Common Belay Methods

It has been quite some time since I last posted…seems to be my usual introduction to each post lately. I have been very busy with work, which I’m sure is an excuse everyone can relate to. Due to the nature of my work, I rarely have cell service let alone wifi so posting regularly can pose quite the challenge. Here I am now though and today I’d like to talk to you about belay methods.

If you have any experience in anything pertaining to climbing, whether on courses or walls or mountain sides, then you are probably familiar with at least one of the many belay methods I will discuss here. If you have no idea how to even pronounce this “belay” word, then never fear because I’m here to help you too.

“Belay” (bee-lay)- French word that basically means to take up slack. In the climbing and challenge course world, to belay is to be the person on the other end of the rope (if not self-belaying) taking up the slack in the rope as your climber or participant gains elevation. The person taking up the slack is called the “belayer” as you might’ve guessed. Belaying is important because without someone on the ground or on top of the tower/mountain/pole/etc. taking the slack out of your rope then you are essentially free-climbing and should you fall or slip there will be no rope present to catch you. The belayer is also responsible for safely lowering the participant back to the ground, or in other words giving slack back in a controlled manner so that the participant can lose elevation.

Now that a basic understanding of belaying has been covered, allow me to introduce two of the primary belay methods I have encountered over the years. I think it is fair to divide belaying into two methods so long as you understand there are slight variances within each of these methods.

The first method has been around for a long, long time and is colloquially-called the slip-slap-slide (or slip-slop-slide) method. Back when climbing was beginning to take off, instead of using fancy belay devices to remove slack from a line, the belayer would simply tie a Munter Hitch and clip it to a carabiner on his/her harness. The Munter Hitch is fantastic in that it will literally flip flop over itself depending upon the direction of the rope pull, thus you can pull out slack for an ascending climber and then let the hitch flip back over to give slack for the same climber as he/she descends…all without having to retie the hitch or make any adjustments aside from allowing it to naturally flip over itself. This method is great for removing great amounts of slack at a time, say when you have a really fast climber and need to keep up. This method is not so great in terms of amount of time your brake hand is fully-engaged in the brake position. The primary focus is getting out slack and getting it out fast. Many climbers now still slip-slap-slide but have incorporated a belay device instead of sticking with the Munter Hitch.

As climbing continued to grow in popularity and as a sport, many devices were created to help belayers out which has semi-phased out Munter Hitching belaying. This second belay method is typically referred to as the P-BUS (Pull, Brake, Under, Slide) or BUS (Brake, Under, Slide) method. Your brake hand pulls slack through the belay device and then drops under the device into a braking position while your other hand reaches under the brake hand to enable both hands to slide back up into position under the device in time for another pull. This method is great at maintaining a near-constant brake…aka, minimalizes climber falls due to dropped brake hands (or what we in the industry like to call, “booms”). This method is not so great at removing significant amounts of slack for rapid climbers. I would like to argue, however, that it is possible for proficient P-BUS/BUS belayers to keep up although there will be times of slight slack due to having to play catch-up at the beginning of a climb.

There are very adamant camps in support of each method and a never-ending debate as to which method is “safer”. I prefer P-BUS/BUS because it is the most functional for my every day application. I have used the slip-slap-slide method with a Munter and have had no issue with it, just don’t find it as practical in most camp/challenge course programming modules I’ve encountered. I’ve also used the slip-slap-slide method with a device but find it quite awkward and unnecessary.

This has been a brief introduction to belay methods, what are your thoughts?

Challenge Course Liability and Lawsuits

The last few posts have been pretty heavily based upon the management side of course operations, specifically the incident prevention and risk management aspects of operation.  Today I will complete the triad with liability…the Big L if you will.  I touched briefly on liability in my last post concerning the use of the word “safe” but I am going to take the discussion further today.

Our American culture has become a culture of victimization in which every bad thing that comes our way is the fault of someone or something else.  Do you have poor vision?  Must be genetic and couldn’t possibly be from staring at a computer screen in poor lighting for hours on end every day.  Granted, some of you might have poor vision because of your genes, but this was the safest example I could come up with without ruffling too many feathers.  The point is that majority of the people in our culture refuse to take responsibility for their actions or more specifically the consequences of said actions.  Nothing is our fault, ever.  Sounds absurd when phrased in such a blunt manner, right?  Well, the sad truth is that because of the progression of our culture into a society made up of millions of victims we, as challenge course professionals, must always be on our guard to protect ourselves because when something goes south, people will cling to every potential cause for their incident so long as the blame is not on their own poor judgment or actions.

If you’re a course manager or operator, think about how much money you dropped to build your course.  If you aren’t sure what a standard course costs, it really depends a lot on the type of course you have as well as how many elements, levels, specialty elements, etc. you offer.  For a good estimate, you can expect a price tag around $100,000 before it is all said and done…and that’s being conservative.  I don’t know about you but if I had one hundred grand invested into a single entity, you can believe I am going to protect my investment and do everything I can to nurture and grow it.  This is why liability is so important.  One bad incident will forever taint your company’s reputation, if not completely destroy your company altogether.  Poof, there goes all of your money.  Just.  Like.  That.  This is because the general public doesn’t understand the intricacies of our industry.  When they hear someone fell from a course, what they really think is, “someone fell off so the staff must be incompetent or the course isn’t safe or…well, doesn’t matter because I’ll never go to that course.”  People talk and when incidents are involved, word spreads like wildfire.  The fault of the incident almost always falls on the course and not on the participant…at least that is how it is perceived by outsiders.  During an incident situation, the best thing you can do to salvage your course is to prove that the fault rests fully on the participant and not on anything you may or may not have done.

If you have ever participated in a challenge course, whether high or low, you have signed (or should’ve signed) some form of paperwork that listed potential consequences involved by participating as well as a waiver that released the company offering the service from being held liable for any incurred incident (pending determination of fault).

 

Let’s talk about the purpose of these forms aside from being redundant, time consuming, and slightly intrusive.  There are really three different forms that are used as the rubric for paperwork protection: waiver, indemnification, medical.

Waiver

The purpose of this form is written and tangible documentation stating that you understand the consequences and inherent risk involved in the activity and are taking responsibility for your actions by participating in accordance with the course rules and guidelines.  By signing this form you are basically signing your life away because if you were to die, well, you were made aware that death is a potential risk involved prior to participating and you decided to participate anyway (this has nothing to do with fault right now, that is covered in a separate form).  If you are on a beach and want to go swimming then you are automatically accepting responsibility for whatever transpires while you are in the water.  You are swimming at your own risk, regardless of sharks or jellyfish or crabs or riptides or whatever other danger that awaits beneath the waves.  You have assessed the risks involved with entering the water and have deemed them lesser than the good gained by single-handedly karate chopping every wave that comes your way.  If you stub your toe on a rock or reef well, you can’t exactly blame the ocean for putting it in your way because you accepted the terms of the ocean prior to entrance.  The same concepts hold true with challenge courses, the good that comes from participation is great but so are the risks involved.  The waiver serves to make participants fully aware of what could potentially happen in order that they make fully-informed decisions pertaining to participation.  It also serves as a confirmation that you agree to accept and abide by the house rules of the course.

Indemnification

Okay, so this might not be a very familiar word to some of you as it pertains to the ropes industry.  Let’s be honest, it is really long and not always the easiest to say without stuttering or twisting your tongue.  Basically, that fifteen letter word says that if an incident occurs and a lawsuit is brought forth, all legal and trial fees will be paid by the participant if fault of the incident falls upon the participant.  Did you catch that?  The fault must be proven to be that of the participant and not the course company.  How is this proven in a court of law?  Good question.  I’ll address it in a bit.  For now, I hope you get the gist of this particular form.

