the journey progresses, this attitude should strengthen and turn from conscious to automatic. Then, when choosing what action to perform, a person, without hesitation, discards everything that contradicts the unity of the group’s actions. Everyone’s personal internal attitude is an important, but not the only condition for group cohesion. Let's look at some additional measures that strengthen cohesion. The travel program plays a significant role. It consists of several elements. We have already talked about the importance of a personal probabilistic forecast for the behavior of each participant and for the assessment of the trip (see page 9). Let us remember that along with the expectation, the forecast also contains a reaction to its failure to materialize. The presence in the forecast of at least one of the participants of obviously impossible expectations predetermines his dissatisfaction, which will certainly manifest itself in one form or another. The clash of conflicting expectations among different participants is fraught with even greater trouble. Therefore, care must be taken to ensure that the expectations of all group members are realistic and do not conflict with each other. To do this, it is necessary to determine and clearly formulate the goals and objectives of the trip in advance, trying to ensure that they reflect the wishes of all participants as fully as possible. At the same time, you must know in advance what will not happen on the trip, what you should not count on. In other words, a “collective agreement” must be concluded that links the interests of each with the interests of all. The central place in the travel program belongs to the route. In a complex journey, the real route necessarily includes options that must be developed in detail and - what is especially important - contain criteria for choosing one or another option. The “we’ll see” principle, as well as a travel program that is not clear enough or is not known to everyone, is dangerous in that it leads to the participants creating their own plans, which may not even be realized. Such plans usually do not coincide with each other and do not correspond to the overall purpose of the trip. And since they and the hopes associated with them are not destined to come true, they, as already mentioned, can become a source of acute reactions. And the struggle for “your” plan easily leads to discord. The existence of a general program, which is constantly strictly observed, prevents the emergence of personal plans that differ from it. And if such a “private” plan arises in someone, then from the very beginning the person does not have any special hopes that it will come true. This significantly reduces the activity in the struggle for a personal plan and practically eliminates the reaction to its failure. The above applies mainly to amateur tourism. In a planned trip, the route is usually strictly defined. But sometimes there are still opportunities to clarify details. For example, the choice of radial exits for acclimatization on a mountain trip or the choice of stopping places and days on a water trip. It is useful to discuss with the group (or at least bring to its attention) the mode of movement, rest and nutrition on the road, the principles of cargo distribution. Of course, the final word in all these matters belongs to the instructor, but it is better if it falls to his lot only to approve proposals that are accepted by common consent. In addition to the route in the travel program, it is important to foresee how the group will spend its free time, either planned (on days off) or forced (on “detention” due to bad weather). If each participant is allowed to rest as he pleases, infringement of someone’s interests, boredom, and resentment can easily arise. This especially applies to “imprisonment”, because the limited space, the uncertainty of perspective due to bad weather and the bad weather itself - everything causes internal tension and has a depressing effect. If at the same time part of the group, for example, begins to play cards, then the rest, who have not found something to do, feel restless. The situation is especially unpleasant for those who do not play, but in whose tent the game is being played. So if a group intends to use cards as a means to kill time, then it is necessary to make sure in advance that everyone will participate in the game or that those remaining “outside the game” will find another activity that suits them well. It should be remembered that when activity is limited, people’s demands and claims against each other begin to grow, and this often leads them to clash. It is known that day parties often dampen the group or, on the contrary, heat up the atmosphere within the group. We will not give recipes on how to fill your free time on a hike. Each group will find something to suit their taste. But let us emphasize that this needs to be thought through in advance. The last element of the program that will be discussed is the finale of the hike. The journey should be completed, not stopped. How and where will the “full stop” be placed? If this is not planned in advance, the journey can leave an unfinished impression, like a melody that suddenly ends. At the end of the trip, the following should occur: a) demobilization, relaxation of the participants, switching to a new (more precisely, the old, pre-trip) system of interests and values, revitalization of “off-trip” forecasts; b) rest, putting yourself in order, preparing to go out into the public; c) summing up the first approximate results, exchanging impressions, outlining general assessments. If you don’t plan when and where all this will happen, then it can happen spontaneously or even not happen at all. Demobilization may occur prematurely, before the end of the route. But even a relatively simple pass or just a significant transition requires serious consideration. The post-trip forecast may be formed ahead of schedule, or, on the contrary, it may be late. In the first case, a person is inclined to race at the end of the route, in the second, for some time after the end of the journey he experiences confusion in the face of simple life situations. Going out into a populated area after a difficult journey in remote areas is often associated with significant neuro-emotional stress. The desire to get home as quickly as possible encounters many unexpected obstacles, including problems with transport, and sometimes conflicts with others (over tickets, when boarding with backpacks, etc.). Added to these are everyday unsettled conditions, lack of sleep... If there was no rest and preliminary summing up, the total fatigue (hiking + going home) can form a very unfavorable “trail”, which is superimposed on the overall impression of the hike. And if it was not entirely clear, then many circumstances, details, statements may receive unfavorable coverage and, thus, lead to an underestimated final assessment. Summing up preliminary results without delay allows you to clarify and correctly evaluate many hiking events, sum up your impressions, and consolidate them. As a result, the impression becomes more definite and independent of subsequent layers. Discussion of the results of the campaign can be collective, organized, or private, “behind the scenes”. The higher the level of formal relations, the more appropriate a collective discussion (“debriefing”). The exception is the planned group, in which the instructors changed along the route, and thus there is no one to give a qualified assessment of the actions and behavior of the participants during the entire hike. In small amateur groups, where the level of formal relations is low, official debriefing may look artificial. If, in addition, personal relationships in the group are complex and there is no generally recognized authoritative leader, whose conclusion on the discussion would be recognized by everyone as final and fair, then the analysis becomes simply dangerous, it can easily develop into a squabble. Here, behind-the-scenes (two or three) discussions are more useful, and a general discussion, if desired, can be organized later, when we meet in the city. In any case, the discussion will be useful only if the principle of “clarity and goodwill” is strictly observed, i.e. that is, subject to complete respect for someone else’s personality and preference for self-criticism by each participant. Obviously, in order to “put an end to it”, you need a day’s rest at a point that, firstly, would be conducive to rest and, secondly, would be as far as possible towards the end of the route, so that from here the group quickly and without much effort goes to populated area. The next point that contributes to the unification of the group is the conscious, creative attitude of people to what is happening. It is necessary that each tourist not just follow the instructor or leader, carrying his share of the load from one site to another and simultaneously admiring the beauty or overcoming the difficulties encountered, as he is told. Participants must constantly know where they are, what task the group faces today, what are the possible ways to solve it, what awaits the group next. However, won't such prior knowledge reduce the impression of the hike? After all, in this case the factor of surprise seems to disappear. And surprise, as has been shown, is a prerequisite for emotional impact. These fears are in vain. Let’s say tourists face a serious crossing in the middle of the day, about which they are not warned in advance. What impression will this surprise make on them? For the stronger and more experienced, it is probably positive. But for the weak, unsure of their abilities or doubting the correctness of leadership, an unexpected approach to an obstacle can cause confusion, confusion, and perhaps disagreement (at least internally) with the instructions of the leader and the actions of the other participants. This is already the ground for all sorts of