Research Proposal Progress report: The data are partly collected. Introduction, Theory, and Method parts of the paper are written. Expected completion: 2008

Evaluation of Effects of Adventure-Based Team Development Programs Executive Summary During the last twenty years, Adventure-Based Team Development (ABTD) programs have been a very popular topic in I-O psychology and management literature. Various forms of ABTD programs have been described and discussed. Unfortunately, only a few attempts to evaluate effectiveness of ABTD have been undertaken and the quality of the analysis was very questionable. This paper provides an evaluation of effects of an ABTD programs on attitudes of employees and team performance. Attitudinal variables include team cohesion, organizational commitment, trust, and work satisfaction. Team performance is represented by percent of goal attainment, the number of conflicts experienced by the team per month, and team supervisor’s evaluation.

Introduction Fifteen years ago, ABTD programs were gaining popularity and it was expected that outdoor training programs would be a major human resource development trend in the 1990s (Wagner, Baldwin, & Roland, 1991). This was true for some time. In 1991, corporate America spent almost $230 million on outdoor-based training programs (Laabs, 1991). However, by the late nineties, more and more corporations became skeptical about the effectiveness of such programs. The diminishing interest in the outdoor corporate training was reflected by a large number of failures among providers of this service. From the 1987 Top 20 list of firms that provided ABTD (Gall, 1987), only three still exist. Out of these three firms, two are based in recreational areas and provide team-development programs as a side product to

1

their main tourism and outdoor-related services. The third firm does not offer ABTD programs anymore. A possible explanation for the diminishing interest in adventure-based training programs is their high cost and absence of proof of their effectiveness. Depending on the type of the program, site location, and number of participants the direct cost can range from $250 to more than $2,000 per person per day (Couch, 1991; Laabs, 1991; Wagner et al., 1991). The total cost of a program may reach hundreds of thousands. For example, the cost of a four-day outdoor training program for 150 trainees described by McEvoy and Cragun (1997) was as high as US $365,000. In addition, firms will face indirect costs in salaries and benefits for the participating employees who were away from their offices. Adherents of ABTD believe that there is a good return on investment in such programs, but their conclusions are based on anecdotal evidence, subjective evaluations, or what they believe to be reasonable assumptions. Most of outdoor training initiatives remain unevaluated by the companies and only a very few empirical papers evaluating effectiveness of outdoor-based training have been found (Gall, 1987; Wheeler, Reis, & Bond, 1989; Williams, Graham, & Baker, 2003). Unfortunately, the findings of the empirical studies have been mixed and the quality of the analysis has been generally poor. The purpose of the present study is to empirically evaluate the effects of ABTD programs on attitudes of employees and team performance. Specifically, effects of the adventure-based programs on team cohesiveness, trust, work satisfaction, organizational commitment and team performance will be assessed. The study would be of interest to the corporate world, as the findings can help make a better decision when choosing

2

among various team development activities. The results of the study can also be used by ABTD program providers to improve and sell their services.

3

Literature Review Adventure-Based Team Development (ABTD) is commonly defined as a team development technique that is run, at least partially, in an outdoor setting and involves a variety of physical and/or mental exercises for individuals and/or groups of participants (Wagner et al., 1991). The training typically involves facilitators working with the participants through activities, encouraging them to reflect on their experiences and helping them transfer the knowledge and skills learned in wilderness to a working context. Various types of ABTD programs have been described in the literature, with rope courses (S. A. Kelly, 1996; Meyer & Wenger, 1998), white water rafting (Scanlon, 1996), 4x4 off-road racing (Ligos, 1998), sailing (Payne, 2000) and outdoor retreats (Scanlon, 1996) being the most popular. For years, a sense of adventure has been utilized in psychology and management. The educational value of adventure can be traced back as far as ancient philosophers like Plato and Aristotle (Heunis, 1997). The outdoor-based approach to training was reopened in modern times by Kurt Hahn, who fled Hitler’s Germany in the 1930s and established the first “outward bound” school in Scotland. Ever since, adventure-based programs have been used as a tool for general and family therapy (Gillis & Thomsen, 1996; Pommier, 1995), learning process (Ng, 2001), physical education (Heunis, 1997), organizational strategy and vision development (Anonymous, 1998a; McEvoy & Cragun, 1997), staff development (Schroeder, 1976), and team building (e. g. Ligos, 1998).