Medical

This form is exactly what you think it is.  As your facilitator, it would be extremely helpful for me to know of any pertinent medical conditions you may have.  If you just had knee surgery, I would like to know so I can provide activities that will be less strenuous on your knees as well as know where not to grab while I am bumping your legs to slow you down on a swing for dismount.  If you have any severe allergies that may be triggered while out on the course, I would like to know ahead of time so I can be ready with an EPI pen on hand if the situation turns south.  The point of the medical form isn’t for me to be nosy about every detail of your private, medical life because honestly, I really don’t care about your every medical debacle.  I simply want to know if any of the activities offered might trigger an episode or medical emergency.  If so, I will re-program the schedule or just be hyper-aware of each situation and its potential for further complications. 

I know many people are not comfortable divulging their medical information and actually withhold some pretty important stuff.  I have heard of some women withholding their pregnancy and of men withholding their recent heart surgery in order to still participate.  Here’s the deal, depending upon the activity and your specific medical situation, most courses will not prohibit your participation…they will strongly, strongly advise against it, but remember that waiver form I mentioned earlier?  Yep, you guessed it…if, knowing your medical situation, you decide you are still fit to participate then you are assuming full responsibility for the consequences of your decision (pending any company-faulted incidents).

 

Okay, so you’ve had a great day on the course with no incidents…major kudos to you for successfully managing the risks and operating in a manner that ensured participant well-being.  If, on the other hand, you did have an incident then I hope you have all of your ducks in a row should the participant decide to take you to court.  Incident reports should be filled out by all involved or present as soon as possible after the incident.  Hopefully, you are up-to-date on your annual, monthly, and daily inspections (or whatever intervals you have set forth for your course) and these inspections are fully documented in great detail.  These inspections should include everything even down to the exact carabiner used and when that carabiner was last inspected as well as manufacturer’s date and usage log.  In addition to all gear and equipment documentation, you might find it helpful to also document the climate conditions as environment plays a major role in our industry.  Also, every staff member’s file should be up-to-date with dates for last attended in-service trainings, new skill trainings, evaluations, observations, and any performance-based evaluations/critiques.  The more you have documented the more difficult it is for others to find you at fault for negligence or failure to comply with the standards of care or your local operating procedures, if you are indeed not at fault for the incident.  This has not been an exhaustive list but hopefully it has caused you to start seriously considering what protocols and procedures you have in place to protect yourself and your company.  The bottom line is that your course and course staff should operate in a manner that is above reproach so that when an incident occurs it will be very difficult for others to bring forth a case that stands in court.

I hope this glimpse into the world of challenge course liability has shed some new light on what you might already be practicing or perhaps I was able to bring light to an area you might not have previously considered.  Our industry is unique and offers such great opportunities for personal and group development and growth that it is a shame for one incident to have the potential to taint the industry as a whole.  There could be a million participants through a course and only one incident will be enough to shadow all of the goodness the other ninety-nine thousand experienced.  So be careful and make sure you have all of your bases covered so that you are able to hold a strong case in court should such a time ever come.

Why I Won’t Keep You “Safe”

There is a trend in the industry that has recently begun taking off: the avoidance of “safety”.  No longer are challenge course professionals permitted to even use the word in reference to any adventure activities they offer.  In fact, in my most recent training, we were all strongly, STRONGLY encouraged to remove the word from our vocabulary and all publications/advertisements entirely. 

Seems strange, right?  Maybe, maybe not.  Think about it, what is the primary question you are asked by participants right before they climb the cargo net to the course or slide off the platform to zip or jump off the platform of the pamper pole.  “Is this/Am I safe?!”  Or how about whenever a participant puts on a harness for the first time or is tied into the rope for a belay…“Is this safe?  Are you sure it’ll hold me?”

So, why all the fuss?  Well, sadly, our culture has become one in which you can be sued for just about anything.  Wait, you didn’t tie your shoes and the loose strands left a trail that offended someone?!  Yep, sounds like a lawsuit.  I’m being hypercritical, yes, but I think you get my point.  If I’m your facilitator on a zip and you’re nervous and really skeptical about sliding off the edge of the platform, what are you likely to ask me?  You’re going to want to know you’re safe and that the equipment will hold you.  So, me being the good facilitator that I am will say, “Of course you’re safe!  I wouldn’t send you off if you weren’t safe!  This gear will hold you.  You’ve got nothing to worry about.”  Feeling comforted, you slide off the platform and…SNAP…there goes one of your harness straps…or BOOM…your long hair got caught in the zip trolley…or YANK…I forgot to undo your platform tether and you’re now suspended five feet from the platform and going nowhere fast.

What do you think the first thing, well one of the first things, you’re going to say to me will be once we are all back on the ground?  I bet you’re going to say something along the lines of, “But I thought you said I’d be safe!” and you’re right, I did, didn’t I?

Lucky for me, nothing serious or fatal occurred because that would surely lead to an investigation in which witnesses would have heard me promise your safety and then watched as I did not fulfill that promise.

Do you see where I am going with this?  Granted, the above scenario is make-believe but sadly, that kind of situation occurs quite regularly in the field from facilitators of all makes and models. 

Is what we do safe?  Well, of course not, if humans were meant to be aerial, we’d all have wings.  Gravity doesn’t help our case either.  There is an inherent risk in what we do.  The inherent risk is both our best friend and our enemy.  The risk enables us to add stressors to participant environments that challenge them to grow and learn about their own perceived limits.  The risk also makes what we do more dangerous and serious when something goes wrong. 

I ask again…given the inherent risk, is what we do safe?  Yes (to a point) and no.  We can ensure our equipment is up to standards and inspected.  We can ensure you’re properly gear up.  We can ensure our mental/physical status as your facilitator is attentive and alert.  We can ensure our courses/walls/zips/etc. are up-to-date on inspections.  We can’t; however, guarantee that everything will go as anticipated.  How can we?

I heard a story once of a canopy tour that had a zip between a platform and a tree.  Once all the participants made it to the platform the facilitator began clipping in the first person to the next line that led to the tree.  At that moment, randomly, the tree on the other end of the line was pulled out of the ground and fell over.  Turned out the tree had root rot from all of the rain that season.  Could the facilitator possibly have known that was going to happen?  No and if he did then I would certainly hope he wouldn’t have decided to go along with the tour in spite of the impending timber and emergency escape route.

Here’s my point: what we do is not safe.  We manage the risks of what we do as best we can given the activities we’re engaged in but we cannot promise your safety.  Do you expect your guide on a sky dive to guarantee your safety?  You can hope you’ll be safe but you’re willingly jumping out of an airplane.  Once you leave the plane all bets are off.  But isn’t the risk what makes it exciting?  The fear, the rush of adrenaline as you’re soaring through the air like a bird.  Sky dive guides understand the risks involved with what they do and they manage the risks as best they can.  Likewise, in the challenge course industry, we understand the laws of physics and gravity and if someone steps off a platform without being clipped in, we know they are going straight down and are not going to hover in mid-air while we frantically try to clip them in.  We understand that and we have in place many, many layers of precautions to manage these risks.  Our systems are backed up and the back ups are backed up to the point of absolute redundancy.  This is how we manage the risks in our field.  Accidents will still happen as that is the nature of the beast but our precautions enable us to limit these accidents in severity (when possible) and occurrence.

So, I won’t keep you safe.  I will promise to do my best managing the risks and taking extra precautions but I cannot guarantee everything will go as planned.  No one can.

Don’t let this deter you from your next high adventure, just be aware of the risks involved and weigh those risks.  Remember, with great risks come great rewards.

Website

It has been about a month since my last post but that is simply because I have been working diligently on building a website pertaining to the challenge course industry.  My website offers consultations, advice, and other services for course professionals seeking help or just wanting another brain to bounce ideas off of.

