28 PATHWAYS Harnessing thePowerof Adventure addressed: were questions research following The expedition?” field a in partaking while group large a of dynamic the affecting in play leader a can roles “What was identified question main The expedition. group large a in best works style leadership what determine to and styles, leadership different of influence the under changes dynamic group’s a how examine to was study this of intent The research. The high enrollment of students students of enrollment high The research. conduct to expedition this chose researchers that number high this of because was It trip. this on enrolled students of number high a result, a As take. to free was that course only the was trip canoe voyageur The tourism. and parks leadership, outdoor to relate that topics applied and theoretical teach to help courses These trip. canoe voyageur a or dogsledding, (hiking), continents the of crown trips: field different three from choose to option the had class 2007 the of Students University. Lakehead at students Recreation Outdoor to credit mandatory a as offered is that course third-year a is I Explorations Field Context Research The expeditions. outdoor during groups large of dynamics group the on affects their and styles leadership between connection a draw to collected was Data 5. 4. 3. 2. 1. By CarlinVal andJessKemp Leadership Styles

each leadership style? style? leadership each for pathways and barriers the are What field? the in situations various for best works style leadership Which dynamic? group positive a within interconnect making decision- and leadership does How dynamics? group affect leadership does How experience? outdoor an facilitating while dynamic group positive a create leader a can How decisions were okay. were decisions their that ensure to instructors hired three the from feedback inquiring own, their on decisions the make also would leaders these expedition, the within barriers or conflicts any across came group day. the that If for go should they far how exactly and depart, and up wake would they when group the for decide would that leaders the were these research, the recording While 2004). Starke, & (Dessler time that at benefit to members group the of majority the for important most or needed is feel they what and observations using group the for decisions make and issue an solve generally would leader autocratic The own. their on group entire the for solution a with up come would who one is leader autocratic an decision, a provide to need the with faced When leadership (authoritarian) Autocratic data. simplified more into observations the organize to helped which leadership, of styles main three into styles leadership categorized study this of Researchers 1997). (Graham, there been not had leader a if met be not would that goal common a towards group a move to ability the is Leadership Styles Leadership 4. 3. 2. 1. themes: following the contained course explorations field canoe voyageur The dynamic. group to styles leadership comparing when data in diversity highest the researchers offered

communities while on the canoe trip. canoe the on while communities surrounding the in children teaching Interpretation: TeachingHeritage route. trip’s the of history the about learning Interpretation: Heritage Land voyageurs. the of lifestyles day-to-day the about learning Interpretation: VoyageurHeritage day. each leadership of kinds different experiencing day: the of Leader information to answer the main research research main the answer to information necessary the of all gather to order in approach qualitative a took research The Methodology and Design Research press). in Breunig, Wagstaff, & Cashel, (Martin, leader autocratic completely or democratic completely a have to improbable highly is it world real the in that note to important is It consideration. of lot a without made were decisions and it,” do let’s “sure, simple a with respond just would leader the and approach certain a take to leader the to made be would suggestions when seen was approach This 2004). Starke, & (Dessler word final the for leader the on depend to participants allowing without thinking, critical and problem-solving group encourage to order in leading to approach “hands-off” extremely an take would leader abdicratic The own. their on decisions with up come to members group allow would and expedition the on issues group with dealing when guidance little very provide would leaders of kinds These guidance. extra much too without expedition an through way their make and out problems work to able be should participants the that idea the is leadership to approach laissez-fair The leadership (abdicratic) Laissez-faire do. would group the what to as decision a to come and themselves amongst talk then would leaders These issue. an or problem a solve to trying when consensus group a to come to group the of members other from suggestions obtaining by leadership of kind this displayed participants the of many setting, expedition the Within 2004). Starke, & (Dessler taken is approach particular what in say final the retains leader the but suggestions, their consider and issue an approaching when group the consult would not, than often more leaders, Participative group. the leading to approach in-control yet relaxed very a took who those were leaders democratic The leadership (participative) Democratic theories resulted. resulted. theories as well as themes common answers, those from and developed were questions main the to Answers trip. the of end the at held group finally,focus a and researchers the by notes field daily styles, leadership own individuals’ of self-diagnosis a methods: different three in gathered was research The expedition. the of field the in participating while gathered was research the of Most 1967). Strauss, & (Glaser restricting nor static neither were but research, the guide to helped that questions generative at look a with began research The 1967). Strauss, & (Glaser assessment and collection data continuous through exposed is concept a Theory,which in Grounded the was research this to taken approach The questions.