unpleasant incidents. It’s a different matter when the participants know about the crossing in advance and prepare for it. In this case, only the fact of the crossing ceases to be unexpected. The specific conditions and details of the crossing (if it is really serious) are still fraught with enough surprises. The participant's prior knowledge about the crossing increases his readiness for it, makes his actions more responsible, appropriate and coordinated (perhaps even in advance!) with the actions of other tourists. This only frees the emotional impact of the crossing from the undesirable components mentioned above, but does not in any way reduce the positive impression. No matter how informed tourists are about the route, about the tasks of today, an interesting route will still bring some surprises. But then the whole group faces them as one whole - together with the leader. And tourists know that this is not just another planned surprise, the ways of overcoming which have long been known to the leader, but a true surprise. In order to remove the undesirable, as well as to ensure the coherence of the actions of the participants, the leader must necessarily involve all group members, or at least those who show interest, in the discussion of unforeseen situations. Discussing as many tactical issues as possible with the entire group provides undeniable advantages over individual decision-making. Not to mention the fact that this is interesting in itself and contributes to the growth of tourists’ qualifications, such a discussion provides an understanding of the correctness and necessity of the chosen maneuver, which may not correspond to the initial desires of some of the tourists. In addition, the participants in the discussion acquire moral responsibility for implementing the collective decision. Such a decision is carried out with more enthusiasm than the categorical instructions of the manager. During the discussion, a complex situation is subjected to detailed analysis and can become clearer. This makes it easier to make the right decision. Finally, the trust placed by the leader in the group, in turn, endears the participants to him and increases his authority. Here we come close to one of the most important factors of group cohesion - the behavior of the leader (instructor) himself. It would seem that everything is clear here. A leader must have a set of positive qualities, such as restraint, tact, fairness, organization, the ability to win others over, significant experience in his type of tourism, etc. But where to find people (not just one, not a dozen, but an entire army! ) who would have all these virtues? In addition, practice shows that good leaders are by no means some ideal abstract beings, but living people who, along with their merits, also have very noticeable shortcomings. It turns out that you can meet leaders who successfully cope with their tasks, but are unrestrained, not always fair, and not particularly modest or tactful. And not every leader is superior to all participants in experience and knowledge. So the listed and similar personal qualities are very desirable for a leader, but they do not ultimately decide the success of the business. Moreover, it happens that people who have an excellent set of spiritual qualities cannot cope with leadership. As you can see, the secret of success lies not in any special traits of the leader, but again in the system of relationships that a given leader establishes with a given group. And indeed, it is not so rare that a leader who is good for one group does not find contact with another. In short, the success or failure of leadership in each case depends on whether the leader is able to secure his position as the leader of the group. If this does not happen, then perhaps he will still be able to manage the group. But such leadership will be formal. Someone else will then take the leadership position. And in a critical situation, if there is no agreement between the leader and the true leader (one or more), the group will practically be left without leadership or it will spontaneously pass to the leader. The leader usually does not want to accept the loss of his position and does not recognize the influence of the leader. In such conditions, it is almost impossible to maintain the unity of the group’s actions. As a result, even with high awareness and sufficient experience of the participants, an emergency situation arises: everyone understands the need for joint action and strict discipline, but cannot agree among themselves. How can a leader retain leadership? Let us emphasize that we are talking specifically about maintaining, and not about gaining, leadership, because the post of leader itself, as a rule, immediately provides him with the position of leader. The participants agree to accept his leadership not only officially, but also personally, which means they expect leadership from him and are ready to follow him. Such an initially favorable position for a leader exists only at first. It must be secured, some kind of foundation must be laid under it, otherwise the participants will become disappointed in the leader, and his leadership will not take place. The basis for leadership can be a great life or only tourist experience, which gives the leader a significant advantage over all participants. An example of such a relationship is a group of beginners with a qualified instructor. You can also mention the special personal qualities of a leader that set him apart from the crowd and endear him to people. Among such qualities we can recall those discussed above, or, say, knowledge of tourist songs. But all of them are important not in themselves, but as a basis for leadership. Finally, let’s name the ability to democratically organize “self-government” in a group, which is especially important when all or part of the participants are not inferior to the leader in experience. Obviously, there are other bases on which leadership can be secured. But taking a leadership position is not enough. The leader needs to keep her with him throughout the entire journey. To do this, he must take care of the right relationships, first of all, with reputable tourists and with leaders of small groups. One should not be afraid of their competition and enter into a fight with them. And it is necessary to take them into account. It is best to try to use their influence on “your” groups. To do this, you need to cooperate with them, satisfy their requests if possible, and facilitate (as a mediator) compromises in their relationships with each other. A certain amount of inertia in one’s opinions and decisions will also help the manager. This property should be manifested primarily in his adherence to the accepted travel program as a whole and the plans for each stage, each day. The actions of a leader in accordance with a program known to everyone, previously accepted, usually do not raise doubts or objections in anyone and increase his authority, as well as strengthen respect for the program itself. The leader and the program “work for each other.” If a leader, without sufficient grounds (or justifiably, but unconvincingly for others) deviates from the plan or a previously made personal decision, this is precisely the case when the leader himself becomes a “disorganizer.” Not every participant can immediately change lanes, especially when they do not see the need for it. Those who are inclined to continue what they started may come into conflict with adherents of the new solution. Often, changing decisions completely discourages the group. Participants either completely turn off from the discussion of tactical and technical issues and the leadership becomes completely arbitrary, or, on the contrary, they take on the solution of all issues, and then at the slightest provocation a real bazaar arises. Anarchy is coming. It is no less dangerous for a leader to go to the other extreme: to remain “faithful” to the plan at any cost, even when the situation has changed so much that the plan no longer corresponds to it. But how to find the golden mean? Let's consider this situation as an example. A few minutes later, after a halt, the group came across a natural obstacle in the form of... berries. The group is on schedule and could be delayed by 10-15 minutes, but there is still a lot of work ahead and unexpected delays may occur. How to be a leader? Stop the group and declare an extra-planned halt? Is it inexorable to adhere to the traffic schedule? No, both solutions are wrong. The manager himself should not initiate the stop. If the leader notices the berries, then they will not hide from other tourists. And someone will suggest stopping. They will support him. And then the leader, after hesitation and persuasion, to the general delight, may graciously allow a stop “for no more than 15 minutes,” but with the condition that, if later necessary, he will have to work more intensively. A leader must be extremely careful in expressing his personal feelings, moods, and doubts. On one difficult hike, after a particularly tiring section, when there was still a third of the route ahead, the leader suddenly said: “Oh, through this pass, and then home!” It was unclear whether he was speaking jokingly or seriously, especially since the part completed was already enough to qualify for the trip. But this thought sank into the souls of the two weakest participants. They set themselves up to end the route prematurely and confuse others. It took a serious discussion of the situation with the entire group to restore its morale and carry out its plans. Another indispensable condition for the leader's leadership is that he must be familiar with all members of the group. It would seem there is no need to talk about this, but on many planned routes there is a procedure where a group at each regular base receives new instructors. Under these conditions, there can be no talk of effective leadership. At best, the instructor