Please check out my website and feel free to contact me via the email address provided on my contact page.

http://ropesfacilitator.com.s178017.gridserver.com/

 

Challenge Course Incident Prevention

I spent last week in a training course through the ACCT to earn my Challenge Course Manager certification.  After interacting with so many other ropes course professionals it became apparent to me how important education and continual training is in this industry.  Many of us have experienced some pretty scary stuff while on the job and nearly every one of those incidences could have been prevented.  Truth be told, with the exception of unforeseen equipment malfunctions, every challenge course incident is almost 100% preventable.  Pretty bold statement, right?  Perhaps, but think about it…all incidences fall into at least one of the following categories: poor judgment, equipment failure, unforeseen equipment malfunction.

How do we prevent poor judgment calls? 

First and foremost, set high standards during your training and stick to them.  As a trainer, I have found it is so much easier to start off really hard and then soften up than to start off soft and try to tighten up later.  What I mean here is that if you start training off trying to be your trainees’ buddy then you are setting yourself up to be in a tough position later.  Whereas if you start off meaning business then you can always lighten up as time progresses.  Basically, the point I’m getting at is that whatever culture you set during training is the culture your program and staff will grow in.  There’s nothing wrong with being buddies with your trainees, so long as they know you’re serious when it comes to program protocol and safety.

A second way we prevent poor judgment calls in the industry is by utilizing the buddy system.  I’ve only worked at one course where the buddy system wasn’t utilized and I would strongly recommend that course to change over to it.  Basically, the buddy system is what it sounds like: two people always double-checking each other.  Human error in the industry can quite literally lead to a fatality.  The thought is that two minds are better than one.  If two people have double-checked the knots and equipment on a participant before that participant enters the course or begins climbing the wall, the likelihood of an incident is greatly reduced.

Poor judgment calls can be the fault of facilitators and participants alike.  As a facilitator, you are responsible for the operation of the activity as well as the welfare of all staff and participants present, including yourself.  As a participant, you are responsible for knowing your medical limits.  If you had back surgery two weeks ago but think you’re solid enough to get on the course, you need to tell us.  Sure, some courses might prohibit you from going airborne but others might be able to work with you and actually recommend elements to avoid due to the strain it will cause on your back.  Bottom line is, we as facilitators want you to have a good time but we will not compromise your health for a thrill…or at least that’s how it should be.  As a participant, you need to be open with us because we know our courses and will work with you if we know in advance what you need.  The worst thing for us is to see a participant in the middle of the course start showing signs of a serious medical emergency (anaphylaxis, heart issue, stroke, seizure, etc.), only to find out the situation could have been avoided if the participant had been honest with us up front.

How do we prevent equipment failure?

Inspect, inspect, inspect!  If you are not inspecting your equipment prior to each use and after each use, you are playing with fire.  In addition to inspecting your stuff, you need to be documenting it.  Did you inspect your carabiner before clipping in?  Then record that you did so.  Did you flake the rope before setting up the climbing wall?  Record that you did so.  In addition to recording that you’ve inspected your gear, make sure you are documenting usage information.  How long was the rope in use?  How many participants climbed on the rope?  Did you have any big falls on the rope?  While the rope was in use, was it sitting the sun the whole time?  If you have any doubt about the integrity of a piece of gear, do not use it.

Equipment and gear manufacturers give a life expectancy for each piece of gear and rope but they do so with the caveat that the gear is properly maintained and cared for.  If your rope manufacturer gives you a ten year life expectancy for your climbing rope but you start noticing soft spots after two years, then it is your responsibility to retire the rope regardless of what the manufacturer has said about life expectancy.  Use always trumps what the manufacturer says in terms of life expectancy.  Makes sense though, if you think about it.  The manufacturer cannot possibly account for the impact of every climate and atmosphere condition in which its gear may be subjected to.  Need an example?  I have a buddy who works on a course on the beach.  He and I can go buy a steel carabiner at the same time but I guarantee you, he will be retiring his carabiner well before I retire mine simply because of our climate differences.  I am not on the beach and therefore my equipment is not subjected to the salt air that so quickly deteriorates his equipment.

How do we prevent unforeseen equipment malfunction?

If you have a stellar staff and are constantly inspecting your gear and equipment then you have done all that you can do on the prevention side of things.  Accidents still happen but the thought is that if you are on your A-game the injury will be minimal.  Of course, there are no guarantees.  How are we to know an otherwise healthy tree has recently developed root rot and it is only a matter of time before it falls over?  These kinds of things cannot be prevented and add to the inherent risk involved when
you decide to participate.  In short, we cannot prevent unforeseen malfunctions but we hope to minimize the damage by doing as much as we can on the front end with inspections and training.

In closing…

Education really is the best preventative measure when it comes to ropes courses.  If something goes wrong, we try to make things right but we also take the situation and learn from it.  I heard a story recently of a guy on a tree course attached via cable grab on a vertical belay line who had been leaning back in his harness for a while on the platform.  When it was time for him to come back down, he sat down in his harness and fell a good 20-30 feet to the ground when his cable grab didn’t catch on the belay line.  He ended up being fine but now we all know that that particular cable grab can get jammed open.  As a result, I do not know very many courses that still use that same cable grab model.

I hope all of this accident prevention talk hasn’t scared you off or changed your mind about hopping on the local zip line canopy tour.  Though we cannot guarantee your safety, we can guarantee that we have properly trained staff operating the activity and fully-inspected gear and equipment in use.  Of course, I am speaking for all courses that are accredited through the ACCT and not for backyard zip lines and DIY courses some camps offer.  I will discuss ACCT course regulations and standards in another post for those of you interested in the nitty-gritty stuff.

The Challenge Course Programming Debate

Hello fellow adventurers!

I apologize for the shortage of posts recently.  We all know how crazy holiday season can be with family coming into town and traditions being upheld while making new ones and memories.  I haven’t forgotten about you all, just been very busy here at the house the last two weeks.  I am here now though, and I have attached my promised graduate school paper that examines the challenge course debate between experiential education and recreation.  I look forward to hearing your thoughts on the debate.

 

Adventure Recreation

In recent times there has been an increase of interest in challenge course construction and participation.[1]  With this growth come many questions pertaining to the use of challenge courses.  What is the purpose of a challenge course?  If there is a specific purpose, how should challenge courses be used to fulfill this purpose?  Should challenge courses be utilized solely within the context of experiential education as found in summer camps, retreat centers, and select recreational facilities?  Should challenge courses be available for recreational purposes only as found in select retreat centers, recreational facilities, and many amusement parks?  Can a challenge course exist in both contexts, experiential educationally-focused and recreationally-focused?  Depending on who one asks will determine the response received concerning these proposed questions.  The current debate is between two camps: one using challenge courses for experiential education and the other for recreation.  The experiential education party is best understood as recreation with a purpose whereas the purely recreational party is best understood as focusing solely upon the thrill and enjoyment of the activity.  The purpose of this study is to determine whether challenge courses should be available and utilized in both settings as experiential education and recreation.  In order to address this issue, it is necessary to first define important words pertaining to the topic in order to remedy any vagueness or confusion due to any preconceived understanding of the words.  Following this explanation a discussion of both parties will ensue, during which three primary areas of focus will be examined within the context of each.  These three primary areas of focus will discuss how the activity impacts the individual intrapersonally, interpersonally, and in the future.  After each party has been explained, I will assert what I believe to be the appropriate response given the evidence presented throughout this study.  Following this assessment will be a brief conclusion restating the argument and highlighting important issues that have surfaced in the study.

