Performance is fragile: What is outdoor guide education for uncertainty?

Authors: Tommi Haapakangas, MSc (Sport), senior lecturer, Responsible services expertise group, Lapland University of Applied Sciences & Frédéric Minier, professor of sports, Creps Rhonealpes sports.

Picture 1. In cold conditions certainty becomes a risk.

Introduction

This article explores a fundamental shift in how we understand training and performance in complex, high-risk environments. Traditional models emphasize efficiency, control, and individual excellence, aiming to eliminate error and variability. However, in unpredictable conditions, such optimization often creates fragility. What appears as “high performance” in stable settings can fail when reality becomes uncertain.

We argue for a transition toward a robustness and adaptability paradigm. Robustness is not about resisting change, but about maintaining function under it—absorbing fluctuations, adjusting in real time, and continuing to operate despite uncertainty. In this view, performance is no longer defined by precision alone, but by the ability to adapt, cooperate, and make sense of evolving situations. (Hamant, 2023)

Using wilderness guide education as a lens, the article shows how this shift requires rethinking pedagogy, decision-making, and team dynamics. Training moves from individual competition to collective learning, from optimal efficiency to maintaining margins for maneuver, and from avoiding failure to using it as a source of insight.

Ultimately, the article demonstrates that high-performing teams are not those that avoid uncertainty, but those that engage with it effectively. By embedding robustness into training—across mental, physical, and social dimensions—resilience becomes an emergent property of the system, enabling teams to remain capable, coordinated, and adaptive when it matters most. 

The Exercise That Failed to Fail

In the aftermath of the Lapland UAS Winter Expedition course at Green Exercise Studies, a simulated high-pressure climbing accident exercise was organized for Swedish mountain leader students from a partner institution. The group arrived at an accident scene where a climber had fallen and was semi-conscious, suffering from severe bleeding due to an open leg fracture, while the belayer was in shock.

The group had thirty minutes to act. The stakes were life or death. Various stressors—including time pressure, conflicting and unreliable information, lack of communication networks, and actors simulating roles—were deliberately introduced to create complexity and uncertainty, consistent with the dynamics described in the Cynefin framework (Kurtz & Snowden, 2003).

Cameras and observers recorded the group’s actions throughout. Interestingly, the exercise “failed” in that the group never descended into confusion. Instead, decisions were made efficiently based on available information, and the group coordinated action effectively. The team demonstrated high performance characterized by strong psychological safety.

What made the exercise successful was that it reinforced an understanding of how psychological safety enables learning and adaptability under pressure (Edmondson, 1999).

Beyond Avoiding Failure

A wilderness guide’s mind is their most vital piece of equipment. As the capacity to navigate a crisis is fundamentally tethered to the ability to accurately perceive and make sense of an environment. Yet in high-risk industries,  especially in formal course-based education, we continue to treat well-being through a  medicalized lens, framing stress, fear, and uncertainty as deficits to be corrected rather than  signals to be interpreted.  We even create educational systems to avoid causing any harm to students.This framing creates a dangerous illusion that high performance is the absence of error,  variability, or discomfort. The most capable professionals and teams are not those who avoid  failure, but those who surface it, engage with it, and learn from it in real time.  (Kurtz, C. F., & Snowden, D. J. 2003).

What if we shifted the paradigm? If guide training were built on the interconnected pillars of  mental, physical, and social well-being, robustness would no longer be something we try to fix  after breakdowns. It would become an emergent property of the system itself, a natural  outcome of how we train, interact, and make meaning under pressure. (Singer, S. J., & Edmondson, A. C. 2006).

Robustness vs. Resilience

Although often used interchangeably, resilience and robustness describe different responses to uncertainty. Resilience typically focuses on recovery—the ability to “bounce back” after disruption. In modern contexts, it is often tied to maintaining performance despite stress.

Robustness, by contrast, focuses on prevention. It is the capacity to remain stable and viable without collapsing in the first place. Instead of optimizing efficiency, robustness values redundancy, flexibility, and “room for maneuver.”