4

The interest in adventure-based corporate training peaked in the early nineties, but only a few papers on the topic have been found in the literature spanning the last five years. The vast majority of the articles have not exceeded three pages and have been descriptive in their nature (e. g. Ligos, 1998; McClenahen, 1990; Scanlon, 1996). Apparently, most of the reports have been written by non-academics who had personal experience in running programs as trainers. Consequently, the targeted audience has been corporate managers and employees. The majority of the studies have been published in practitioner-oriented journals such as Training and Development Journal, Industry Week, Management Learning, and Review of Business. The emphasis has been placed on sharing experiences and discussing the how-to issues, with almost no empirical analysis being reported. How ABTD works One would not expect to see in an ad or job description requirements that read like this: Must be able to climb tall peaks, ford white-water rivers, sleep with rattle snakes, and live without a shower for a week1. Instead it would be expected that a managers will be able to reach outside their comfort circle, solve tasks using unconventional methods, depend on others for support and creative ideas, overcome uncertainties, and effectively communicate with others. So, how then are ABTD programs relevant for the workplace? The proponents of adventure-based training believe that just like the modern workplace wilderness is characterized by constant stress, high level of uncertainty, and a need for teamwork. Although the transferability of the skills gained outdoor experiences to the

1

The non-sense ad idea was borrowed from (Howe, 1991).

5

office settings is questionable, supporters of ABTD argue that such programs do improve organizational climate and performance. It is believed that adventure-based programs improve productivity only indirectly through creating a shared history for people (Scanlon, 1996), building trust (McClenahen, 1990), improving self-efficacy and self-awareness (Laabs, 1991), and simply helping people learn more about each others non-office lives and habits (J. Kelly, 1996). These advancements are then believed to improve team cohesiveness and commitment, interpersonal communication, moral, and work satisfaction, which will eventually lead to a lower absenteeism, turnover, better conflict management and overall performance (Buller, Cragun, & McEvoy, 1991; Williams et al., 2003). Despite the popularity of ABTD, it may not be suitable for all audiences. First of all, some people may be hesitant to participate in outdoor training programs because of physical risk involved (Gall, 1987). For example, rock climbing and white-water rafting may not be suitable for older people. Second, the stress associated with adventure-based programs may prevent some people from participating in the training (Anonymous, 1998b). In addition, it has been found that acceptability of adventure-based programs differs across cultures (McClenahen, 1990). Finally, some people may not see how outdoor experiences can be applied in work settings and therefore consider ABTD to be a waste of time (Nodes, 1997). Effects of ABTD But does ABTD really work? Unfortunately, most of the studies have been descriptive in their nature and provided no empirical analysis and evaluation of

6

adventure-based programs (e. g. McClenahen, 1990; Scanlon, 1996). According to Wagner et. al. (1991), less than one in ten organizations attempt to assess the usefulness of such training. Nevertheless, several empirical studies that evaluate outdoor-based training effectiveness have been found, but their findings were mixed. While some of the reports indicated positive effects of ABTD on attitudes and performance (Anonymous, 1998a; Gall, 1987; McEvoy & Cragun, 1997), some reported no significant effect (Ibbetson & Newell, 1996; Keller & Olson, 2000; S. A. Kelly, 1996), and others reported mixed findings (J. Kelly, 1996; Meyer & Wenger, 1998; Wheeler et al., 1989). A simple “vote count” revealed an approximate 50-50 split between the “effect” and “no effect” studies. The mixed findings may be partly due to poor research design and statistical analyses used in most of the studies. Typically, the research design has been limited to measuring personal attitudes just before and right after the training using a simple t-test with no control groups being used (e. g. Ibbetson & Newell, 1996; Robitschek, 1996; Wheeler et al., 1989). Although intuitively effectiveness of ABTD may greatly depend on duration of the program, type of the program, average team age, team gender and ethnic composition and other factors, no analysis involved control variables to account for these differences. In some instances, the validity of measures was questionable. For example, Keller and Olson (2000) used the grade in a leadership course as a measure of leadership abilities. Multiple authors utilized qualitative research methods, typically interviews, and based their findings on subjective evaluations of participants and team supervisors (e. g. Meyer & Wenger, 1998; Nodes, 1997). Consequently, the validity of the statements that the change in attitudes or performance was due to the program is questionable.