Terminology

Before proceeding to the arguments, it is necessary to define the specific terminology that will be used throughout the remainder of this study.  The focus of this study is on the purpose and use of challenge courses.  A challenge course can be individual in nature or involve participation within a designated group for completion and involves placing the participant(s) in a situation with perceived risks which need to be overcome in order to successfully complete the challenge.[2]  A challenge course can entail team building initiatives and games, low ropes courses, and high ropes courses.  As a participant in a challenge course, one is faced with a perceived risk, or the potential of loss whether minimal (injury) or major (death).[3]  Risk is subjective in nature because not all participants perceive risks at the same level in the same activities.  For example, an experienced skydiver would not perceive as high a level of risk in his sport as a non-skydiver or spectator would perceive should he choose to skydive.[4]  Team building initiatives and games are challenges typically located on the ground level with the sole purpose of creating an environment that promotes building camaraderie among team members as they learn to trust each other and work together to complete a given task.  A low ropes course is similar in nature; however, a low ropes course may occur on the ground or up to eight feet in the air.  A high ropes course is a challenge course that is located up to fifty feet in the air and utilizes some sort of belay system to ensure the safety of participants.  A high ropes course typically contains several elements, or problems, strung together into one flowing course in which participants pass safely from one element to the next until reaching the final element and thus completing the course.  A facilitator is the person(s) responsible for managing the course and maintaining the safety of all participants.  The role of the facilitator is different depending upon how the challenge course is utilized, as will be noted in the following study.  A belay system is a series of pulley-like devices in which the life-bearing rope (a rope attached to the participant to prevent him from falling) is strung through and attached to the participant on one end and to either a facilitator (belayer) on the ground or to a steel cable overhead on the other end.  The purpose of the belay system is to prevent any accidents as a result of participants falling off of the elements.  The term recreation within the context of this study will refer strictly to those activities in which participants engage in merely for the enjoyment and thrill of the activity.  High-adventure recreation, for the purposes of this paper and in an effort to differentiate terms, will pertain to recreation with a purpose otherwise known as experiential education by use of challenge courses.  The remainder of terminology will be explained as it is encountered within the study.  Words defined up to this point will be sufficient for the reader to understand the basic foundations of the study as it is now time to introduce the two opposing arguments of the issue pertaining to the purpose and uses of challenge courses.

Recreation

Interpersonal Impact

Recreation is a great means for building relationships among participants.    With this said, the importance of team building is inter-woven into the very nature of the task; however, when the task is purely recreational in purpose, team building is not utilized to its fullest potential.  Instead, teams are made and bonds are formed for the duration of the activity, but what becomes of these bonds afterwards?  In most cases these relationships live on in the memory of the participants as they return home and tell others of their experiences.  Recreationally, there is little that can be done to prevent any positive or negative feedback and future impacts to the participants as a result of their efforts on the course because that is not in the nature of recreational activity; the foundation of recreation is to participate and have fun.  Recreation focuses solely on safely executing and facilitating the course for the participants.  This safety is purely physical in nature and completely overlooks the psychological aspects occurring in the minds of participants both on the ground spectating and in the air participating.  The response of a well-known local recreational high ropes course in Arkansas responded to a question regarding procedure in the event a participant freezes mid-course by stating that the course staff is fully-equipped to lower the participant to the ground to recover and is ready for when the participant is ready for a second try.  There are no attempts of counseling the participant through his struggles or encouraging him to proceed; the procedure is to lower the participant, persuading and coaxing the participant to proceed is completely by-passed.  This cuts off any learning opportunities and chances for the participant to push himself.

Intrapersonal Impact

Internally, recreation for enjoyment and thrill posits a passive activity on the part of the participant.  In other words, the participant is seeking to be entertained.  For example, take a sky swing at a theme park, the participant decides to engage in the activity and is strapped in for the ride.  Though the participant may experience feelings of fear and risk, not much is left for the participant to do about these feelings once he is strapped in and the swing has begun to be pulled up.  Another issue is that of control.  The participant exercises control on the part of deciding to ride the sky swing; however, no further control is available to the participant after the initial decision to participate.  In terms of risk, there is little room for manipulation of risk to accommodate varying levels of participants.  One either participates or does not, he either accepts the risks involved or he does not.  Emotionally, a recreational activity does impact the experience of the participants involved, but once the activity ceases, the impact of those emotions do likewise.

Future Impact

Typically the future impact of participation in a recreational activity is superficial in depth as it pertains primarily to the temporary, fleeting emotions felt during the activity.  For example, the sky swing at Amusement Park America was a great experience that made a participant feel an adrenaline rush he has never encountered in his life prior to that point.  What happens once the adrenaline rush has departed?  The participant is left with the memory of his fun experience.  This, in and of itself, is not necessarily a negative thing as it is important to participate in activities “just for fun” every so often in life.  In fact, sharing recreational experiences with others forms a strong bond between people as they face a scary situation together and rely on each other for support, encouragement, and accountability.  These bonds are unlike bonds formed elsewhere because they are based upon an experience in which people showed their vulnerabilities to each other.  This kind of situation does not naturally occur in typical relationship building aside from verbally communicating vulnerabilities of one’s own accord.  In recreational environments the choice of revealing vulnerabilities is not available as challenge courses often require immediate decision-making and problem solving in order to complete a task: if one does not openly admit to his fear of heights, he may find himself volunteered as the team pole-climber.

High-Adventure Recreation

Interpersonal Impact

High-adventure is very similar to recreation when it comes to team building and facilitating group dynamics.  In fact, the very nature of high-adventure recreation leaves little room for choice when it comes to working with others, as relying on each other is often the only method for successfully completing the challenge.  Socially, participating in high-adventure recreation grants an avenue for “strutting one’s stuff” in front of an audience.  In many cases, social statuses are affected by achievement in high-adventure recreation.  For example, if an often-perceived power-hungry, hard-hitting boss of a corporation were to freeze up on a high ropes course to the point of needing to be rescued, the future consequences in the work place might include a lack of respect for the “scaredy-cat” boss.  Likewise, more respect might be given to the often overlooked people in the company if they show proficiency and even excellence on a ropes course.     

Intrapersonal Impact

            Participants in high-adventure recreation are actively involved in the activity as they not only make the decision to participate in the activity, but they are actively involved throughout the entire duration of the activity as well.  The risks involved in high-adventure recreation are perceived risks and can be manipulated to a certain extent to accommodate various experience levels of participants.  A couple of examples of how to manipulate a high ropes course could be to have beginners participate in only the first three or four elements of the course before being lowered down by a facilitator or have very experienced participants wear a blindfold or allow the use of only one arm throughout the entirety of the course.  Low ropes courses and team building initiatives are much simpler to manipulate in terms of risk for various levels of participants; it is up to the discretion of the facilitator to discern the most effective and beneficial methods of manipulation needed for a specific group or participant. 