In short, resilience reacts after failure, while robustness reduces the risk of failure. In complex environments, robustness offers a more practical approach by prioritizing stability and adaptability over constant high performance. (Hamant, 2023)

The Mental Pillar: From Fear to Regulation

The medicalization of well-being often casts fear and confusion as pathologies. In high-risk  environments, however, they are inevitable and informative.

The neurobiology of threat shows that while the amygdala initiates alarm responses, the  medial prefrontal cortex functions as a regulatory system. Under acute stress, this balance is  disrupted, leading to cognitive rigidity, reduced working memory, and a tendency to default to  familiar but often inappropriate solutions. (Adolphs, 2013; Gold et al., 2014).

This is the paradox. In complex or chaotic situations, leaders are biologically predisposed to  apply rigid best practices precisely when adaptation is required.  (Emmerling, T., & Rooders, D. 2021).

Robustness training must therefore move beyond suppression of stress and toward regulation  within it. Techniques such as diaphragmatic breathing or box breathing help stabilize the  autonomic nervous system, but equally important is cognitive training. (Niskanen, J.,2026)

Here, the concept of the Aporetic Turn becomes critical. Rather than treating confusion as  failure, guides are trained to recognize and name uncertainty, transforming it from a subjective state into an object of analysis. This subject–object shift enables strategic thinking even under  pressure.  (Emmerling, T., & Rooders, D. 2021).

Resilience emerges not from calm conditions, but from the ability to think clearly in their  absence.  (Emmerling, T., & Rooders, D. 2021).

Picture 2. Climbing guides are facing many forms of challenges from weather to fear.

The Physical Pillar: Confidence Through Gradual Exposure

Traditional training models in high-risk domains often rely on high-stakes testing, “sink or  swim” scenarios intended to simulate reality. While well-intentioned, these approaches can  create performance blocks, reinforce fear responses, and discourage experimentation. A more  effective model is built on gradual and repeated exposure in controlled environments.  (Emmerling, T., & Rooders, D. 2021).

This approach aligns with a deeper principle. Learning is not linear, and performance often  declines before it improves. Schmidt, R. A., & Lee, T. D. (2011).   When guides are introduced to new skills or environments,  temporary inefficiency is not a failure. It is a prerequisite for mastery. Training systems that  prioritize short-term performance over long-term learning create efficiency traps, where  individuals avoid experimentation to maintain competence.

By contrast, framing training as a series of safe-to-fail experiments encourages exploration.  (Emmerling, T., & Rooders, D. 2021).  Guides learn to probe their environment by testing, sensing, and adapting rather than rigidly executing predefined plans.

Over time, this builds a form of embodied intelligence. Guides develop pattern recognition in  changing weather systems, sensitivity to group dynamics, and intuitive risk assessment. Resilience here is physical, but also perceptual, a cultivated ability to detect and respond to emerging patterns.

The Social Pillar: Safety as Missing Oxygen

Perhaps the most overlooked aspect of resilience in high-risk environments is that it is not an  individual trait. It is a property of the group. (Psychology Town. https://psychology.town/social/group-dynamics-impact-individual-behavior)

Medicalized models tend to isolate stress and performance within the individual. Yet research  consistently shows that psychological safety is the defining factor in team effectiveness. In  high-risk settings, it functions as missing oxygen, invisible when present and critical when  absent. The implications are profound.

In psychologically safe teams, errors are reported more frequently, not because more occur,  but because they are visible. Weak signals are voiced early, before escalation, and junior  members contribute critical, non-obvious information. In unsafe environments, errors are  hidden, dissent is suppressed, and decision-making becomes increasingly fragile. This leads to a well-documented paradox. The weakest teams appear efficient because they  report fewer problems, while the strongest teams appear flawed because they surface them. (Singer, S. J., & Edmondson, A. C. 2006).

To build social resilience, training must shift from organizing to execution toward organizing to  learn (Singer, S. J., & Edmondson, A. C. 2006.). This includes structured debriefs where errors are treated as data, the use of silent  starts to surface independent judgment before group discussion, and deliberate inclusion of  dissenting roles to counter confirmation bias. (The Decision Lab.)

In small, well-structured teams, often three to five members, these practices create a  microclimate of critical thinking (Singer, S. J., & Edmondson, A. C. 2006.). In larger groups, multiple independent challengers are  required to prevent the isolation of dissent. (Emmerling, T., & Rooders, D. 2021).