finds himself in the position of a guide. To cope with all his tasks, the instructor must lead the group along the entire route. So, the manager (instructor) will be at his best if he is able to combine management and leadership. At the same time, his personal qualities are important only insofar as they help (or hinder) the solution of this task. But one quality of a leader stands out and deserves special attention. It's about competence. We have already said that, in our experience, a leader may well be inferior to individual group members. Of course, this complicates his position, but with the right relationship it may not harm the matter. Here we are not talking about comparing the knowledge of the leader and other participants, but about the fact that when taking on leadership of a group, a person must have a certain level of training for such activities. Lack of qualifications does not exclude the possibility for a manager to become a leader due to some other qualities. The danger of such leadership is obvious. An incompetent leader, who also has not become a leader, is doubly dangerous. With his unskilled actions, he can not only lead the group to an accident, but, being unable to ensure the cohesion of the participants in the face of a disaster, he sharply aggravates the consequences of the incident. Until now, we have talked about leadership tactics in general, without attaching much importance to the differences in the positions of an instructor of planned tourists and a leader of an amateur group. However, this issue deserves detailed discussion. The position of the instructor in the group and the expectations placed on him are largely determined by the intermediate position of tourism between sports and a form of entertainment. In terms of sports, the instructor is close to the coach, but has significantly less authority and is very limited in the means of (official) management of the group. Suffice it to say that, unlike a coach, the instructor has virtually no control over the composition of the group. On the other hand, the instructor is close to the guide, with whom he shares knowledge of the sights along the route. But the guide’s contact with the group is short-term and purely professional, allowing him to maintain distance and a certain superiority over the group. The instructor lives with the group and communicates on a wide range of issues, including those where he has no advantage. This could significantly weaken his overall position. Finally, purchasing a tour for money often gives rise to an attitude towards the instructor as a representative of the service staff. Strictly speaking, this is the case, but in a distorted form, such an attitude obscures everything else: it happens that the instructor is expected not only to lead and teach the group, choose the path, a place for bivouac, but also set up the tents himself, light the fire, carried the heaviest and most inconvenient things, unloaded those who were weak, lagging behind, etc. There are many instructors who, seduced by the opportunity to show off their experience, skill, strength and endurance, willingly do all this and turn... into a nanny. By doing this, they fetter the activity and initiative of the group, encourage consumerism and the unlimited growth of all kinds of claims, which they are sometimes unable to cope with. To avoid such a development of the claims of a group or individual tourists, it is necessary from the very beginning to outline the range of mandatory services required for tourists at the base and on a hike, that is, to determine acceptable claims and who is obliged to satisfy them. Then outline your functions - dissociate yourself from the service personnel in the narrow sense of the word and formulate your tasks: 1) pedagogical - training, education (as a trainer) and education (as a guide); 2) organizational - management of general actions to maintain the normal functioning of the group and especially - ensuring the safety of travel. Thus, the instructor’s path to establishing optimal relationships with the group (i.e., to leadership) does not pass through the desire to satisfy all the expectations, but through their ordering, limitation, and only then - the possible better satisfaction of the assumed range of responsibilities. Among the specific problems of planned tourism, one should be named that poses a particular difficulty for the instructor. This is "alcohol on the go." You need to approach it based on the formula “sport and alcohol are incompatible.” And since tourism is a sport, that means down with alcohol. This should be mentioned in the introductory conversation. Explain that alcohol makes it difficult to perform basic tasks and prevents the body from coping with subsequent stress. Give examples of undesirable and dangerous consequences of drinking while camping. To prove this, we can debunk the effect of alcohol in tourist conditions. What can alcohol add to the impressions, the joy that a person receives on a hike? Cloud your perception? Ruin a conversation, a song? Vulgarize the relationship? It wouldn’t hurt to talk about the enforcement measures applied to drunkards at the base (with examples). However, such an approach may conflict with real conditions, and attempts to persistently implement it result in the loss of contact between the instructor and the group and... uncontrolled drunkenness. Therefore, if the instructor, having taken the above position at the introductory conversation, sees that it does not meet with understanding, it is better to weaken it somewhat and immediately agree on when, where and to what extent the use of alcohol can be allowed. In other words, it becomes one of the issues of the travel program, and here you can repeat everything that was said about the program above. When allowing drinking while traveling, you must not forget about safety for a minute. Alcohol should be completely excluded on mountain routes. It is incompatible with moving through water or swimming. Drinking at a bus stop on the eve of a day's work is the least painful. Having made a concession at the beginning, the instructor must then strictly ensure that the “agreement” is not violated. And here special attention should be paid to the “alcohol leader” - the most proactive member of the group in terms of drinking. Common reasons for drinking alcohol on a hike, such as “to relieve fatigue, tension,” “to keep warm,” “for sleep,” “for appetite,” and many others, are in reality just excuses. They should not be taken into account and justify deviations from the initially agreed upon program. And this must also be stated from the very beginning. The position of the leader of an amateur group differs from the position of an instructor in an even more limited set of formal means. But the leader has the right to staff the group at his own discretion. But it is not always possible to use this right. The current sports classification has created a “shortage” for participants in difficult trips. So sometimes you have to accept anyone who applies into the group. In this case, the information about the person that the manager has may be limited to the description on the back of the certificate of previous travel. The source, frankly speaking, is unreliable. These characteristics, as a rule, are stereotyped, superficial and often do not reflect the truth. Of course, after the trip, the manager draws the appropriate conclusions for himself about each participant, but usually he is silent about them, because comments made in the characterization are much more likely to cause resentment and dissatisfaction in a person than a correct business reaction. You need to have great courage and independence so as not to bend your heart in such circumstances. It is much easier to get around all the sharp corners, which is what happens in most cases. Let us add that the characteristics compiled individually sometimes reflect not so much the characteristics of the participants as the characteristics of the leader himself. While the benefits are dubious, the characteristics on certificates often have undoubted harm. From a psychological point of view, it would be advisable to abandon them, as has already been done in many sectors of the national economy. The leader, like the instructor, is a “designated leader.” Depending on how much he manages to gain a foothold in the role of leader, there are options from a purely nominal tenure (with a lot of experience of the participants and the presence of another effective leader) to a position similar to an instructor-trainer (an experienced tourist with a group of beginners). To the manager - about working with people You can walk dozens of kilometers through museum halls and not become a connoisseur of art. To join it, you need to learn a lot, you need not only to look and listen, but also to learn to perceive - see and hear - beauty. And for this, among other things, it is necessary to develop your thoughts and feelings in order to be able to understand your own experiences when coming into contact with the creations of artists, architects, and musicians. The above fully applies to the comprehension of the highest creation of nature - man. You can work with people all your life, but never learn to understand them. You can gain some experience in handling them, achieve good results, but still be unable to explain your actions in a difficult situation or sensibly advise someone else on what to do in a difficult situation. As with any activity, working with people requires certain abilities. But in order for them to manifest themselves and receive further development, the most intensive possible use of them in practice is required. At the same time, on their basis, various techniques and skills in dealing with people are gradually developed. This process happens. faster, the more consciously communication is built. However, in life, with rare exceptions, it proceeds at the level of intuition, according to the principle of “however it turns out.” In this regard, people resemble beginning chess players: they calculate their actions 1-2 moves ahead, and even if they build a more complex combination, then, carried away by their own plan, they do not recognize the enemy’s plans. In order for work with people to be of a conscious nature, to be as productive as possible and to more fully reveal the organizational abilities of a leader, a number of conditions are required, which we will turn to consider. 