Control plays a major factor in the experience of the participant because feelings of control significantly impact the participant’s experience for the positive or negative.  The perception of control in the minds of participants has significant impact on several psychological processes such as their locus of control (externally, or internally controlled), learned helplessness, accepting physical limitations, and self-discovery.[5]  The emotional impact of high-adventure recreation is significant and can “make or break” an experience for the participant.  With high-adventure recreation, emotional impacts oftentimes have long-lasting effects that could take years for the participant to recover from, should those effects be negative in nature.  Imagine being a participant in the middle of a high ropes course at fifty feet in the air about to cross a two-cable bridge (basically a tight-rope cable walk with an additional steel cable at elbow level in which the participant pushes against for leverage while side-stepping across the foot cable).  The risk on this element seems greater than the other elements due to the height and the “flimsy” cable that the participant must balance on while crossing the element, despite the instability of the cable as it wiggles with the participant’s movements.  It would be easy for someone to freeze up, in other words shut down psychologically and physically, on this particular element.  If at this point the participant does freeze up and the reaction from his peers or facilitators is negative and causes the participant to feel incompetent or weak, the participant will continue to be frozen and believe the negativity offered by others.  These insecurities will have lasting effects long after reaching the ground again as the participant believes he is incompetent and weak because he was unable to successfully complete a simple “obstacle course” in front of friends.  On the contrary, should the participant freeze up and his peers and facilitators offer encouragement and advice to help walk the participant through the element, the emotional impact on the individual will empower the participant as he accepts his physical limitations and need for reliance on others.  In both scenarios the key player, aside from the participant, is the facilitator.  For the facilitator is responsible for ensuring the environment is encouraging while offering counsel to the participant as he is facing his fears and insecurities head-on.  Afterward, the facilitator is also responsible for utilizing the teachable moments that occurred as a means of building growth opportunities for all involved.  This is called debriefing in most high-adventure environments and essentially involves utilizing transfer theories to help participants grasp how their accomplishment, or failure, of a task can be used as a learning experience.  Transfer theories will be discussed in further detail in the following section as they pertain primarily to the futuristic impacts of challenge courses on the participant(s).

Future Impact

            The future impact is perhaps the pinnacle of high-adventure recreation.  The entire premise of high-adventure recreation is experiential learning and purpose-driven challenges.  In high-adventure recreation, the participant learns about his physical, emotional, and psychological limits as he faces risks and challenges that push him to his current limit.  These challenges require the participant to step outside of his comfort zone in order to successfully complete the challenge, whether this is a personal challenge as typical of high ropes or working with others in his group to complete a team challenge.  The facilitator’s role is vital in high-adventure recreation because if he is not properly trained in managing and manipulating risk and group dynamics, the entire challenge could result in a negative experience for all involved.  The goal is to cause people to grow by placing them in circumstances that offer no choice but for them to take the initiative on themselves to accept the perceived risks involved and push themselves toward completing the challenge.  Failure is always possible in high-adventure recreation; however, contrary to its perception socially and culturally, failure is not a negative thing.  Sometimes failure to complete a challenge offers the best teachable moments for the facilitator to discuss during the debrief.  In short, a debriefing session occurs at the end of a challenge and involves the facilitator walking through specific moments of the challenge with the group or individual that represent areas that could use improvement in the future and how to make those necessary changes.  It is in the reflection of the challenge where participants learn about the experience they just had and how to grow from it.  For example, the group might have spent half of their planning time arguing, so in the debrief, the issue of communication would be discussed.  Debriefing also touches on moments of the challenge in which the group was successful, such as each member of the group showed respect for others by listening to everyone’s ideas without ridiculing those opposite of his own.  Basically, debriefing can be thought of as a type of evaluation enabling the participants to reflect on the challenge and figure out a way to apply what was learned to the next challenge and even in their lives “back home.”  Applying lessons learned in a challenge to future events is called transference.  This occurs as a result of the facilitator utilizing transfer theories during the debriefing session.  Transfer theories are a tool the facilitator uses to plant lessons into the lives of the participant.  For example, in debriefing a group that struggled with too many leaders and mixed communications, the facilitator could mention how difficult it is to hear the still small voice of God when there is too much static in one’s life that he is listening to.  Another example of a transfer theory is something as simple as teaching the participants how to tie the knot used on the high ropes course.

The facilitator’s role is crucial in controlling the atmosphere and energy to prevent it from becoming negative and degrading.  When a participant is frozen on an element of the high ropes course, he is facing physical, emotional, and psychological stress.  Physically, his muscles are shaking, and he realizes his height and the situation surrounding him.  Emotionally, he might be feeling fear, anxiety, incompetence, self-doubt, or any combination of these plus more.  Psychologically, he realizes his friends are on the ground watching him and he is afraid of how they will perceive him or judge him based upon his performance on the course.  There are several factors at stake for participants.  Should a participant fail, it is vital for the facilitator to ensure the participant knows failure on the course does not equate failure in life or as a person.  On the other hand, proficiency on the course does not guarantee success in the business world or as a person.  Because emotions and psychology play such a foundational role in the mind of the participant, it is important to nurture these areas to ensure no permanent, negative damage is done.  The power for impact is immense and should be respected.

My Stance

            Recreation and high-adventure recreation both offer tremendous opportunities for intrapersonal and interpersonal growth.  The issue of whether challenge courses should be offered recreationally has been posed, and my response is that the very nature of challenge courses is purpose-driven, and for that reason, they should be offered within the bounds of high-adventure recreation.  The potential for emotional and psychological damage is too great to risk on recreational participation.  High-adventure recreation offers a unique opportunity for teachable moments that, if addressed properly by a facilitator, can mold the minds and hearts of participants for the rest of their lives whether positively or negatively. 

Up to this point, the arena of spiritual growth and application has been neglected but will now be examined briefly.  Spiritually, recreation has little to offer for casual participants.  Do not misunderstand, participants can still grow spiritually through recreation; however, by definition, the aim of recreation is sheer thrill and enjoyment.  Recreation is not purposeful in nature.  On the other hand, high-adventure recreation offers the highest potential for growth spiritually, emotionally, and psychologically because these arenas make up the fabric of the purposefulness involved within high-adventure.  To be purpose-driven implies a reason underlies the activity.  As a facilitator, it is vital to help guide the group through a debriefing session addressing spiritual, personal, and interpersonal applications.  To participate in high-adventure recreation without debriefing is to demote the activity to the level of recreation, which misses the whole point of the challenge course.  This could be compared to a game on Super Bowl Sunday between the two biggest rivals in the NFL only to have the officials announce last-minute that there will be no score-keeping for the game.  What is the point of playing in the championship game if there will be no scores to prove the victor?  Likewise in high-adventure recreation, what is the point of purpose-driven recreation if the purpose is neglected?  For these reasons, I believe challenge courses should be restricted to use within the contexts of high-adventure recreation only.

Conclusion

            Should challenge courses be restricted to high-adventure recreation environments?  This issue has been discussed in length throughout the course of the study.  Two opposing parties on the issue were presented: recreation and high-adventure recreation.  In examining the perspectives of the two parties, three arenas of impact to participants were discussed: interpersonal, intrapersonal, and future impact.  Following the study of impact, the decision was made that challenge courses should indeed be utilized solely for high-adventure recreational purposes and should not be permitted in recreation-only contexts.

 

---

[1] Martyn Whittingham, Amusement Park or Learning Experience? An Exploration of Psychological and Philosophical Themes in Challenge Course Usage, [on-line]; available from http://acctaffiniscape.com/displaycommon.cfm?an=1&subarticlebnr=53; Internet.

[2] Leo H. McAvoy, “The Experiential Components of a High-Adventure Program,” in High-Adventure Outdoor Pursuits (Columbus, Ohio: Publishing Horizons, Inc., 1987), 203-204.

[3] Simon Priest, “The Semantics of Adventure Education,” in Adventure Education (State College, PA: Venture Publishing, Inc., 1990), 115.

[4] Joel F. Meier, “Is the Risk Worth Taking?” in High-Adventure Outdoor Pursuits (Columbus, Ohio: Publishing Horizons, Inc., 1987), 24.

[5] Whittingham, [on-line].

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

McAvoy, Leo H. “The Experiential Components of A High-Adventure Program.” In High-Adventure Outdoor Pursuits, 200-209. Columbus, Ohio: Publishing Horizons, Inc., 1987.

Meier, Joel F. “Is the Risk Worth Taking?” In High-Adventure Outdoor Pursuits, 23-27. Columbus, Ohio: Publishing Horizons, Inc., 1987.

Priest, Simon. “The Semantics of Adventure Education.” In Adventure Education, 113-117. State College, PA: Venture Publishing, Inc., 1990.