Resilience emerges when information flows freely, especially the information that is hardest to  hear. Devil’s advocate is a precious tool to keep alive in a group. He is a “critical friend” who  prevents group thinking taking over. Group thinking leads into bad decisions and in outdoor  scenarios those can lead into a disaster.

In an outdoors settings guides have practical tools for safety. The LOSRER (Table1.) briefing is a practical tool that transforms the theory of psychological safety into action, ensuring a group can detect “weak signals” of danger in time. The framework’s stages—particularly Links, which builds social connection, and Rules, which establishes shared norms—lower the threshold for speaking up and create a “social contract” where every member is empowered to act as a critical observer. By building a shared mental model of objectives, risks, and equipment, LOSRER transforms a collection of individuals into a resilient team where the free flow of information acts as vital “oxygen,” preventing groupthink from leading to disastrous decisions. These tools have been developed by the French national school of mountaineering for mountainguide and -leader training.

Table 1. LOSRER (Briefing protocol by Ecole Nationale des Sports de Montagne).

Step	Focus	Key question to ask the group
L	Links	“How are we feeling today, what is your mental and physical stage?”
O	Objective	“Does everyone understand our destination today?”
S	Sequences	“ Are there any questions about the timing of the route / action?”
R	Risks	“What are the risks for today?”
E	Equipment	“What are the needs for our equipment today?”
R	Rules	“What are the rules for the day?”

The TECAP-decision-making protocol (Table2) is a continuous process that complements the LOSRER briefing in the field. It ensures that decisions are not made based on environmental conditions alone, but also account for the schedule (Timing), the physical and mental state of both the group and the guide (Status/État), alternative options (Adaptations), and the overall quality of the experience (Pleasure).

TECAP prevents dangerous “tunnel vision” and commitment bias by forcing the guide to regularly assess whether continuing is still safe and aligned with the original goals. It serves as the group’s navigation system, keeping communication transparent and ensuring that an exit strategy or backup plan is always available before reaching critical decision points.

Table 2: TECAP (Risk evaluation tool by Ecole Nationale des Sports de Montagne.)

Step	Focus	Key question
T	Timing	“Are we on time?”  Being “behind schedule” is often the first domino to fall in an accident chain
E	etat, (status)	“What is your mental and physical status?” Green, yellow, red? By checking the physical and mental state of both guests and the guide, TECAP ensures that the group’s capacity hasn’t been eroded by fatigue or stress.
C	Conditions	“ What are the actual conditions now, in 30 min, in 3 hours?” does the reality on the ground match the forecast?
A	Adaptation	Do I still have a choice, or am I about to lose my options?” ” This is the critical “Plan B” check. It prevents commitment bias—the dangerous tendency to keep going simply because you’ve already started. It asks: “
P	Pleasure	“What is a level of pleasure? ”Often dismissed in high-stakes environments, pleasure is actually a key indicator of safety. When a group stops having fun, stress levels rise, communication breaks down, and the “oxygen” of psychological safety begins to thin.

Integrating the Pillars: From Performance to Resilience

Across all three pillars runs a unifying principle. High performance is not the elimination of  variability, but intelligent engagement with it.When training is built on mental regulation, physical exposure, and social safety, a new  capability emerges. Guides tolerate uncertainty without paralysis. Teams surface problems  before escalation. Decision-making adapts to context rather than clinging to protocol. This is  particularly critical in complex environments, where cause and effect can only be understood  in retrospect. In such domains, rigid adherence to best practices is not just ineffective, it can  be dangerous.  

Conclusion  

The theoretical shift from a medicalized model to a robust-based approach (Table3) is not merely  conceptual. It demands a deliberate redesign of how guides are trained, practiced, and  assessed. If resilience is understood as an emergent property of interacting mental, physical,  and social systems, then the curriculum itself must be structured to continuously integrate  these dimensions rather than treating them as separate competencies. 

Table 3. Medicalized Model Robust- Based Model

Medicalized Model	Robust-Based Model
Error as failure	Error as information
Stress as dysfunction	Stress as signal
Focus on individual correction	Focus on system adaptation
Performance as consistency	Performance as adaptability
Control as safety	Learning as safety

A practical way forward is to organize the curriculum around cross-cutting themes that are  revisited, deepened, and contextualized across all training phases. 

First, establish regulation before optimization. Early training should focus on helping learners  recognize and regulate their internal states under mild to moderate stress. This includes  physiological techniques such as breathing, but also cognitive practices like naming uncertainty and identifying attention biases. The goal is not performance, but awareness and  stability. 

Second, normalize failure as structured input. As training progresses, scenarios should  intentionally introduce variability and controlled failure. These experiences are not framed as  tests, but as data-generating events. Reflection becomes a core learning mechanism, where  learners systematically translate errors into shared understanding. In this phase, the “first  worse, then better” principle is made explicit. 

Third, cultivate adaptive exposure. Physical and technical training should follow a principle of  progressive complexity. Learners encounter increasingly ambiguous and dynamic  environments where no single correct solution exists. Here, they practice probing, sensing,  and responding rather than executing predefined procedures. This phase links embodied  experience with situational awareness. 

Fourth, embed collective sense-making. Social learning structures become central. Training  incorporates silent starts, independent risk assessments, and facilitated disagreement.  Participants learn how to surface weak signals, challenge assumptions, and distribute  cognition across the group. Psychological safety is not taught as a concept, but practiced as  a condition for effective action. 

Fifth, integrate decision-making under pressure. In advanced stages, all three pillars converge  in high-fidelity scenarios. Learners must regulate themselves, interpret complex environments,  and act within a team simultaneously. The emphasis shifts from correctness to adaptability  and timing. Debriefing focuses on how decisions were made, not just on outcomes. 

Finally, institutionalize reflective practice. The curriculum must extend beyond isolated training  events into ongoing professional development. Regular debriefs, peer feedback, and system level learning processes ensure that experience continues to translate into capability. In this  way, resilience is continuously reinforced rather than episodically trained. 

Through this progression, the curriculum mirrors the theory. It moves from control toward  sense-making, from individual correction toward system awareness, and from performance as  an endpoint toward learning as a continuous condition. 

The result is not a guide who avoids uncertainty, but one who can engage with it skillfully,  together with others, in environments where certainty is never guaranteed. That we saw also  in a simulated scenario. The fact that those mountain leaders are living together, training  together, dealing with everyday life together for 2 years, will force them to work as a highly robust team. 

Picture 3. In the wilderness you can only survive.

References

Adolphs, R. (2013). The biology of fear. Current Biology, 23(2), R79–R93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2012.11.055

Cole, R., Pearce, E., Kenny, S., & Hildreth, A. F. (2025). Strategies for teaching uncertainty tolerance in medical education: A qualitative study. JACEP Open, 7(1), Article 100298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acepjo.2025.100298

Corrigan, C. (2025, March 7). Escaping confusion. https://www.chriscorrigan.com/parkinglot/escaping-confusion/

Edmondson, A. C. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999

The Decision Lab. (n.d.). Guiding effective group decision-making strategies. https://thedecisionlab.com/big-problems/guiding-effective-group-decision-making-strategies

Hamant, O. (2023). An antidote to the cult of performance: The resilience of life (Antidote au culte de la performance: La robustesse du vivant) (Tracts No. 50). Éditions Gallimard.

Kurtz, C. F., & Snowden, D. J. (2003). The new dynamics of strategy: Sense-making in a complex and complicated world. IBM Systems Journal, 42(3), 462–483. https://doi.org/10.1109/EMR.2003.24944

Niskanen, J. (2026). Työkaluja pelon hallintaan taidon oppimisessa [Tools for fear management in skill learning] (Bachelor’s thesis). Lapland University of Applied Sciences.

Schmidt, R. A., & Lee, T. D. (2011). Motor control and learning: A behavioral emphasis (5th ed.). Human Kinetics.

Singer, S. J., & Edmondson, A. C. (2006). When learning and performance are at odds: Confronting the tension. Harvard Business School Working Paper.

Starr, L. M. (2023). Emergency and disaster management requires complex systems thinking and practices. Thomas Jefferson University. https://jdc.jefferson.edu/sbfp/1