1. Setting real tasks. It often happens that a person has a clear disadvantage that interferes not only with those around him, but also with himself. And here the temptation arises to rid him of this shortcoming. The desire to re-educate, to “change” a person appears among some leaders in less obvious cases, when one of the group members does not correspond to the ideals of the leader. Finally, there are also managers (more often in planned tourism) who strive to build relationships with groups and individual tourists according to a pre-formed rigid program. In all these cases, the actively acting leader (subject) has good intentions, but often does not take into account either the characteristics of the object to which he directs the influence, or its possible reactions. An adult comes to a tourist group with a difficult life path behind him, which has shaped many of his individual traits, including shortcomings. Will a leader be able to change in a short period of travel what has been developing and consolidated for years? Even with a favorable attitude of the object, this is unlikely. But most often you cannot count on such an attitude, because people usually tend to protect their personality from outside interference (including those directed against shortcomings that they themselves admit). If we are talking about the desire to more radically re-educate a tourist who in some way does not suit the leader, then, one must assume, the leader himself will not like this tourist, i.e. extremely unfavorable conditions are created for educational influence. It should also be taken into account that some “inconvenient” human properties may be associated with very stable characteristics, such as temperament (for example, slowness). It is impossible to overcome such shortcomings, especially by random external influences. Setting an unrealistic goal in a relationship with a person not only leads to a waste of time and effort, but also results in a number of complications. First of all, this is a reaction of defense on the part of the object, which can consist of simple resistance, perseverance, but can also be more active in nature, taking the form of various kinds of protests. So the result may be exactly the opposite of the subject's intentions. If the relationship is not limited to one single trip, but stretches out for a long time, there is a danger of suppressing or breaking the personality of the “re-educated”. This is facilitated by a significant preponderance of forces in favor of the manager and neglect of the individual characteristics of the object. Among the complications, one should also mention a wide range of reactions of the subject himself that arise in response to failure. Finally, it is necessary to emphasize the great moral responsibility of the subject for the consequences of the influence exerted. Thus, managers are often to blame for the fact that insufficiently experienced tourists overestimate their own strengths or have the illusion of the simplicity of the upcoming obstacle. Both, as we know, can lead to the most unpleasant consequences. Thus, when recruiting groups and defining his relationships with the participants, the leader must in every possible way avoid acting on the principle that can be formulated in the words of the famous song: “If I invented you, become what I want.” This principle does not bode well for either the one who “invented” it or the one who was “invented”. It is much more useful to assess the real properties of people and, based on them, distribute responsibilities, burden and own requirements for the participants. So, if there is a slow tourist in the group, you can, of course, stand over his soul every time and rush him or make fun of him, so that he will try to get ready no longer than others. However, in this case, there are many chances that the backpack will be packed poorly and will soon need to be rearranged, or its owner will have to suffer with the inconvenient one. In both cases, he will lag behind and will still delay everyone else... Isn’t it better to distribute the load in such a way that this tourist does not depend on anyone? Do not give him a tent, stove or saucepan, which are released later and can delay him. Let him start styling earlier than others and calmly finish it along with everyone else. 2. Correct assessment of the object. There is obviously no need to prove the importance of this requirement. At the same time, people very often misjudge each other. Therefore, we will briefly dwell on how people perceive each other. Contact begins with mutual orientation. The parties try to obtain the necessary information about each other in order to choose the most appropriate tactics of behavior to achieve their goals. If people meet for the first time, mutual orientation takes on a special form of first impression: based on a few scattered signs, a hypothesis about a stranger is immediately formed. The first impression allows, in conditions of an acute lack of information, to outline a program of actions and relationships. The “technique” of constructing a first impression is heterogeneous. It involves comparing a person with a set of “standards” formed by the subject. Of these, first of all, those closest to the problem that the subject intends to solve in communication with the object are used. For example, an instructor, when meeting a newly arrived group, immediately identifies “experienced tourists” on whom one can rely, “newcomers” with whom the main and, moreover, pleasant work will be done, “random people” from whom one can expect anything, but most importantly image - troubles, etc. The material for the first impression is also all kinds of associations, prejudices, comparisons with other people - real people or characters in films, other works of art. The first impression occurs against the will and largely without the participation of consciousness - intuitively. Subsequently, as communication progresses, the subject receives additional information that will either support and detail the initial hypothesis about the object, or will conflict with it and force amendments to be made. The development of a hypothesis about another person thus depends on two factors: on the amount and reliability of incoming additional information and on the subject’s ability to correctly manage this information. The first factor is related to how intensively the communication occurs (what is the distance, the degree of “openness”, sincerity of the object). The second factor reflects the subject’s observation, insight, criticality or, on the contrary, the absence of these qualities - inertia, inattention, bias, when the subject, in spite of everything, remains “captive of the first impression.” Understanding the importance of the first impression for subsequent relationships, people usually strive to present themselves in a more advantageous light when meeting. (It is no coincidence that we do not miss the opportunity to look at ourselves in the mirror.) But everyone simultaneously takes into account that his interlocutor also shows the same concern for the impression he makes. Therefore, in dating situations, many people are often tense, uncomfortable, and sometimes behave unnaturally. Hence the frequent wariness and even distrust between people, which arise seemingly without any reason. Each new meeting of acquaintances begins with a mutual assessment of the state, about which much of what was said about the first impression can be repeated. The first impression, like the assessment of the state of a familiar interlocutor, can be deceptive. There are several reasons for this. A person’s behavior may reflect not so much his essence as the task that he has set for himself, based on his intentions or fears, which may be erroneous. Thus, a tourist who fears that he may be mistaken for a coward sometimes commits risky acts, suppressing natural fear, grossly violating insurance rules, etc. The behavior of the object may also be a reaction to the influences or characteristics of the subject. In other words, it can be provoked by the subject himself. Thus, an overly sociable person can “infect” a rather reserved person with sociability. To a quick-tempered, unrestrained person, someone offended by him may seem angry and unkind. An authoritarian, tactless leader, dealing with an experienced and completely disciplined participant, can cause a protest on his part - active (explosion) or passive (removal from participation in affairs) - and then completely misjudge this person. A democratic leader can disband orderly but immature members. Another reason for misinterpreting someone else's behavior is ignorance of the motives underlying it. It may be a consequence of the fact that a person deliberately hides the motives of his actions. To a certain extent, this is a prerequisite for tact and a culture of communication. But it is not always easy to determine the limit beyond which a similar phenomenon should be called hypocrisy. A person may not try to hide the motives of his actions from others. It happens that he himself does not know them properly. In a bad detective film, in accordance with the predetermined plot, the characters perform actions, the meaning of which will ultimately be clearly revealed to the viewer. In life, not every action can be reliably deciphered, since behavior is usually influenced by many, sometimes contradictory influences, a struggle of motives, some of which are hidden from the