7

Research Questions and Hypotheses Based on the review of the literature, several aspects of the organizational life can be affected by ABTD. These aspects can be split into two groups: attitudinal and performance-related. Effects of adventure-based programs on the following attitudinal variables will be considered: team cohesion, trust between team members, work satisfaction, and organizational commitment. Hypothesis 1: ABTD programs will have a positive effect on team cohesion, trust between team members, work satisfaction, and organizational commitment. It will also be tested whether ABTD has an effect on overall team purformance. The measures of performance used in this study will be specifically discussed later on in the paper. Hypothesis 2: ABTD will have a positive effect on team performance.

Method Participants The data on seventy corporate teams that have participated in ABTD programs have been collected. The access to the teams has been obtained through the Canadian Human Resource Planners (CHRP). CHRP is a professional association of human resource (HR) managers and is located in Calgary, Canada. Through private conversations with association members, the author inferred that most of the organizations the HR managers

8

worked for participated in various ABTD programs. Fifty corporate HR managers were contacted by the author and offered a free evaluation reports on effectiveness of the ABTD programs in exchange for an opportunity to survey the employees before and some time after they were subjected to the adventure-based training program. Forty HR managers agreed to participate. The data were collected during the 2003-2004 period. Additional thirty teams from the same organization pool were used as a control group. These teams operated in a similar environment, performed similar tasks, and had similar composition characteristics, but were not subjected to adventure-based training programs. Procedure The members of the seventy teams were surveyed shortly before and three months after they participated in ABTD programs. A self-report questionnaire was used to collect the data. Scores reported by the team members were averaged and team mean scores were used in statistical analysis. Measures Team cohesion was assessed with the Coaching Staff Cohesion Scale (Martin, 2002). The measurement instrument includes three items and the answers are evaluated on a 9-point Likert scale. The reported internal reliability (Cronbach’s alpha) has ranges between .82 and .94. In this study, alpha was .89. Trust between team members was measured using a three-item 9-poin Likert scale developed by Rempel et. al. (Rempel, Holmes, & Zanna, 1985). The reported internal

9

reliability (Cronbach’s alpha) has ranges between .78 and .91. In this study, alpha was .88. Work satisfaction was assessed with a four-item scale adapted from Hazan and Shaver (1990). The answers were evaluated on a 6-point Likert scale. The internal reliability of the instrument in this study was .85. The Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (Mowday, Steers, & Porter, 1979) was used to measure organizational commitment. It is a well-validated three -item measurement instrument that uses a 7-point Likert scale. The reported internal reliability (Cronbach’s alpha) has ranges between .77 and .89. In this study, alpha was .85. Because participating teams differed greatly in term of their purpose and type of work they perform, it was very difficult to choose performance measures that could be relevant to all of the teams. For example, different accounting systems at different organizations made it impossible to use a universal financial performance measure. The following three measures were used to assess the team performance. First, team members were asked to report to what extent (percent) the team attains its monthly goals. Second, team members were asked to report the average number of conflicts that occur within the team per month. Third, immediate team supervisors were asked to evaluate team performance on a 7-point Likert scale (1-poor, 7- excellent). In addition, data on team size, team type (dummy: manufacturing, management, creative), ABTD program lengths (days), team age (months), and average team member age were collected. These data were used to control for differences between the teams and the ABTD programs.

10

Data Analysis The OLS regression analysis was used to assess effect of ABTD on attitudes of the team members and team performance. Each attitudinal and performance variable was separately regressed on ABTD training/no training and control variables. Positive coefficient for the ABTD training/no training variable indicated positive effect of the program on corresponding dependent variable2. Results The results section will include the following: -

Descriptive statistics (means and correlations)

-

Results of the regression

-

Brief analysis of the control variables

-

Generalizations and conclusions

Limitations and Future Research Several limitations of the studies should be addressed. First of all, the study does not provide a longitudinal perspective on the effects of ABTD programs. After the training programs had been completed, the data were collected only once, three months after the program. Because it possible that the effect of the ABTD training will diminish Once I will have the data, I will test various forms of the data (ln, quadratic) and interactions and include the ones that will be relevant. 2

11

over time, the validity of the findings would be strengthened if an additional survey of the participants was conducted later on, for example, six and twelve months after the training. Second, it can be hypothesized that ABTD programs have a direct effect on attitudinal variables, but an indirect effect on team performance through improved attitudes. The LISRL analysis would allow for better specifications and will specifically address the issue of direct/indirect effects of ABTD programs. Third, self-report questionnaires were used in the study that could lead to a selfreport bias. Also, only corporate teams were used in the studies. Therefore, generalizations of the findings to other types of organizations, such as non-profit organizations, should be made with caution.

12

References Anonymous. (1998a). Organizational strategy and outdoor training. Training Strategies for Tomorrow, 1(2), 14-16. Anonymous. (1998b). Psychological risks of outdoor training. Education & Training, 40(4/5), 226-227. Buller, P. F., Cragun, J. R., & McEvoy, G. M. (1991). Getting the Most Out of Outdoor Training. Training and Development Journal, 45(3), 58-61. Couch, R. L. (1991). Outdoor Training: Can You Afford Teamwork? Financial Executive, 4-7(3), 4-10. Gall, A. L. (1987). You Can Take the Manager Out of the Woods, but .... Training and Development Journal, 41(3), 54-59. Gillis, H. L. L., & Thomsen, D. (1996). A Research Update (1992 - 1995) of Adventure Therapy: Challenge Activities and Ropes Courses, Wilderness Expeditions, & Residential Camping Programs. Unpublished manuscript. Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. R. (1990). Love and work: an attachment-theoretical perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(2), 270-280. Heunis, C. D. P. (1997). Adventure-related team building in a contemporary society: A Human Movement Science perspective. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pretoria, South Africa. Howe, S. (1991). TCI West trains outdoor. Personnel Journal, 70(6), 58-59. Ibbetson, A., & Newell, S. (1996). Winner takes all: An evaluation of adventure-based experiential training. Management Learning, 27(2), 163-185.

13

Keller, T., & Olson, W. (2000). The advisability of outdoor leadership training: Caveat emptor. Review of Business, 21(1/2), 4-6. Kelly, J. (1996). Using the outdoors for team-building. Management Development Review, 9(2), 11-16. Kelly, S. A. (1996). The effects of a corporate adventure training experience on group dynamics and individual self-actualization of middle-management professionals. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Western Michigan University. Laabs, J. J. (1991). Team Training Goes Outdoors. Personnel Journal, 70(6), 56-63. Ligos, M. (1998). Incentive travel: Team-buildings gets down and dirty. Successful Meetings, 47(8), 14. Martin, K. A. (2002). Development and Validation of the Coaching Staff Cohesion Scale. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 6(1), 23-42. McClenahen, J. S. (1990). Not Fun in the Sun. Industry Week, 239(20), 22-23. McEvoy, G. M., & Cragun, J. R. (1997). Using outdoor training to develop and accomplish organizational vision. HR. Human Resource Planning, 20(3), 20-28. Meyer, B. B., & Wenger, M. S. (1998). Athletes and adventure education: An empirical investigation. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 29, 243-266. Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1979). The measurement of organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, 224-247. Ng, H. A. (2001). Adventure learning: Influence of collectivism on team and organizational attitudinal changes. The Journal of Management Development, 20(5/6), 424-440.

14

Nodes, H. A., Jr. (1997). Transfer of team participation skills to the workplace via teaching in an outdoor adventure environment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of South California. Payne, J. (2000). Outdoor training - corporate jolly or valuable development tool? Training & Management Development Methods, 14(1), 601. Pommier, J. H. (1995). Experiential adventure therapy plus family training: Outward Bound School's efficacy with status offenders. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities & Social Sciences, 55(10-A), 3311-3468. Rempel, J. K., Holmes, J. G., & Zanna, M. P. (1985). Trust in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 95-112. Robitschek, C. (1996). At-risk youth and hope: Incorporating a ropes course into a summer jobs program. The Career Development Quarterly, 45(2), 163-169. Scanlon, C. (1996). Not just a meeting; it's an adventure. Nation's Business, 84(8), 52-54. Schroeder, C. C. (1976). Adventure training for resident assistants. Journal of College Student Personnel, 17(1), 11-15. Wagner, R. J., Baldwin, T. T., & Roland, C. C. (1991). Outdoor Training: Revolution or Fad? Training and Development Journal, 45(3), 51-58. Wheeler, L., Reis, H. T., & Bond, M. H. (1989). Collectivism-Individualism in Everyday Social Life: The Middle Kingdom and the Melting Pot. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(1), 79-94. Williams, S. D., Graham, T., & Baker, B. (2003). Evaluating outdoor experiential training for leadership and team building. Journal of Management Development, 22(1), 45-59.

15