outdoor experiential training for leadership and team building
Outdoor experiential training (OET) became established as one of the big HR ideas during the 199Os.
The theory is that leadership skills can be honed
and team spirit developed by taking employees into the great outdoors,
usually at weekends. The "survival" of workers might depend, for
example, on using only tree roots, pond water and mutual support. This
concept, featuring both physical and mental exercises, is loved by many
managers, viewed sceptically or with alarm by many employee "victims" -
and widely lampooned by television writers and dramatists.
The training typically involves facilitators leading the participants through activities, encouraging them to reflect on experiences and helping them to transfer the knowledge and skills learned to a working context. It focusses on enhancing self-awareness, changing attitudes, building teams and improving inter-personal skills. But does it actually work?
Among the advantages attributed to experiential learning, as opposed to passive observational learning, are: the trainee has a concrete experience and it is an experience which is observed and reflected on. Adherents believe that polar opposites such as these enable the training activity to appeal to a variety of learning styles. Learning theory has it that adults are more likely to learn when training is linked to their personal experiences. Employees are more likely to learn from training programmes that provide an opportunity to practise the skills they are to learn.
A distinctive feature of OET is that activities are almost guaranteed to pose unique challenges, because they are so unrelated to participants' job responsibilities. This can be particularly conducive to creative thought.
Other common objectives attributed to OET programmes include increasing participants' awareness of team members' strengths and improving conflict management.
But to what extent does all this translate into results? One authority has identified four levels of training outcomes: reactions, learning, behaviours, and results.
The fourth level considers the impact of the training on business results such as productivity, quality, time or customer satisfaction. The best way to demonstrate the impact of OET is through return on investment (ROI) analysis. This requires the measurement of fourth-level data results and there is only one published study of these outcomes for OET. Indeed, there is no published study whatsoever regarding ROI.
One major challenge to OET evaluation lies in ensuring that learning objectives are understood. If programme providers do not make it absolutely clear what they intend to achieve, evaluators will not know what outcomes to measure and how - it is no good praising a man for juggling successfully with three balls, if the brief said that he had to try with four.
Further complications lie in the fact that there are also indirect benefits to OET - such as simply having a good time - that are not usually stated as official objectives. If employees enjoy themselves, the bonding processes could be the catalyst for several long-term, level-three behaviour changes, including higher team cohesiveness, better interpersonal communication and higher levels of trust.
To estimate ROI, monetary values must be assigned to changes established by OET. Areas that need to be examined to create a model by which ROI can be calculated include turnoverand absenteeism.
Complex computations are used here. For example, statistics for turnover would include the average cost of replacing an employee who quits, turnover rate before and after training, its decrease pre- and posttraining, and costs saved due to a lower final turnover rate. The method by which these figures might be arrived at, given certain criteria, is fully explained here.
A similar concept lies behind calculating cost savings due to lower absenteeism, although this is more complex and requires an 11-step process to work out.
Absenteeism costs can be calculated before and aftertraining and a decrease can be considered an ROI in OET.
Further calculations can be made on productivity, quality and overall job performance. For example, when OET enhances productivity, the financial ROI is simply the number of additional units produced, multiplied by the marginal profit on each unit.
After the value of the training has been established, costs need to be worked out. Outdoor experiential training costs have to take into account the value that employees would have given, if they had not been away from work, transport, fees to the programme provider and any insurance expenses. ROI is effectively return attributable to investment, minus programme costs.
There are further questions that need to be addressed. For example, to what extent does the outdoor setting affect the learning experience? Studies in this area have been inconclusive.
Other issues include the extent to which OET promotes creativity and change, the time frame within which OET effects might be observed and the role of the facilitators. Their ability is vital, but which specific skills have the greatest impact on the value of OET programmes could be the subject of future research.
The transfer of OET training could also be enhanced. The programmes bear little or no resemblance to the trainees' jobs and the change of context can be a positive force. However, transferring learned competencies back to the job can be a challenge and this could be another area for research. A big HR idea is worthy of much more in-depth examination.