consciousness of the person himself. This does not prevent him from later choosing a rationale for his actions - one way or another to motivate them for himself or for others. But motivations can change - taking into account subsequent developments of events and assessments made by other people. Without knowledge of the motives of behavior, it is impossible to understand the meaning of the individual actions that comprise it. Of course, knowing all the circumstances and following the subsequent development of events, you can find the correct answer. But very often an outside observer, who does not have sufficient information about the prerequisites for the action, about the person himself, attributes motives to him in accordance with his own, sometimes very arbitrary, interpretation of the situation. As a result, gross errors may occur in the interpretation of other people's behavior. Here is a typical example. A dangerous situation arose on a difficult section of the route. However, a novice manager who finds himself in such circumstances for the first time underestimates the seriousness of the situation and does not take the necessary precautions. A more experienced participant tries to tell him the right actions, but the leader neglects the advice of an experienced tourist. Then he sharply points out to the manager the danger and the fact that his mistakes can be costly. But the leader, who did not understand the situation, concluded based on the “panic cries” of the participant that he was simply a coward. 3. Correct assessment of yourself and your influence on the object. We have already discussed the influence of the subject on the behavior of the object. To distinguish provoked behavior from natural behavior that expresses the essence of a person, the subject must know himself. This is all the more important because a person usually, voluntarily or involuntarily, chooses his own person as a criterion for assessing other people’s actions. But in order to measure accurately, you need to know the features of the instrument, its vagaries, and errors. This means that in order to understand people well, you need to thoroughly study yourself: your passions, habits, prejudices; your typical mistakes (the tendency to overestimate or underestimate other people's shortcomings or merits, excessive gullibility, suspiciousness, etc.). There are quite a few people (including among leaders) who have a very vague or incorrect idea of their temperament and character. Not every leader clearly understands what type of leadership he or she belongs to - authoritarian or democratic. Ignorance or underestimation of one’s own characteristics sometimes leads to the fact that the subject evaluates not so much the object as his own properties projected onto it (an optimist - his good mood, overshadowing the shortcomings of others; a pessimist - his suspicion, distrust, casting a shadow on the merits of others, etc.). d.). The source of influence on another person can also be the subject’s unjustified reaction, which arose on the basis of some of his fears, which provoked a hasty unambiguous interpretation of a difficult situation. How this happens was shown when we talked about probabilistic forecasting (see page 11). However, its role in the relationship between the leader and the participant should be considered separately. 4. Taking into account the discrepancy between the probabilistic forecasts of the situation between the leader and the participant. Let us present (in a slightly different formulation) that part of the participant’s probabilistic forecast (see page 9) that relates to the leader.
Psychological tactics for leading a tourist group
The leader and instructor of a tourist group constantly has to solve many different problems. How to navigate them? Which ones should you give preference to, and which ones can you put aside without harm to your business?
The result in tourism, as in any collective sport, can only be achieved through joint organized efforts. And group disunity is one of the main prerequisites and almost a prerequisite for most emergency situations.
This means that in order to achieve the goal, as well as for accident-free operation, it is necessary, first of all, to achieve such behavior of the entire group and each of its members, which ensures its existence and functioning as a single whole, and in case of temporary separation guarantees reliable reunification. In other words, the task of maintaining the unity of the group’s actions should be considered the main, strategic one. And all actions, all decisions of the leader must be subordinated to it.
An important condition for unity of action is group cohesion. How is it determined, what does it depend on? At first, until common goals and common values and norms for all members of the group have been formed, two important factors can be named that are in close interaction.
Firstly, these are the personal properties of the people gathered in the group: how conscious and disciplined they are, what their moral character is. Secondly, the relationship that arose between them.
If we talk about adults, then already established people with established personal characteristics come to the group, which, by the way, are not always immediately visible to others. Moreover, it often happens that some characteristics of a person are hidden from him. Thus, a coward or an alarmist in a strong cohesive group will strive with all his might to maintain unity, because with such a group he feels calmer and more confident. And no one, including himself, may not know that he is prone to panic, whereas in the absence of confidence in his comrades or leader, the same person in a difficult situation may begin to act individually and put both himself and the group in a dangerous position.
During the short period of travel, the leader often does not have the opportunity to get to know each member of the group deeply enough. And even more so, to re-educate any of the adult participants in planned or random amateur groups. (This does not mean that tourism does not have enormous educational value. But the influence of tourism on a person occurs through all activities, and not through direct arbitrary influence of one person on another.)
So, the leader has only one reliable way to achieve overall cohesion - through relationships in the group.
How can we take control of them and by what means can we regulate them? And in general, is it necessary to strive for this? Isn’t it enough to make sure that the group is “normal”, and that means the laws of the collective should arise in it, which themselves will ensure unity and cohesion in any conditions?
This is a widespread and dangerous illusion. The fact is that a group of tourists who have come together on package tours from different places or who have accidentally come together on an amateur trip (based on recommendations, through advertisements in a club, etc.) are distinguished from a real group by two important features.
First of all, this is the absence of a single socially significant goal. We have already talked about how different the interests and expectations of people who find themselves on a hiking trail can be. Accordingly, the travel goals for each of them will be different. But even if the main interests of the participants coincide, when they have a common goal that is the same for everyone, this goal, as a rule, is not socially significant.
After all, the specific goals of individual groups most often do not go beyond the interests of the members of these groups. The exceptions are expeditions exploring new areas, solving scientific or research problems, sports teams with a high level of official organization (for example, groups at instructor training camps), as well as similar groups that are established sports teams. For the majority of groups, a tourist trip is just a solution to the problem of how best to spend their next vacation. Of course, society is interested in a favorable solution to this problem. But how exactly it will be decided for each specific person (whether he will go to a holiday home, a village, a dacha, or go on a trip and which one) is not of fundamental importance.
Thus, without being subordinated to a single socially significant goal, the personal goals and interests of members of the tourist group turn out to be the main regulator of people’s behavior. In these cases, as long as no clashes or contradictions arise, everything goes well. The aspirations and efforts of the participants coincide and add up together. It is not uncommon here for the strong to support the weak, to provide mutual assistance, to show attention and sensitivity to each other. But this unification is accidental and fragile. There is no single connecting link in it. In such a situation, nothing will force a person to give up his own interests if they begin to diverge, much less collide with the interests of other members of the group. This means that if disagreements arise, wait for confusion.
Another feature of a tourist group is the short duration of its existence. People who were strangers or who do not know each other well are united for the duration of the trip, after which they are again independent of each other. This circumstance determines the low level of mutual importance of the travel participants and the low referentiality of the tourist group for many of its members, which has already been discussed in more detail (see page 17).
There are other differences between a mass tourist group and a collective in the strict sense of the word, which we will not dwell on. It is important to emphasize, however, that all of the above does not mean that the tourist group should not be treated as a collective. On the contrary, the above-mentioned features of a tourist group make us not expect that unity will develop on its own, but from the first moment the group is formed, we constantly take care of establishing the spirit of collectivism in relationships.