• • • • collection: data alter to ability the had that conflicts actual be to following the found researchers the expedition, voyageur the After conflicts Actual • • • • • • conflicts: possible of list a is following The conflicts Assumed collection. data in skews foresee to method a as expedition voyageur the to prior considered were Conflicts arise. would that conflicts possible of list a created had researchers place, took expedition voyageur the Before Conflicts

period in close living space. living close in period time extended over conflicts Personality up made be to had that Distances Weather Myers-Briggs of Credibility conflicts Personality covered Distance comfort of level Students’ malfunction Equipment Portages cold) rain, days, Weather(wind Harnessing thePowerof Adventure 29 PATHWAYS 30 Harnessing thePowerof Adventure PATHWAYS demonstrate a democratic leadership style style leadership democratic a demonstrate to tried day the of leader the paddle, night a doing on decision a make to forced When energy. positive had and high was dynamic group the leadership dynamic the of result a as and so, do to safe was it case this In waves. choppy through sailing about anything state not does it however waves; choppy in paddle to safe not is it say guidelines The guidelines. liability the in recommended not was it though even proceed to call the made they when style leadership dynamic a demonstrated (leaders) instructors The group. the of spirits the lifted result a as and wind) to (due day rest unscheduled an up make to group the allowed winds strong The proceed. to decided leaders) (actual instructors the built, had students the that sail the to Due on. paddle not would students normally that conditions wind were there trip canoe voyageur the on morning One be. could they as comfortable as dry, and warm everyone kept that way a in bags sleeping sharing in students fellow organize to able was leader emergent The leader. no than better is leader emergent an leader, the declared is person no emergency, if an of case the in that suggest here Findings needed. was leader emergent an therefore and leaderless, were students the morning), following the until leading begin to not were day next the for leaders the and bedtime, at obligations their completed had leaders (previous day that for leader set a not was there and shelter separate a in sleeping were instructors all Since wet. got individuals certain and failed tarps the slept, students the while day. night day, each One the for of leaders student two and instructors three were there trip canoe voyageur the On dynamic. group the on effect clear a had leadership where trip the on occurrences three were There Observations administered. being was style leadership what matter not would it result a As result. direct a as change could dynamic group the conflict, specific a on Depending given to them, demonstrating the ability to to ability the demonstrating them, to given group the to mould to able be should leader Astyle. leadership dynamic a be would dynamic group positive a upholding in best work would that style leadership The wants. and needs those satisfy to harder even and classify to hard is It unique. and diverse incredibly are size any of Groups expedition. group large a in best work would that style leadership exact the determine to impossible to close is it that conclude Findings groupings. distinct more have should tool identification leadership personality/ the Perhaps test. identification self- personality the in inconsistencies many too were there that indicate Findings 1993). (Pittenger, setting applied an in unwarranted is test the that found have researchers some settings, of variety a in used been has and types personality testing of method popular a is Type Indicator Myers-Briggs the study. Though this of participants the in traits personality/leadership determining when use to tool appropriate most the not was test personality Myers-Brigs the that suggest Findings Conclusion dynamic. group positive a uphold to needed was style) leadership democratic (completely decision group complete a situation this in that evident is It consensus. a find to able was group the and attitude stubborn the lost student the apology this After process. making decision group the in involved not was she that recognizing not for apologized instinctively then he student, argumentative conflicting this saw day the of leader the When argument. conflicting a demonstrate to was time that at so do to way only The heard. opinion their make to had they like felt student this result, a As process. decision-making group the in involved not were they like felt and down boats the holding been h-d student argumentative the was happened What argument. verbal one 17-on- a into turned then discussion group The paddle. night a complete to want not did they that said and out spoke student one when consensus perceived a reached had group The discussion. group a facilitated and Glaser, B. & Strauss, A. L. (1967). (1967). L. A. Strauss, & B. Glaser, (1997). J. Graham, F. (2004). Starke, A. & G. Dessler, References group. the to appropriately it applying then and styles leadership of number a from choose Aldine. Aldine. research. qualitative for Strategies theory: grounded of discovery Mountaineers. confidence. self and sense Technique,common Inc. Canada Education Pearson Toronto,Ontario: leaders tomorrow’s for practices and Principles Management: Outdoor leadership: leadership: Outdoor Seattle, WA: The Seattle, (2nd ed.). ed.). (2nd Chicago: Chicago: The The

planning her next big adventure. big next her planning board, drawing the at back now is and way the along research conducting while Canada across biked recently has She heart. at adventurer true a and graduate University Queen’s a is Kemp Jess students. his to presents and creates he lessons the through shown is outdoors the for passion His Ontario. Wiarton, in Studies Environmental and Education Outdoor for Institute the at working currently is and University Lakehead of graduate Vala is Carlin Myers the of utility The (1993). D. Pittenger, Breunig, Wagstaff, M., C., Cashel, B., Martin, Education Research, Education indicator. type Briggs Kinetics. Human IL: recreation. and education (2006). M. Harnessing thePowerof Adventure Leadership in outdoor outdoor in Leadership

4 (63), 476–488. (63), Review of of Review Champaign, Champaign, 31 PATHWAYS