Whittingham, Martyn. “Amusement Park or Learning Experience? An Exploration of Psychological and Philosophical Themes in Challenge Course Usage.” [on-line]. http://acctaffiniscape.com/displaycommon.cfm?an=1&subarticlenbr=53; Internet.

 

Bonus: Sample Low Ropes Program

Bonus:  Part 3

Sample Low Ropes Program Recap

In the previous two posts I presented two stories of the same event from two different perspectives.  In Part 1 I wanted you to experience a low ropes program from the perspective of a first-time participant.  Perhaps you found yourself relating the events of the story to your own experience.  Or maybe you have not experienced any team building programs and now have a better understanding of what it is like and the gist of such programming.

In Part 2 I wanted you to experience the programming side of running a low ropes activity.  I purposely included several details to illustrate the mindset of a facilitator and to help you keep the big picture of the program in mind.  Remember, to participants the program is a series of activities that are sometimes silly but are overall a way of learning how to negotiate different challenges and obstacles with only the resources present within each group member.  In this manner of learning, each member discovers his/her own strengths and weaknesses as well as those of others in the group.  Each participant contributes a completely unique set of skills and traits to the group and through the various scenarios presented in the activities will those skills and traits shine.

To facilitators, the entire program is a building experience of challenges that culminates in a final challenge and debrief.  Each activity is intentionally selected because it builds on skills that are ideal for reaching the overall programming goals of the group.  This intentional stringing together of activities is called sequencing.  You could argue one of the most important parts of programming is sequencing.  The other big word in programming is one I have demonstrated but not yet officially introduced: transfer. 

Transference is simply the act of converting what is learned in a ropes program back to the “real world.”  So, your group learned how to communicate during your program activities but what difference does that make if they do not take what they learned back to work/school/etc.?  This is why facilitators take time after activities to debrief what happened: it gives every group member a chance to reflect on what they learned not only about themselves but others and then discover ways to utilize what they learned back home.  As I’ve stated in other posts, ropes programs are great at teaching intangible lessons in tangible ways.  Want to teach your group teamwork and communication?  Have them experience a rope maze in which all but one member is blindfolded and then ask questions during your debrief that will help them understand how they used teamwork and communication to complete the activity.

There are many types of transfer theories and methods but the important thing to understand is that without transference, the whole point of a ropes program is moot.  If you have been involved in the ropes industry then you realize how controversial that last sentence is.  If you missed it, the most debated topic in the ropes industry centers around the purpose of programming: recreational fun or experiential education.  I actually wrote an entire thesis paper on this debate in graduate school and will post my paper for you to read and would love to hear your thoughts regarding the issue.

I know this has been a brief overview and explanation of my two-part story but I hope it has been helpful to you.  Please note that though I specifically used a low ropes programming scenario, the same principles can be applied to high ropes courses as well.

ls

 

Low Ropes Program Sample: Part 2

Sample Low Ropes Program

Part 2: Facilitator

The following story is the second half of a two-part discussion regarding low ropes sequencing and programming.  Like the first story, this story is written in first-person but from the perspective of a facilitator this time as he leads the low ropes program for the group introduced in Part 1: Participant.  In other words, this is Jim’s story.

 

My first contact with Ronald came in the form of an inquiry via email.  He had heard of other companies using our programming to implement group cohesion and bonding and was interested in sending one of his marketing groups through our program.  I work at a specialized, team-focused adventure center that caters programs to the needs of clientele groups by offering alternative team building experiences by use of high and low challenge course activities.  He liked the productivity of his group but wanted a more open, community environment in order to maximize on project efficiency.  He told me he really wanted to focus on teamwork, bonding, and communication.  His thoughts were that by creating an atmosphere of team-players with open communication, project efficiency would follow as well as a sense of community and belonging.

I immediately replied to Ronald’s email and told him I would be more than happy to create a program tailored to his group goals.  Later that week, Ronald and I met up for coffee and discussed in more detail his specific group goals as well as details of group size, personalities, and amount of time allotted for the program (6 hours).  I gave him copies of my company’s participant waivers (medical, indemnification, and liability) and asked for them to be returned prior to his group’s arrival.  This way should I find any medical conditions that might conflict with activities, I can alter my programming ahead of time.

After coffee with Ronald, I returned to my office and began brainstorming activities that would be appropriate for his group.  On my large whiteboard, I began listing various ice breakers, team initiative challenges/games, and low rope elements.  In order to fill the six hours, I planned on having three back-up activities for each section of the program in the event of unexpected alterations to the plan (group flies through activities, environmental factors like weather or bees, group is really struggling to complete a task and is beginning to fall apart, etc.).  The name of the game during pre-program planning is flexibility because there are so many factors affecting the execution of a program.

Two weeks later, I arrived at Ronald’s office ready to begin working with his group for the day.  We went downstairs to the lobby to meet his group and the first thing I noticed was how quiet they were.  They were huddled together but nothing more than forced small-talk seemed to be taking place.  I could tell they were apprehensive and nervous about the day…apparently Ronald had not shared with them what the day would hold.

We boarded the bus and began the fifteen minute drive to my work place.  On arrival, I introduced them to my company and site.  I also told them more about myself in order to get them feeling more comfortable with me as their leader for the day.  Once my introductions were over, I handed them each a poly dot and told them it was now time for their introductions seeing as I did not know their names (I did on paper from the forms they turned in, but I wanted to match the faces to the names).  I told them that their introductions would be slightly different than mine in that theirs’ would be in the form of a game called an ice breaker.  The first ice breaker I introduced was Group Juggle because I have found that specific ice breaker to be an all-around good warm-up game.  Not only do I learn group members’ names, I also get a chance to see the group dynamics in play and can also decide if the next activity I had planned would be a good follow-up based on what is already occurring within the group.  Plus, groups love Group Juggle.  They love challenging themselves to juggle as many objects as possible.

The next ice breaker they played was Have You Ever.  This is a good game for opening people up and allows members to learn more about each other.

At this point in the program, I began noticing a couple of people stepping up as leaders.  Their leadership style was very dictatorial which seemed to be bogging down the quieter ones in the group.  There were also a couple of people who really weren’t buying into the program.  With this in mind, I switched up my next activity to one that emphasized equal participation, teamwork, and communication: the Human Knot.  I use a variation that involves participants holding on to bandanas instead of holding hands…it helps with those who have personal space concerns.

After the Human Knot, I noticed the few who were not buying into the program seemed more engaged as they treated the activity as a group puzzle.  This set up my next team challenge perfectly.  Now that I had everyone on board and actively participating, I introduced them to the Chocolate River.  The Chocolate River is great because it requires teamwork and communication as well as a good dose of strategy to complete the task.  The group took a little bit to get their strategy down-pat but once they figured out a method that worked well for them they quickly completed the challenge.  I was very proud of them and took the opportunity to have a quick debrief with them about the activity and the day up to that point.  They agreed they needed to work more on their communication but felt pretty good about their teamwork.  I used this information to introduce them to one more challenge before getting to the low rope elements: Tarp Turnover.  I picked this activity because it also requires communication as well as coordination.  The group did fairly well after about fifteen minutes of trial and errors.

I had a pretty good feel of the group dynamics by this point of the program and felt comfortable transitioning to low rope elements.  I had three in mind, with one specifically designated as the closing activity because it would bring together everything we had been working on the whole day.  The first activity, Islands, is another strategy and problem solving activity that helped build on teamwork and group awareness/planning.  The second activity, Nitro, required more physical activity than the others but I knew my group could handle the challenge based on what I had observed throughout the day and what I knew about the physical limitations that were listed on the medical forms.