The leader will be able to compensate for the initial fragility inherent in the tourist group, avoid confusion, achieve self-restraint and submission from each participant to established norms of behavior and rules only if all participants realize the need to maintain unity of action and understand that without it there cannot be even partial satisfaction someone's interests. It would seem that this is an elementary truth. But precisely because it is obvious to everyone in whose hands the organization of travel is, people sometimes forget to introduce it to those who are getting acquainted with tourism for the first time, and those for whom it has not yet become unshakable. Moreover, proving common truths is not so easy. It is easier to wait until those who doubt them are convinced of their validity from their own experience. But such waiting sometimes costs too much.
The idea of unity of action must not only be proclaimed in words. From the first steps of preparation for the trip (group meeting, pre-trip training for amateur tourists, days of stay at the base before going on the route for planned ones), it should run like a red thread through all the activities of the tourists themselves and everyone who works with the group, so that All participants in the journey, even before it began, had a conscious internal attitude (orientation) towards cohesion, towards maintaining unity of action in any circumstances. As the journey progresses, this attitude should strengthen and turn from conscious to automatic. Then, when choosing what action to perform, a person, without hesitation, discards everything that contradicts the unity of the group’s actions.
Everyone’s personal internal attitude is an important, but not the only condition for group cohesion.
Let's look at some additional measures that strengthen cohesion.
The travel program plays a significant role. It consists of several elements.
We have already talked about the importance of a personal probabilistic forecast for the behavior of each participant and for the assessment of the trip (see page 9). Let us recall that along with the expectation, the forecast also contains a reaction to its failure to materialize. The presence in the forecast of at least one of the participants of obviously impossible expectations predetermines his dissatisfaction, which will certainly manifest itself in one form or another. The clash of conflicting expectations among different participants is fraught with even greater trouble. Therefore, care must be taken to ensure that the expectations of all group members are realistic and do not conflict with each other. To do this, it is necessary to determine and clearly formulate the goals and objectives of the trip in advance, trying to ensure that they reflect the wishes of all participants as fully as possible. At the same time, you must know in advance what will not happen on the trip, what you should not count on. In other words, a “collective agreement” must be concluded that links the interests of each with the interests of all.
The central place in the travel program belongs to the route. In a complex journey, the real route necessarily includes options that must be developed in detail and - what is especially important - contain criteria for choosing one or another option. The “we’ll see” principle, as well as a travel program that is not clear enough or is not known to everyone, are dangerous in that they lead to the participants creating their own plans, which may not even be realized. Such plans usually do not coincide with each other and do not correspond to the overall purpose of the trip. And since they and the hopes associated with them are not destined to come true, they, as already mentioned, can become a source of acute reactions. And the struggle for “your” plan easily leads to discord. The existence of a general program, which is constantly strictly observed, prevents the emergence of personal plans that differ from it. And if such a “private” plan arises in someone, then from the very beginning the person does not have much hope that it will come true. This significantly reduces the activity in the struggle for a personal plan and practically eliminates the reaction to its failure. The above applies mainly to amateur tourism.
In a planned trip, the route is usually strictly defined. But even there there are sometimes opportunities to clarify details. For example, the choice of radial exits for acclimatization on a mountain trip or the choice of parking places and days on a water trip. It is useful to discuss with the group (or at least bring to its attention) the mode of movement, rest and nutrition on the road, the principles of cargo distribution. Of course, the final word in all these matters belongs to the instructor, but it is better if it falls to his lot only to approve proposals that are accepted by common consent.
In addition to the route in the travel program, it is important to foresee how the group will spend its free time, whether planned (on days off) or forced (on “detention” due to bad weather). If each participant is allowed to rest as he pleases, infringement of someone’s interests, boredom, and resentment can easily arise. This especially applies to “imprisonment”, because the limited space, the uncertainty of perspective due to bad weather and the bad weather itself - everything causes internal tension and has a depressing effect. If at the same time part of the group, for example, begins to play cards, then the rest, who have not found something to do, feel restless. The situation is especially unpleasant for those who do not play, but in whose tent the game is being played. So if a group intends to use cards as a means to kill time, then it is necessary to make sure in advance that everyone will participate in the game or that those remaining “outside the game” will find another activity that suits them well.
It should be remembered that when activity is limited, people’s demands and claims against each other begin to grow, and this often leads them to clash. It is known that day parties often dampen the group or, on the contrary, heat up the atmosphere within the group. We will not give recipes on how to fill your free time on a hike. Each group will find something to suit their taste. But we emphasize that this needs to be thought through in advance.
The last element of the program that will be discussed is the finale of the hike. The journey should be completed, not stopped. How and where will the “full stop” be placed? If this is not planned in advance, the journey can leave an unfinished impression, like a melody that suddenly ends.
At the end of the journey:
a) demobilization, relaxation of participants, switching to a new (or rather, old, pre-campaign) system of interests and values, revitalization of “non-campaign” forecasts;
b) rest, putting yourself in order, preparing to go out into the public;
c) summing up the first approximate results, exchanging impressions, outlining general assessments.
If you don’t plan when and where all this will happen, then it can happen spontaneously or even not happen at all.
Demobilization may occur prematurely, before the end of the route. But even a relatively simple pass or just a significant transition requires serious consideration.
The post-trip forecast may be formed ahead of schedule, or, on the contrary, it may be late. In the first case, a person is inclined to race at the end of the route, in the second, for some time after the end of the journey he experiences confusion in the face of simple life situations.
Going out into a populated area after a difficult journey in remote areas is often associated with significant neuro-emotional stress. The desire to get home as quickly as possible encounters many unexpected obstacles, including problems with transport, and sometimes conflicts with others (over tickets, when boarding with backpacks, etc.). Added to these are everyday unsettled conditions, lack of sleep...
If there was no rest and preliminary summing up, the total fatigue (hiking + going home) can form a very unfavorable “train”, which is superimposed on the overall impression of the hike. And if it was not entirely clear, then many circumstances, details, statements may receive unfavorable coverage and, thus, lead to an underestimated final assessment. Summing up preliminary results without delay allows you to clarify and correctly evaluate many hiking events, sum up your impressions, and consolidate them. As a result, the impression becomes more defined and independent of subsequent layers.
Discussion of the results of the campaign can be collective, organized, or private, “behind the scenes”. The higher the level of formal relations, the more appropriate a collective discussion (“debriefing”). The exception is the planned group, in which the instructors changed along the route, and thus there is no one to give a qualified assessment of the actions and behavior of the participants during the entire hike. In small amateur groups, where the level of formal relations is low, official debriefing may look artificial. If, in addition, personal relationships in the group are complex and there is no generally recognized authoritative leader, whose conclusion on the discussion would be recognized by everyone as final and fair, then the analysis becomes simply dangerous, it can easily develop into a squabble. Here, behind-the-scenes (two or three) discussions are more useful, and a general discussion, if desired, can be organized later, when we meet in the city.
In any case, the discussion will be useful only if the principle of “clarity and goodwill” is strictly observed, that is, under the condition of complete respect for the other person’s personality and the preference of each participant for self-criticism.