This is a précis of an article entitled "Evaluating outdoor experiential training for leadership and team building", by S.D. Williams, T.S. Graham and B. Baker, which was originally published in Journal of Management Development, VoI 22 No. 1, 2003, pp. 45-59, ISSN 0262-1711.
The training typically involves facilitators leading the participants through activities, encouraging them to reflect on experiences and helping them to transfer the knowledge and skills learned to a working context. It focusses on enhancing self-awareness, changing attitudes, building teams and improving inter-personal skills. But does it actually work?
Among the advantages attributed to experiential learning, as opposed to passive observational learning, are: the trainee has a concrete experience and it is an experience which is observed and reflected on. Adherents believe that polar opposites such as these enable the training activity to appeal to a variety of learning styles. Learning theory has it that adults are more likely to learn when training is linked to their personal experiences. Employees are more likely to learn from training programmes that provide an opportunity to practise the skills they are to learn.
A distinctive feature of OET is that activities are almost guaranteed to pose unique challenges, because they are so unrelated to participants' job responsibilities. This can be particularly conducive to creative thought.
Other common objectives attributed to OET programmes include increasing participants' awareness of team members' strengths and improving conflict management.
But to what extent does all this translate into results? One authority has identified four levels of training outcomes: reactions, learning, behaviours, and results.
The fourth level considers the impact of the training on business results such as productivity, quality, time or customer satisfaction. The best way to demonstrate the impact of OET is through return on investment (ROI) analysis. This requires the measurement of fourth-level data results and there is only one published study of these outcomes for OET. Indeed, there is no published study whatsoever regarding ROI.
One major challenge to OET evaluation lies in ensuring that learning objectives are understood. If programme providers do not make it absolutely clear what they intend to achieve, evaluators will not know what outcomes to measure and how - it is no good praising a man for juggling successfully with three balls, if the brief said that he had to try with four.
Further complications lie in the fact that there are also indirect benefits to OET - such as simply having a good time - that are not usually stated as official objectives. If employees enjoy themselves, the bonding processes could be the catalyst for several long-term, level-three behaviour changes, including higher team cohesiveness, better interpersonal communication and higher levels of trust.
To estimate ROI, monetary values must be assigned to changes established by OET. Areas that need to be examined to create a model by which ROI can be calculated include turnoverand absenteeism.
Complex computations are used here. For example, statistics for turnover would include the average cost of replacing an employee who quits, turnover rate before and after training, its decrease pre- and posttraining, and costs saved due to a lower final turnover rate. The method by which these figures might be arrived at, given certain criteria, is fully explained here.
A similar concept lies behind calculating cost savings due to lower absenteeism, although this is more complex and requires an 11-step process to work out.
Absenteeism costs can be calculated before and aftertraining and a decrease can be considered an ROI in OET.
Further calculations can be made on productivity, quality and overall job performance. For example, when OET enhances productivity, the financial ROI is simply the number of additional units produced, multiplied by the marginal profit on each unit.
After the value of the training has been established, costs need to be worked out. Outdoor experiential training costs have to take into account the value that employees would have given, if they had not been away from work, transport, fees to the programme provider and any insurance expenses. ROI is effectively return attributable to investment, minus programme costs.
There are further questions that need to be addressed. For example, to what extent does the outdoor setting affect the learning experience? Studies in this area have been inconclusive.
Other issues include the extent to which OET promotes creativity and change, the time frame within which OET effects might be observed and the role of the facilitators. Their ability is vital, but which specific skills have the greatest impact on the value of OET programmes could be the subject of future research.
The transfer of OET training could also be enhanced. The programmes bear little or no resemblance to the trainees' jobs and the change of context can be a positive force. However, transferring learned competencies back to the job can be a challenge and this could be another area for research. A big HR idea is worthy of much more in-depth examination.
This is a précis of an article entitled "Evaluating outdoor experiential training for leadership and team building", by S.D. Williams, T.S. Graham and B. Baker, which was originally published in Journal of Management Development, VoI 22 No. 1, 2003, pp. 45-59, ISSN 0262-1711.
To find out more how Outddor Insights applies experiential training, please click onto Contact Us
Outdoor Insights Pty Ltd
ACN: 051 752 740
Phone: 1800 81 33 51
Email:
