Case #$3$

When $10$ British Army soldiers on a $10-$day training exercise descended into Low's Gully, a narrow chasm that cuts through Mt$.$ Kinabalu in Borneo, each knew "the golden rule for such expeditions$-$never split up$."$ Yet the fittest three struggled out of the jungle with a concussion, malaria, and infected wounds $19$ days later; two more terribly ill soldiers found a village the next day; and the remaining five emaciated and injured men were rescued from a cave by a helicopter on day $33.$ What happened?

On a surface level, the near$-$tragic fracturing of the group began with a logical division of labour, according to the training's initiators, Lieutenant Colonel Neill and Major Foster:

Because the group would be one of mixed abilities, and the young British and NCOs $[$non$-$ commissioned officers$]$ were likely to be fitter and more experienced than the Hong Kong soldiers, the team would work in two halves on the harder phases of the descent. The British, taking advantage of Mayfield's expertise $($in rock climbing$),$ would set up ropes on the difficult sections, while he $[$Neill$]$ and Foster would concentrate on bringing the Hong Kong soldiers down. Every now and then the recce $($reconnaissance$)$ party would report back, and the expedition would go on down in one unit until another reconnaissance party became necessary.

$7$

The men reported that from then on$,$ perilous climbing conditions, debilitating sickness, and monsoon rains permanently divided the group. A review board found differently, blaming Neill's and Foster's leadership and their decision to take some less$-$experienced soldiers on the exercise.

No rulings were made about the near$-$catastrophic decision to divide the group, but closer inquiries show that this temporary work group of diverse members who were not previously acquainted started out with a high level of intragroup trust that dissolved over time. The resulting fault lines. based on members' similarities and differences and the establishment of ad hoc leaders, may have been inevitable.

Initially, all group members shared the common ground of soldier training, clear roles, and voluntary commitment to the mission. When the leaders ignored the soldiers' concerns about the severity of conditions, lack of preparation, and low level of communication, however, trust issues divided the group into subgroups. The initial reconnaissance party established common ground and trust that allowed them to complete the mission and reach safety, even though they divided yet again. Meanwhile, the main group that stayed with the leaders in the cave under conditions of active distrust fractured further.

We will never know whether it would have been better to keep the group together. However, we

do know that this small group of soldiers trained to stay together for survival fractured into at least

four subgroups because they did not trust their leaders or their group, endangering all their lives.

Discussion Questions

$1.$ How was the common ground established by the reconnaissance subgroups different from

the common ground established by the cave subgroups? See the leaders' description.

$2.$ Do you think the group should have fractured as it did? Why or why not?

$3.$ When the exercise was designed, Neill created a buddy system based on similarity of

soldiers' backgrounds $($rank$,$ unit, age, fitness, skill level$).$ The first group out of the jungle

were assigned buddies and one other: two lance corporals and one corporal from the same

unit $($regular army$)$: ages $24-26$ with good fitness levels; all top roping and abseiling

$($TR&A$)$ instructors. The second group out were assigned buddies: a sergeant and a lance

corporal from the same unit $($elite regular army$)$; ages $25$ and $37$; good fitness levels; both

with Commando Brigade skills. The group left in the cave split into a lieutenant colonel

and a major $($buddies$)$; one from the regular army and one from the part$-$time territorial

army; ages $46$ and $54$; fair fitness level; one TR&A and one ski instructor. The second

faction was the three from the Hong Kong unit a lance corporal and two privates, all from

the Hong Kong unit; ages $24-32$; fair to good fitness levels; one with jungle training and

two novices. Would you have set up the buddy system as Neill did? Why or why not? If

not, what would you have changed?