Lost at Sea

Lost at Sea is a classic consensus decision-making exercise designed by Paul M. Nemiroff and William A. Pasmore. Participants imagine themselves in a lifeboat after their boat catches fire, drifting far from land, with 15 salvaged items to prioritise. The game involves an individual decision followed by a collective one, without voting or averaging, before comparing with a ranking from US Coast Guard experts. It serves to observe the mechanisms of consensus, influence, listening, and team synergy.

Walkthrough

1. 1

   Set the framework and scenario

   5 min

   The facilitator presents the objective: to experience collective decision-making, then compare individual and team results. They read the scenario: "Your boat has caught fire. You are drifting in a lifeboat in the middle of the ocean, far from any land. You have salvaged 15 items: your survival depends on their order of priority." Participants listen without debating. Clarify that the issue is not maritime, but the quality of the decision-making process.

   Tip — Emphasise the word "process" from the start: this prevents participants from viewing the exercise as a simple survival quiz.

2. 2

   Individual ranking of the 15 items

   10 min

   Distribute to each participant the list of 15 items and an individual ranking grid. Give the instruction: "Rank the 15 items from 1 to 15, with 1 being the most important for survival and 15 the least important. Do not discuss, do not search online, note your reasoning." Everyone works in silence. The goal is to obtain a clear personal decision, which will then serve as a point of comparison with the collective decision.

   Tip — Strictly time the exercise: if you allow too much time, participants will look for the 'right answer' instead of revealing their intuitions and criteria.

3. 3

   Form teams and establish consensus rules

   5 min

   Form teams suitable for your group size, keeping groups small enough to allow everyone to speak. Explain the central rule: "Your team must produce a single common ranking of the 15 items. You cannot use voting, arithmetic averaging, or automatic compromise. The ranking must be obtained by consensus: everyone must be able to live with the final decision." Participants can defend, question, and modify their positions.

   Tip — Write "no voting, no averaging" visibly: this constraint triggers real learning about consensus.

4. 4

   Build the collective ranking

   20 à 25 min

   Teams debate and fill in their common grid, with a rank from 1 to 15 for each item. The facilitator circulates and observes behaviours: who speaks, who decides, who reformulates, which arguments are retained or ignored. If a team gets stuck, remind them: "Look for a decision that everyone can accept, not an individual victory." The goal is to produce a shared ranking while making visible the dynamics of influence and listening.

   Tip — Never help with maritime content; intervene only on the method, for example by asking: "Who has not yet expressed their reasoning?"

5. 5

   Reveal the expert reference and calculate scores

   10 min

   Distribute or display the reference grid from the US Coast Guard, without detailing its content here: use a reliable source or the official material for the exercise. Each participant calculates their individual score by adding, for the 15 items, the absolute difference between their rank and the expert rank. Teams calculate their collective score in the same way. The lower the total, the closer the ranking is to the expert reference.

   Tip — Have participants first calculate in pairs for verification: rank difference errors are common and can muddle the debrief.

6. 6

   Compare results and highlight synergy

   5 à 10 min

   Ask each participant to note their individual score, then calculate the average of individual scores for each team and compare it to the collective score. Explain: "In this exercise, the group score is generally better than the average of individual scores: this is the synergy effect." Also highlight the key lesson: the reference prioritises signalling and immediate survival items, such as the mirror, the oil-gas mixture, water, and rations, rather than navigation.

   Tip — Do not only celebrate the best score: also value the team that improved its individual average the most, as this is the true indicator of cooperation.

7. 7

   Debrief the decision-making process

   10 à 15 min

   Facilitate the debrief starting from the observed facts: speaking time, arguments, concessions, blockages, and decision shifts. Invite participants to distinguish between performance of the result and quality of the process: "What helped you to decide better together? What held you back?" Connect the experience to their real situations: meetings, arbitration, decisions under uncertainty. Conclude by having them formulate a concrete transferable commitment.

   Tip — Refer back to specific moments in the game: "At what point did you change your mind?" produces more useful learning than general opinions.

Variants

• Short variant: limit the collective debate to 12 minutes to increase time pressure. The debrief will then focus more on decision shortcuts, trade-offs, and the minimum quality of consensus.
• Observation variant: designate an observer per team, who does not participate in the ranking and notes decision behaviours. They then report concrete facts: interruptions, reformulations, criteria used, moments of shift.
• Distance variant: use a shared document with a hidden or separate individual column, then a column for collective ranking. Discussions take place via videoconference, with explicit prohibition of voting by poll or automatic averaging.
• Management variant: after the score, ask teams to formalise a decision charter in 5 principles. Each principle must be linked to a moment experienced during the exercise.