The Pattern Most Groups Follow
Bruce Tuckman's research on small group development identified four stages: Forming, Storming, Norming, and Performing. Almost every MAG follows this arc whether they know it or not.
Forming: The group comes together around shared goals and shared concern. Everyone is excited and agreeable. Differences don't surface because there haven't been real decisions under real pressure yet.
Storming: As the group makes actual decisions, differences emerge. Who should lead? How should resources be allocated? What's the threshold for action? These disagreements can be productive (clarifying the group's actual values and approach) or destructive (becoming personal and entrenched).
Norming: If the group survives storming, they develop explicit or implicit agreements about how things work. Culture forms. Trust deepens.
Performing: The group functions smoothly. Conflict is handled routinely, not as a crisis.
Most MAGs that dissolve do so in the storming phase. Understanding what triggers storming helps groups navigate it.
Cause 1: Unrealistic Threat Assessment Gaps
The group was built on a shared concern. But as the group's planning develops, it becomes clear that members have very different threat assessments. One member is preparing for a 30-day event. Another is preparing for permanent societal collapse. These different threat assessments produce incompatible decisions about investment, operational posture, and what constitutes "preparedness."
How it shows up: Conflict about how much to spend, how many resources to maintain, how serious to take security, how much time to invest in planning.
Prevention: Surface threat assessments explicitly early. "What scenarios are you actually preparing for?" is a conversation to have before the group's first resource decision, not after.
Cause 2: Fairness Disputes
Perceived unfairness is the most common conflict driver in MAGs. The perception that some members are getting more than they're contributing, or that some members are contributing more than others but not being recognized for it.
How it shows up: Resentment that builds silently until it explodes over an apparently minor issue. "That's the last time I'm covering watch for someone who never contributes." The argument is about the watch, but the resentment accumulated over months.
Prevention: Explicit contribution expectations, regular check-ins about whether the balance feels right, and recognition of exceptional contributions. See fair-contribution-assessment.mdx.
Cause 3: Leadership Disputes
Who decides? In a flat group of peers, decision authority is often unclear. One person steps up and starts making decisions; others eventually resent the unilateral decision-making. Or nobody steps up and decisions are made (and unmade) by whoever is most vocal that day.
How it shows up: "Nobody consulted me about that decision." Or: "Why can't we decide anything? We've been discussing this for three months."
Prevention: Explicit decision-making protocols. Which decisions require consensus? Which are delegated to a specific lead? Which can any member make unilaterally? Write this down.
Cause 4: Values Conflicts Deferred
Members who joined the group around a common threat concern may have very different values about how to respond to that threat. How much violence is justified? Are obligations to group members total (family comes to the group retreat even if the retreat can't support them) or conditional (the retreat has a capacity limit)? What do you do about strangers in need?
These questions seem abstract until a specific scenario forces a decision. The first time an actual stranger shows up at the door or the first time the group must make a security decision, the deferred values conflict becomes an immediate one.
How it shows up: Intense argument about a specific decision that reveals a deeper disagreement about values.
Prevention: Tabletop exercises that force these scenarios before they're real. Explicit discussions about the group's values on hard questions. You won't reach consensus on everything, but you can know where the fault lines are.
Cause 5: Transparency Imbalance
One member knows significantly more about the group's situation than others — whether that's because they hold most of the supplies, because they're doing most of the planning, or because they're the hub of the communication network. Other members feel excluded or condescended to.
How it shows up: "I feel like there are conversations happening that I'm not part of." Or: "[Member] just tells us what to do instead of including us in the decision."
Prevention: Regular full-group information sharing. Intentional inclusion in significant planning decisions. Transparency about what information exists and who holds it.
Cause 6: Personal Relationships Gone Wrong
In small groups built on personal relationships, when a relationship between two members deteriorates, the group is affected. A friendship that cools, a romantic interest that wasn't reciprocated, a business deal gone wrong — interpersonal deterioration that started outside the MAG context becomes a MAG problem.
How it shows up: Two members stop communicating directly. Group meetings become uncomfortable. Other members feel pressured to choose sides.
Prevention: This one is harder to prevent because it comes from outside group dynamics. The mitigation is having a culture where interpersonal issues are surfaced and addressed rather than allowed to fester, and having mediation resources available.
Cause 7: The Dependent Member Problem
A member who was selected partly for their resources or skills falls on hard times and becomes increasingly dependent on the group rather than contributing to it. The group has competing pulls: loyalty to a member in trouble, and the functional group need for equitable contribution.
How it shows up: A member who used to contribute regularly now misses meetings, doesn't maintain their equipment, and increasingly asks for rather than offers resources. Other members start resenting covering their gaps.
Prevention: Clear, compassionate process for accommodating temporary hardship while maintaining the expectation of eventual return to full contribution. See fair-contribution-assessment.mdx.
Cause 8: The Dominant Personality
One member is more forceful, more opinionated, and more persistent than others. Over time, the group makes decisions that reflect this one person's preferences rather than genuine consensus. Other members disengage or quietly comply while privately resenting it.
How it shows up: Decisions are effectively made before the meeting. Quieter members stop contributing ideas because they don't expect them to be considered. The group starts to look like one person's MAG rather than a collective.
Prevention: Facilitated group meetings where the facilitator actively draws out quieter members. Explicit decision-making norms that require more than the dominant voice. A culture where "I disagree, here's why" is explicitly valued.
Cause 9: Scenario Arrival
Ironically, actual emergencies can destroy groups that weren't prepared for them. When a real emergency arrives, the group must make real decisions under real stress. Members who performed well in planning conversations may perform poorly under actual pressure. Disagreements that were managed in abstract planning explode when the stakes are real.
How it shows up: The group splinters when a real decision must be made — some members act unilaterally, others freeze, the coordination that was supposed to exist doesn't function.
Prevention: Realistic exercises, tabletop drills that force actual decisions, and frank conversations about what the group will do in specific scenarios. The drill is practice for the scenario.
Early Warning Indicators
Watch for these signals that conflict is building before it surfaces:
- Members stopping attendance at meetings without explanation
- Side conversations and sub-groups forming outside the main group context
- Unusual sensitivity or defensiveness about specific topics
- Passive-aggressive behavior (agreeing in the group, undermining outside it)
- Reduced contribution without stated reason
- A member seeking outside validation for grievances rather than raising them within the group
Any of these warrants a direct conversation before the situation escalates.
Sources
Frequently Asked Questions
Are conflicts in MAGs inevitable?
Yes. Any group of people, over time, will have disagreements. The relevant question is not whether conflicts will occur but whether the group has the culture and process to work through them productively. Groups that can handle conflict well become stronger through it. Groups without conflict management skills and processes disintegrate at the first serious disagreement.
What is the most common reason MAGs dissolve?
Based on accounts in prepper communities, interpersonal conflict over perceived fairness — who's contributing what, who's making decisions, who's getting the benefit of the group — is the most common driver of dissolution. This is followed by values/approach disagreements that were present from the beginning but not surfaced until a specific decision forced the conflict.
Can a group survive the departure of a founding member?
Yes, if the group was built around relationships and shared purpose rather than around a single strong personality. Groups built around one dominant member who makes most decisions tend to not survive their departure. Groups with distributed leadership and explicit culture survive and grow through member changes.