By this point of the day, the group had finally realized the importance of working together and were ready for the closing activity: Three Peaks.  The actual low ropes element is a life-size version of the popular math puzzle, Towers of Hanoi.  In order to make the element more challenging, I divided the group into three smaller groups.  I made sure to put all of the talkers in a group that would become mute.  Then I put all of the quiet people in a group that would be required to verbally instruct the others.  The third group became the active group that physically completed the task as instructed by the other two groups.  This is a great challenge that really establishes the need for clear communication and teamwork.  By the time I brought the group to this activity, they were ready to put all of the communication and teamwork skills they had learned and built up throughout the day to the test.  As a result, they completed the activity with flying colors.

This final debrief time not only addressed thoughts and concerns about the Three Peaks activity but also addressed the day as a whole.  I had them think of ways they could take what they learned back to work with them.  Then I had them write down how they would implement these skills at work.  They ended up writing their own set of workplace goals.  Ronald, who had been observing the group throughout the day was really impressed with how much his group had progressed and grown throughout the course of the day.  There was an obvious, unifying bond in the group that had grown through working together and participating in all of the activities of the day.

It was time for the group to head back to their office and as they boarded the bus they continued to thank me for leading them for the day.  They had a great time and learned a lot about themselves.  I have since received personalized thank-you letters from many of them as well as a follow-up phone call from Ronald thanking me for working with his group.  He said the workplace environment had completely changed after they returned from my program.  He couldn’t be happier with how things have changed and said he would be contacting me again soon to arrange another program for his acquisitions group.

 

Stay tuned for the Story Debrief…where I will explain in more detail how to program a low ropes event like the one presented in the story.

ls

Low Ropes Program Sample: Part 1

The following story is the first half of a two-part discussion regarding low ropes sequencing and programming.  This story is written in first-person from the perspective of a participant as she experiences a low ropes program for the first time.

Part 1: Participant

Today started like any typical Wednesday.  I got up, got ready, and grabbed a bagel on my way to work.  I knew there would be some sort of all-day conference with the others in my particular sector of the company.  Our boss was very tight-lipped to all ten of us about what exactly the conference would cover and what to expect.  Needless to say, aside from my usual start to the day, I was a bit nervous.  Upon arriving at work, I found my coworkers huddled together in the office lobby and quickly joined them.  They were all dressed as I was, as required by our boss, comfortable-casual with lace-up sneakers.  This is a big deal because we definitely work in a suit-and-tie environment…kind of have to given our particular business and the clientele we interact with.

Our boss, Ronald, showed up shortly after I had arrived and he was not alone.  Next to him stood this young man no more than thirty with a scruffy beard and polo shirt sporting some unrecognizable logo.  Ronald told us he would be joining us for the day but in nothing more than an observational capacity and that Jim (scruffy beard, polo dude) would be our leader for the day.  With that said, we were led outside to board a bus headed to who-knows-where.

Once we had arrived at Jim’s “office” he introduced himself further and told us we would be learning a lot about ourselves and each other throughout the course of the day.  He also told us that the whole purpose of the day was to have fun while participating in each of the activities he had planned for us.  Apparently Ronald wanted us to bond more as a group in order to improve office efficiency…not that we all hate each other or anything, we just all keep to ourselves and get our work done independently.

After all of the introductory stuff, Jim handed each of us a rubbery-plastic circle (we later learned it is called a “poly dot”) and were instructed to form a circle, drop our dots, and stand on them.  The dots would serve as our place markers.  In order to get to the other activities for the day Jim said we needed to warm up a bit and give him a chance to learn all of our names…since we obviously already knew each other being coworkers and all.  This led to the first of many fun games.  I will explain some of my favorites below because it would take me forever to explain them all.

Jim called the first game “Group Juggle” and gameplay is exactly what you think it would be: we juggled as a group.  Jim handed Tonya a tennis ball and told her to toss it to anyone in the circle she wanted.  Then that person, Peter, would toss it to another person in the circle.  The ball had to travel to each person in the circle before repeating any one person.  As the ball was tossed, the thrower had to say the name of the recipient in order to get his/her attention.  Once we completed one circuit of play Jim had us start again and about halfway through our second circuit, he handed Tonya another object to start another round.  This continued until we were successfully “juggling” five objects at the same time.  It was so hectic at first until we developed a groove and rhythm.

We played some other games similar to Group Juggle before getting to “Chocolate River,” which turned out to be much more strategy than any of the others up to that point.  Jim placed two pieces of rope on the ground about twenty feet apart from each other and said they marked the river banks.  He was standing in the river, which turned out to be piping, hot chocolate.  Jim said that he was wearing special, un-meltable shoes that enabled him to walk on the hot chocolate without sinking or getting burned.  Our task was simple: get to the other side of the river without touching the hot chocolate.  Jim gave us five of those poly dots from earlier and said they were marshmallows.  He said marshmallows are great because they float on hot chocolate but they also stink because after a while they will melt away.  We were permitted to use the “marshmallows” to cross the river but the caveat was that once a marshmallow was placed in the river someone always had to be touching it…otherwise it would melt away.  It took us about ten minutes to figure out the best strategy…after several trial and error restarts.  Thirty minutes later and Danny, our final group member, stepped on the final bank.  We had completed our task.

Jim was so proud of our accomplishment and so were we.  He had us sit down in the shade of a nearby oak and talked to us a bit about what we thought of the Chocolate River.  He asked about what we thought our weaker areas were during the activity and what our strengths were.  He also asked if we would do the activity differently in the future if given the chance.  After a little more discussion, Jim had us think about things we learned about ourselves or each other as a whole during the Chocolate River activity.  Our biggest strength was teamwork, in case you were wondering.  Our weakest area: communication…too many cooks in the kitchen, so to speak.

After the Chocolate River we did some pretty cool activities involving wooden platforms and rope swings.  After all of these Jim led us down a trail and stopped to separate us into three groups.  I think he predetermined the groups because he made all of the super talkative people mute, the semi-talkative people blind, and the super quiet people were able to talk but not see the activity.  The quiet people were then taken aside and Jim explained the next activity’s task and then gave them some time to strategize.  Explaining this activity might get a little confusing so I’m going to designate the groups with a letter as follows: super talkative people (mute), M; semi-talkative people (blind), B; and super quiet people (speaking but not seeing), S.  Ok, so after group S was done strategizing, Jim led us to the activity (which we later learned was called “Three Peaks”) and placed us in our correct spots.

Group S, being the only group to know the task of the activity started explaining the task to the rest of us but it was hard to understand because though some of us could see how to complete the task, we couldn’t speak and others could speak but couldn’t see what we were doing.  The activity consisted of three wooden posts and four wooden rings (four different sizes).  The four rings were stacked biggest to smallest on the first pole and the task was to get them stacked on the third pole in the same order.  The kicker was that only one ring could move at a time and no larger ring could be placed on a smaller ring.  To start, group B was placed at the first post, group S was placed in a line shoulder-to-shoulder about ten feet away from the posts with their backs turned to the posts, and group M stood in a parallel line facing group S.  This way, conveniently, group S could see group M and group M could see group B…in other words, the group that couldn’t see the activity could see the mute group in front of them and the mute people could see the blind people at the posts.

It took us quite some time to work out an efficient method of operation because the people actually moving the rings were the very ones who could speak but not see (group B) and the only ones who knew the task were the very ones who could speak and see anything but the activity as it unfolded (group S).  And then we have this other group (M) who could see everything but not speak at all to help convey messages.

As you might’ve guessed, Jim picked this activity specifically for us because as we found out, it was all about communication.  We were able to experience first-hand how difficult communication can be but we were also able to see how effectively we could communicate in other ways aside from verbally.  Something Jim brought up, that really hit a lot of us, was that oftentimes in the business world we are given tasks to do that we don’t always understand or we are not privy to all of the information involved.  In those cases we just have to do what we are told to do and trust that those instructing us know what they are doing and why.  In our office, especially, Ronald often gives us tasks that don’t always make much sense but in due time they always come full circle and everything is revealed and becomes clear as day.  It is frustrating but at the end of the day, it is better we do not receive all of the information at once.  To be honest, sometimes it isn’t all available from the start.

Jim talked to us some more about our activities and asked many questions to get conversation flowing.  Let me tell you, it was a complete night-and-day difference in our post-activity talks from the first one of the day to the last one.  At first we were all quiet and not really very engaged in the conversation but by the end of the day we couldn’t keep quiet.  We really opened up and learned a lot about each other’s strengths and our group’s strengths as a whole.  I hate to say it, but I think Ronald knew exactly what he was doing when he set us up for this “conference” and come to think of it…today was a perfect example of what we learned in our final activity with the three posts and four rings.  Had Ronald told us up front everything we’d be doing today, I highly doubt we would’ve had the same outcome.

On the ride back to the office we all discussed ways of taking the things we had learned today and putting them into practice at work.  I think it is safe to say we are all pretty pumped up and excited about getting to work tomorrow to implement our new strategies and goals.  It feels as if our entire group has been refreshed and renewed.  I hope we have another one of these “conferences” again!   

 

Stay tuned for…Part 2: Facilitator

 

ls

 

What is a LOW ropes course??

Good afternoon (or morning or evening) to all of you wonderful people! 

I trust up to this point my brief course overviews have made sense and are starting to shape your overall understanding of my realm of fun and occupations.  Today, instead of introducing more types of courses and course specifics, I wanted to dive a little deeper into low ropes courses.  Some of you asked for more explanation about what these kinds of courses entail and more simply what exactly they are.  Your wishes are my commands so here we go into the versatile world of low ropes courses.  As usual, you can rest assured I have included more of my wannabe-prize winning illustrations.

Ok, so the first thing to know about low ropes courses is that they are very diverse and programming for such courses can be quite fluid.  I challenge you to find a company that utilizes the EXACT same program for two different groups.  It won’t happen…or at least it shouldn’t…because low ropes programming is specifically designed and catered to the goals and wishes of the group participating.  Personally, I have facilitated many groups over the years and have never led the same program for more than one group because each group has completely different group dynamics and personalities and well, people.  “Different strokes for different folks,” is a line I like to borrow from a book I read in graduate school because it is so applicable in the team building world.  That is, essentially, the entire purpose of a low ropes course: team building.  Whether this team building takes form in better communication or trust or bonding or goal setting or whatever your group gains from the experience…it is all encapsulated in the term team building and is the ultimate goal of low ropes as I have already mentioned.  Of course, this is getting more into the psychological aspects of ropes programming which will be addressed in a later post.

The second thing to know about low ropes courses is that they don’t necessarily involve ropes.  I facilitated a group of 7^th grade boys once and they were so hung up on the nomenclature that they insisted I rename the course or they would not participate…which I happily obliged, of course.  Have you ever dealt with 15 unhappy 7^th grade boys??  In case you’re wondering the new name: cooperation course.  So, back on topic: low ropes does not mean ropes are involved.  Some elements have ropes, some have cables, some have wooden planks or platforms, some have bungee cords, some have stuffed animals, some have hula hoops, some have whatever random item you can possibly think of.  You see, the point isn’t the physical element or prop used in the element/challenge/game…the point is the intangibles a group takes away post-participation of said element/challenge/game.  This goes back to the psychology which as I mentioned earlier, will be handled in a later post.  I just want you to see how it all ties together into the fluidity of a low ropes experience.

One more thing to know about low ropes before revealing my beautiful artwork is that there are different types of low ropes elements: fixed, portable, and initiatives. 

Fixed elements, like the ones I have depicted below, are physically attached to stable points or built into the ground.  Portable elements are exactly what you think: they are portable and can be torn down and reassembled practically anywhere with ample space.  Many fixed elements can be built as portable elements and vice versa.  I have illustrated the most common low ropes elements and the most common tasks for each element.  This is not at all an exhaustive list as elements are continually being created and older elements are continually being revamped with new tasks or challenges to complete.

Whale Watch: Entire platform teeter-totters on the pivot bar.  To complete task, group must stand on platform and balance it.

Islands: Group begins on one platform and must progress to the third platform without touching the ground.  Group is given two boards to help them complete the task.  The platforms are too distanced to jump and the boards are conveniently not long enough to reach the next platform.

Nitro: Group begins on one side of the pit (part between trees where rope dangles) and must cross to the other boundary line without touching the ground.  There is a rope dangling in the middle, out of arm’s reach of course, that the group may utilize if they can figure out a way to reach the rope.

Wild Woozy: This particular element has multiple ways of operating but the most common is with the two solid cables depicted.  I’ve thrown in the third, dashed cable simply to help illustrate other element options.  Two group members stand on opposing cables and hold hands as they slide down the cable.  The goal is to see how far they can progress across the cable.  As you notice, the cables get further and further apart as they span away from the start point.  If using the third, dashed cable the two participants would continue as usual but have to swap places and work their way back to the start point.

Initiatives are more like games that oftentimes seem completely ridiculous, random, and pointless.  Ice breakers are included in this group as well and are actually the introduction to initiatives.  We have all been in those conferences, classes, or meetings where the leader introduces the material with an ice breaker whether it was having each attendee introduce himself to the room or a huge game of people bingo was initiated.  I was in a meeting once with 200 other staff members and we each had to stand up one at a time with a microphone and either share an embarrassing nickname of ours or share an embarrassing guilty pleasure.  The whole point wasn’t to embarrass people or air dirty laundry, the point was simply to loosen everyone up.  Same goes for ice breakers in the ropes world, as facilitators, we want people to feel comfortable being themselves and do so by creating environments where people can feel open to share their thoughts and feelings.  This all begins with loosening people up so they feel comfortable and safe letting their guards down a little bit.

Initiatives typically build off of ice breakers and are those “silly” games and challenges that will not go over as successfully if you have not loosened up your group and prepared them via ice breaker activities.  Initiatives use any number of props, though they don’t have to use any props at all.  My favorite props for initiatives are tarps, long pieces of rope or webbing, poly dots, and an assortment of completely random throw-ables (balls, rubber chickens, stuffed animals, etc.).  Your favorite props may be completely different than mine and I would love to hear about them and how you use them.

My all-time favorite initiative is the Tarp Turnover.  I simply lay the tarp on the ground and instruct the entire group to step on.  Once on the tarp, no group member may step off of the tarp without the group having to restart the activity.  The group’s goal is to flip the tarp completely over so that the top side becomes the bottom and the bottom side becomes the top side they end up standing on at the end.  To make it interesting if my group completes the task quickly, I fold the tarp in half and have them start again.

I use the initiative activities as a gauge of how my group is progressing in terms of its over-arching goals for the day. Based on how they are handling the challenges I’m giving them in initiatives will determine which low rope elements (fixed or portable) I will choose for them to help them reach their goals.  This is all part of the sequencing of a ropes program.  Think in terms of people, you can’t expect a baby to come out of the womb sprinting.  It has to learn how to crawl, stand, walk, and run before it can sprint.  Same goes for everything in the ropes world, you aren’t expected (or shouldn’t be, at least) to hop in a harness and climb a 60 foot pole immediately upon arriving at an adventure site or group hug a bunch of strangers as a means of balancing on a plank.  As facilitators, we work you up to that point, and even then the choice to climb or hug is completely yours.  So next time you’re in a situation with awkward ice breakers and ridiculous games, you now know that they are not for the sheer enjoyment of your leader…though that is part of the fun.

ls