Obviously, in order to “put an end to it”, you need a day’s rest at a point that, firstly, would be conducive to rest and, secondly, would be as far as possible towards the end of the route, so that from here the group quickly and without much effort goes to populated area. The next point that contributes to the unification of the group is the conscious, creative attitude of people to what is happening. It is necessary that each tourist not just follow the instructor or leader, carrying his share of the load from one site to another and simultaneously admiring the beauty or overcoming the difficulties encountered, as he is shown. Participants must constantly know where they are, what task the group faces today, what are the possible ways to solve it, what awaits the group next.
However, won't such prior knowledge reduce the impression of the hike? After all, in this case the factor of surprise seems to disappear. And surprise, as has been shown, is a prerequisite for emotional impact. These fears are in vain. Let’s say tourists face a serious crossing in the middle of the day, about which they are not warned in advance. What impression will this surprise make on them? For the stronger and more experienced, it’s probably positive. But for the weak, unsure of their abilities or doubting the correctness of leadership, an unexpected approach to an obstacle can cause confusion, confusion, and perhaps disagreement (at least internally) with the instructions of the leader and the actions of the other participants. This is already the ground for all sorts of unpleasant incidents. It’s a different matter when the participants know about the crossing in advance and prepare for it. In this case, only the fact of the crossing ceases to be unexpected. The specific conditions and details of the crossing (if it is really serious) are still fraught with enough surprises. The participant's prior knowledge about the crossing increases his readiness for it, makes his actions more responsible, appropriate and coordinated (perhaps even in advance!) with the actions of other tourists. This only frees the emotional impact of the crossing from the undesirable components mentioned above, but does not in any way reduce the positive impression.
No matter how informed tourists are about the route, about the tasks of today, an interesting route will still bring some surprises. But then the whole group faces them as one - together with the leader. And tourists know that this is not just another planned surprise, the ways of overcoming which have long been known to the leader, but a true surprise. In order to remove the undesirable, as well as to ensure the coherence of the actions of the participants, the leader must necessarily involve all group members, or at least those who show interest, in the discussion of unforeseen situations. Discussing as many tactical issues as possible with the entire group provides undeniable advantages over individual decision-making. Not to mention the fact that this is interesting in itself and contributes to the growth of tourists’ qualifications, such a discussion provides an understanding of the correctness and necessity of the chosen maneuver, which may not correspond to the initial desires of some of the tourists. In addition, the participants in the discussion acquire moral responsibility for implementing the collective decision. Such a decision is carried out with more enthusiasm than the categorical instructions of the manager. During the discussion, a complex situation is subjected to detailed analysis and can become clearer. This makes it easier to make the right decision. Finally, the trust placed by the leader in the group, in turn, endears the participants to him and increases his authority.
Here we come close to one of the most important factors of group cohesion - the behavior of the leader (instructor) himself. It would seem that everything is clear here. A leader must have a set of positive qualities, such as restraint, tact, fairness, organization, the ability to win over others, significant experience in his type of tourism, etc. But where to find people (not just one, not a dozen, but an entire army! ) who would have all these virtues? In addition, practice shows that good leaders are by no means some ideal abstract beings, but living people who, along with their merits, also have very noticeable shortcomings. It turns out that you can meet leaders who successfully cope with their tasks, but are unrestrained, not always fair, and not particularly modest or tactful. And not every leader is superior to all participants in experience and knowledge. So the listed and similar personal qualities are very desirable for a leader, but they do not ultimately decide the success of the business. Moreover, it happens that people who have an excellent set of spiritual qualities cannot cope with leadership.
As you can see, the secret of success lies not in any special traits of the leader, but again in the system of relationships that a given leader establishes with a given group. And indeed, it is not so rare that a leader who is good for one group does not find contact with another.
In short, the success or failure of leadership in each case depends on whether the leader is able to secure his position as the leader of the group. If this does not happen, then perhaps he will still be able to manage the group. But such leadership will be formal. Someone else will then take the leadership position. And in a critical situation, if there is no agreement between the leader and the true leader (one or more), the group will practically be left without leadership or it will spontaneously pass to the leader. The leader usually does not want to accept the loss of his position and does not recognize the influence of the leader. In such conditions, it is almost impossible to maintain the unity of the group’s actions. As a result, even with high awareness and sufficient experience of the participants, an emergency situation arises: everyone understands the need for joint action and strict discipline, but cannot agree among themselves.
How can a leader retain leadership? Let us emphasize that we are talking specifically about maintaining, and not about gaining, leadership, because the post of leader itself, as a rule, immediately provides him with the position of leader. The participants agree to accept his leadership not only officially, but also personally, which means they expect leadership from him and are ready to follow him. Such an initially favorable position for a leader exists only at first. It must be secured, some kind of foundation must be laid under it, otherwise the participants will become disappointed in the leader, and his leadership will not take place. The basis for leadership can be a great life or only tourist experience, which gives the leader a significant advantage over all participants. An example of such a relationship is a group of beginners with a qualified instructor. You can also mention the special personal qualities of a leader that set him apart from the crowd and endear him to people. Among such qualities we can recall those discussed above, or, say, knowledge of tourist songs. But all of them are important not in themselves, but as a basis for leadership. Finally, let’s call the ability to democratically organize “self-government” in a group, which is especially valuable when all or some of the participants are not inferior to the leader in experience... Obviously, there are other bases on which leadership can be secured.
But taking a leadership position is not enough. The leader needs to keep her with him throughout the entire journey. To do this, he must take care of the right relationships, first of all, with reputable tourists and with leaders of small groups. You should not be afraid of their competition and fight with them. And it is necessary to take them into account. It is best to try to use their influence on “your” groups. To do this, you need to cooperate with them, satisfy their requests if possible, and facilitate (as a mediator) compromises in their relationships with each other.
A certain amount of inertia in one’s opinions and decisions will also help the manager. This property should be manifested primarily in his adherence to the accepted travel program as a whole and the plans for each stage, each day. The actions of a leader in accordance with a program known to everyone, previously accepted, usually do not raise doubts or objections in anyone and increase his authority, as well as strengthen respect for the program itself. The leader and the program “work for each other.” If a leader, without sufficient grounds (or justifiably, but unconvincingly for others) deviates from a plan or a previously made personal decision, this is precisely the case when the leader himself becomes a “disorganizer.” Not every participant can immediately change positions, especially when they do not see the need for it. Those who are inclined to continue what they started may come into conflict with adherents of the new solution. Often, changing decisions completely discourages the group. Participants either completely turn off from the discussion of tactical and technical issues and the leadership becomes completely arbitrary, or, on the contrary, they take on the solution of all issues, and then at the slightest provocation a real bazaar arises. Anarchy is coming. It is no less dangerous for a manager to go to the other extreme: to remain “faithful” to the plan at any cost, even when the situation has changed so much that the plan no longer corresponds to it. But how to find the golden mean?
Let's consider this situation as an example. A few minutes later, after a halt, the group came across a natural obstacle in the form of... berries. The group is on schedule and could be delayed by 10–15 minutes, but there is still a lot of work ahead and unexpected delays may occur. How to be a leader? Stop the group and declare an extra-planned halt? Relentlessly adhere to the traffic schedule? No, both solutions are wrong. The manager himself should not initiate the stop. If the leader notices the berries, then they will not hide from other tourists. And someone will suggest stopping. They will support him. And then the leader, after hesitation and persuasion, to the general delight, may graciously allow a stop “for no more than 15 minutes,” but with the condition that, if later necessary, he will have to work more intensively.
A leader must be extremely careful in expressing his personal feelings, moods, and doubts.
On one difficult hike, after a particularly tiring section, when there was still a third of the route ahead, the leader suddenly said: “Oh, through this pass, and then home!” It was unclear whether he was speaking jokingly or seriously, especially since the part completed was already enough to qualify for the trip. But for the two weakest participants, this thought sank into the soul. They set themselves up to end the route prematurely and confuse others. It took a serious discussion of the situation with the entire group to restore its morale and carry out its plans.
Another indispensable condition for the leader's leadership is that he must be familiar with all members of the group. It would seem there is no need to talk about this, but on many planned routes there is a procedure where a group at each regular base receives new instructors. Under these conditions, there can be no talk of effective leadership. At best, the instructor finds himself in the position of a guide. To cope with all his tasks, the instructor must lead the group along the entire route.
So, the manager (instructor) will be at his best if he is able to combine management and leadership. At the same time, his personal qualities are important only insofar as they help (or hinder) the solution of this task.
But one quality of a leader stands out and deserves special attention. It's about competence.
We have already said that, in our experience, a leader may well be inferior to individual group members. Of course, this complicates his position, but with the right relationship it may not harm the matter. Here we are not talking about comparing the knowledge of the leader and other participants, but about the fact that when taking on leadership of a group, a person must have a certain level of training for such activities. Lack of qualifications does not exclude a manager from becoming a leader through some other qualities. The danger of such leadership is obvious. An incompetent leader, who also has not become a leader, is doubly dangerous. With his unskilled actions, he can not only lead the group to an accident, but, being unable to ensure the cohesion of the participants in the face of a disaster, he sharply aggravates the consequences of the incident.
Until now, we have talked about leadership tactics in general, without attaching much importance to the differences in the positions of an instructor of planned tourists and a leader of an amateur group. However, this issue deserves detailed discussion.
The position of the instructor in the group and the expectations placed on him are largely determined by the intermediate position of tourism between sports and a form of entertainment. In terms of sports, the instructor is close to the coach, but has significantly less authority and is very limited in the means of (official) management of the group. Suffice it to say that, unlike a coach, the instructor has virtually no control over the composition of the group.
On the other hand, the instructor is close to the guide, with whom he shares knowledge of the sights along the route. But the guide’s contact with the group is short-term and purely professional, allowing him to maintain distance and a certain superiority over the group. The instructor lives with the group and communicates on a wide range of issues, including those where he has no advantage. This could significantly weaken his overall position.
Finally, purchasing a voucher for money often gives rise to an attitude towards the instructor as a representative of the service staff. Strictly speaking, this is the case, but in a distorted form, such an attitude obscures everything else: it happens that the instructor is expected not only to lead and teach the group, choose the path, a place for bivouac, but also set up the tents himself, light the fire, carried the heaviest and most inconvenient things, unloaded those who were weak, lagging behind, etc. There are many instructors who, seduced by the opportunity to show off their experience, skill, strength and endurance, willingly do all this and turn... into a nanny. By doing this, they fetter the activity and initiative of the group, encourage consumerism and the unlimited growth of all kinds of claims, which they are sometimes unable to cope with.
To avoid such a development of the claims of a group or individual tourists, it is necessary from the very beginning to outline the range of mandatory services required for tourists at the base and on a hike, that is, to determine acceptable claims and who is obliged to satisfy them. Then outline your functions - dissociate yourself from the service personnel in the narrow sense of the word and formulate your tasks:
1) pedagogical - training, education (as a trainer) and education (as a guide);
2) organizational - management of general actions to maintain the normal functioning of the group and especially - ensuring the safety of travel.
Thus, the instructor’s path to establishing optimal relationships with the group (i.e., to leadership) does not pass through the desire to satisfy all the expectations, but through their ordering, limitation, and only then - the possible better satisfaction of the assumed range of responsibilities.
Among the specific problems of planned tourism, one should be named that poses a particular difficulty for the instructor. This is “alcohol on the go.” You need to approach it based on the formula “sport and alcohol are incompatible.” And since tourism is a sport, that means down with alcohol. This should be mentioned in the introductory conversation. Explain that alcohol makes it difficult to perform basic tasks and prevents the body from coping with subsequent stress. Give examples of undesirable and dangerous consequences of drinking while camping. To prove this, we can debunk the effect of alcohol in tourist conditions. What can alcohol add to the impressions, the joy that a person receives on a hike? Cloud your perception? Ruin a conversation, a song? Vulgarize the relationship? It wouldn’t hurt to talk about the enforcement measures applied to drunkards at the base (with examples). However, such an approach may conflict with real conditions, and attempts to persistently implement it result in the loss of contact between the instructor and the group and... uncontrolled drunkenness. Therefore, if the instructor, having taken the above position at the introductory conversation, sees that it does not meet with understanding, it is better to weaken it somewhat and immediately agree on when, where and to what extent the use of alcohol can be allowed. In other words, it becomes one of the issues of the travel program, and here you can repeat everything that was said about the program above.
When allowing drinking while traveling, you must not forget about safety for a minute. Alcohol should be completely excluded on mountain routes. It is incompatible with moving through water or swimming. Drinking at a bus stop on the eve of a day's work is the least painful. Having made a concession at the beginning, the instructor must then strictly ensure that the “agreement” is not violated. And here special attention should be paid to the “alcohol leader” - the most proactive member of the group in terms of drinking. Common reasons for drinking alcohol on a hike, such as “relieve fatigue, tension,” “warm up,” “for sleep,” “for appetite,” and many others are actually just excuses. They should not be taken into account and justify deviations from the initially agreed upon program. And this must also be stated from the very beginning.
The position of the leader of an amateur group differs from the position of an instructor in an even more limited set of formal means. But the leader has the right to staff the group at his own discretion. But it is not always possible to use this right. The current sports classification has created a “shortage” for participants in difficult trips. So sometimes you have to accept anyone who applies into the group. In this case, the information about the person that the manager has may be limited to the description on the back of the certificate of previous travel. The source, frankly speaking, is unreliable. These characteristics, as a rule, are stereotyped, superficial and often do not reflect the truth. Of course, after the trip, the manager draws the appropriate conclusions for himself about each participant, but usually he is silent about them, because comments made in the characterization are much more likely to cause resentment and dissatisfaction in a person than a correct business reaction. You need to have great courage and independence so as not to bend your heart in such circumstances. It is much easier to get around all the sharp corners, which is what happens in most cases. Let us add that the characteristics compiled individually sometimes reflect not so much the characteristics of the participants as the characteristics of the leader himself. While the benefits are dubious, the characteristics on certificates often have undoubted harm. From a psychological point of view, it would be advisable to abandon them, as has already been done in many sectors of the national economy.
The leader, like the instructor, is a “designated leader.” Depending on how much he manages to gain a foothold in the role of leader, there are options from a purely nominal tenure (with a lot of experience of the participants and the presence of another effective leader) to a position similar to an instructor-trainer (an experienced tourist with a group of beginners).
